Ask five PI firm managers how many files a case manager can handle and you will hear five different numbers, from 80 to well over 200. The spread is not a sign of confusion. It reflects differences in case mix, technology, support staff, and how the firm defines a case manager's job. The more useful question is not what the right number is, but how to measure workload in a way that lets you set a defensible ratio for your own firm.
Why Raw File Counts Mislead
A file count treats every matter as equal, which they are not. A pre-litigation soft-tissue claim in active treatment needs periodic check-ins, record requests, and a demand package. A litigated catastrophic injury case needs discovery coordination, expert scheduling, and constant client contact. Two case managers with 120 files each can have workloads that differ by a factor of three. Counting alone also hides time spent on tasks outside the case file, such as intake follow-up, lien tracking, and phone coverage.
Firms that manage staffing well assign weights to files by stage. A simple model might use four tiers: open and treating, demand preparation, litigation, and trial preparation. Weight each tier by the average hours per month it requires, based on a time study over several weeks. Then set capacity in weighted units rather than raw files. The model need not be perfect to be useful. It only has to be better than a flat count.
Typical Ranges by Case Stage
The ranges below are illustrative, drawn from the kinds of ratios firms report informally, and should be tested against your own data rather than adopted as standards.
- Pre-litigation, treatment phase: higher volume per manager, often with paralegal or assistant support for record requests.
- Demand and negotiation: mid-range, because file preparation is time-intensive but episodic.
- Litigation: lower ratios, since deadlines and discovery demands compete for attention.
- Trial preparation: lowest ratios, often with files temporarily reassigned or supported by a dedicated team.
Firms that route files by stage, with separate teams for pre-litigation and litigation, often report better control over ratios than firms where one person carries a file from intake to disbursement. The tradeoff is handoff risk and client confusion. If you split teams, standardize the transfer checklist and introduce the next contact to the client before the handoff.
Measuring What Matters
Track a small set of indicators monthly, and review them by case manager and by team:
- Average days between client contacts, compared with the firm's stated standard.
- Aging of open tasks, especially record requests and bill follow-ups.
- Files with no activity beyond a set number of days.
- Client complaints and bar-grievance risk signals, such as unreturned calls.
- Staff turnover and overtime hours.
Contact lag is the clearest early warning. When the average interval stretches, quality is slipping before anyone complains. Set an alert threshold, such as no contact in thirty days on active treatment files, and review the list weekly.
How Technology Changes the Ratio
Automation can raise capacity, but only when it replaces specific tasks. Automated status messages, e-signature, records retrieval portals, and task templates reduce routine work. Tools that add steps or require duplicate entry have the opposite effect. Before buying software to increase ratios, map the tasks it will eliminate and measure them before and after. Our review of PI firm operations discusses how to evaluate that kind of investment against the real cost of staff time.
The Cost of Overload
Overload produces predictable losses: missed deadlines, weaker demand packages, delayed lien resolution, and attrition. A single missed statute of limitations can cost more than a year of a case manager's salary. Turnover compounds the problem, since a departing case manager takes institutional knowledge, and the replacement takes months to reach full productivity. When comparing the cost of adding a position to the cost of strain, include recruiting, training, and the risk-adjusted cost of errors.
Lien tracking deserves its own attention. Firms often let it slide under heavy caseloads, which then delays disbursement and complicates negotiations. Consider assigning lien work to a dedicated role as caseloads grow, and review how it connects to settlement and lien workflows.
Setting and Reviewing Your Ratio
Start with a time study, set weighted capacity, and publish the ratio internally. Review it quarterly against contact lag, deadline misses, and turnover. When a manager exceeds capacity, redistribute files or add support before the metrics deteriorate. When a manager runs well below, check whether the file mix, tools, or training explain it before assuming the capacity is available.
Takeaways
- Weight files by stage instead of counting them equally.
- Use contact lag and task aging as early indicators of overload.
- Adopt technology only after measuring the tasks it removes.
- Review ratios quarterly against turnover and deadline performance.