Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees	Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees Litigation Tamalluk Business Development LLC v. Huron Consulting Services LLC (Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance) On August 22, 2013, we learned that Tamalluk Business Development LLC, who was Huron’s agent in Abu Dhabi, and its principal, Mubarak Ahmad Bin Hamouda Al Dhaheri, filed a claim against Huron Consulting Services LLC in the Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance. The lawsuit alleges that under the agency agreement, Tamalluk was entitled to a commission on certain amounts that Huron collected from Abu Dhabi clients, and that Huron breached the agreement with Tamalluk and caused damages by declining to enter into a client engagement in Abu Dhabi and subsequently terminating the agency agreement with Tamalluk. Claimants allege they are entitled to $50 million for damage to reputation and defamation and another $50 million for breach of contract. Huron submitted its written response on September 25, 2013. The response states that Huron had the right to terminate the agency agreement with Tamalluk, and Huron had the sole discretion whether to accept or reject an engagement. Huron also filed a counterclaim on October 10, 2013 seeking a judicial order to permit the cancellation of Huron’s commercial license to allow Huron to cease doing business in Abu Dhabi. On December 17, 2013, the Abu Dhabi court ruled in Huron’s favor on all claims and held that Huron permissibly terminated the contract with Tamalluk and Huron does not owe Tamalluk any compensation related to Tamalluk’s claims. In addition, the court terminated the Local Sponsorship Agreement as requested by Huron in its counterclaim. Tamalluk appealed the decision, and on March 18, 2014, the appellate court upheld the decision in Huron’s favor. Tamalluk filed an appeal on May 18, 2014 to the Court of Cassation, which is the highest court in Abu Dhabi. On October 21, 2014, the Court of Cassation referred the case back to the appellate court for consideration of Claimants’ allegations relating to damage to reputation and defamation, which the appellate court had not previously addressed. The Court of Cassation ruled in Huron’s favor on the other claims and on Huron’s counterclaim. On October 13, 2015, the appellate court ruled in Huron's favor and denied Tamalluk's claims for defamation and damage to reputation. This ruling is appealable to the Court of Cassation. Physiotherapy Associates In 2011, Huron was engaged to design and implement new processes, software, tools, and techniques to assist Physiotherapy Associates, Inc. (“PA”) in reducing older accounts receivable levels and optimizing cash flow. The engagement agreement specifically provides that Huron will not be auditing financial statements and that Huron’s services are not designed, and should not be relied on, to disclose weaknesses in internal controls, financial statement errors, irregularities, illegal acts, or disclosure deficiencies. In November 2013, Physiotherapy Holdings, Inc., and certain subsidiaries and affiliates (including PA) filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, which resulted in part from claims related to an alleged overstatement of PA’s revenues and profitability in connection with the sale of PA in 2012. The Joint Prepackaged Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”), which was confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court in December 2013, establishes and funds a Litigation Trust to pursue certain claims on behalf of certain beneficiaries. The Plan discloses a lengthy list of potential defendants and witnesses regarding these claims, including but not limited to the debtors’ officers, directors, certain employees, former owners, investment bankers, auditors, and various consultants. This list of potential defendants and witnesses includes Huron, as well as three of Huron’s current or former employees. The Plan suggests that Huron, among others, was involved in “actively marketing PA” for sale and provided opinions to unnamed parties “defending the quality of PA’s earnings.” While we believe that we have meritorious defenses, to avoid the time and expense of protracted litigation, in September 2015 we reached an agreement in principle with the Litigation Trust to settle the matter for $3.6 million. As a result, in the third quarter of 2015 we increased our accrued liability from $1.3 million to $3.6 million, and increased our insurance receivable from $0.5 million to $2.8 million. The settlement agreement, once finalized between the parties, will be subject to approval by the Bankruptcy Court. From time to time, we are involved in legal proceedings and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. As of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, we are not a party to any other litigation or legal proceeding that, in the current opinion of management, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations. However, due to the risks and uncertainties inherent in legal proceedings, actual results could differ from current expected results. Guarantees and Indemnification Guarantees in the form of letters of credit totaling $5.2 million and $5.1 million were outstanding at September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively, primarily to support certain office lease obligations. To the extent permitted by law, our bylaws and articles of incorporation require that we indemnify our officers and directors against judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in connection with civil or criminal action or proceedings, as it relates to their services to us if such person acted in good faith. Although there is no limit on the amount of indemnification, we may have recourse against our insurance carrier for certain payments made.

Commitments, Contingencies and Guarantees

Litigation

Tamalluk Business Development LLC v. Huron Consulting Services LLC (Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance)

On August 22, 2013, we learned that Tamalluk Business Development LLC, who was Huron’s agent in Abu Dhabi, and its principal, Mubarak Ahmad Bin Hamouda Al Dhaheri, filed a claim against Huron Consulting Services LLC in the Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance. The lawsuit alleges that under the agency agreement, Tamalluk was entitled to a commission on certain amounts that Huron collected from Abu Dhabi clients, and that Huron breached the agreement with Tamalluk and caused damages by declining to enter into a client engagement in Abu Dhabi and subsequently terminating the agency agreement with Tamalluk. Claimants allege they are entitled to $50 million for damage to reputation and defamation and another $50 million for breach of contract. Huron submitted its written response on September 25, 2013. The response states that Huron had the right to terminate the agency agreement with Tamalluk, and Huron had the sole discretion whether to accept or reject an engagement. Huron also filed a counterclaim on October 10, 2013 seeking a judicial order to permit the cancellation of Huron’s commercial license to allow Huron to cease doing business in Abu Dhabi. On December 17, 2013, the Abu Dhabi court ruled in Huron’s favor on all claims and held that Huron permissibly terminated the contract with Tamalluk and Huron does not owe Tamalluk any compensation related to Tamalluk’s claims. In addition, the court terminated the Local Sponsorship Agreement as requested by Huron in its counterclaim. Tamalluk appealed the decision, and on March 18, 2014, the appellate court upheld the decision in Huron’s favor. Tamalluk filed an appeal on May 18, 2014 to the Court of Cassation, which is the highest court in Abu Dhabi. On October 21, 2014, the Court of Cassation referred the case back to the appellate court for consideration of Claimants’ allegations relating to damage to reputation and defamation, which the appellate court had not previously addressed. The Court of Cassation ruled in Huron’s favor on the other claims and on Huron’s counterclaim. On October 13, 2015, the appellate court ruled in Huron's favor and denied Tamalluk's claims for defamation and damage to reputation. This ruling is appealable to the Court of Cassation.

Physiotherapy Associates

In 2011, Huron was engaged to design and implement new processes, software, tools, and techniques to assist Physiotherapy Associates, Inc. (“PA”) in reducing older accounts receivable levels and optimizing cash flow. The engagement agreement specifically provides that Huron will not be auditing financial statements and that Huron’s services are not designed, and should not be relied on, to disclose weaknesses in internal controls, financial statement errors, irregularities, illegal acts, or disclosure deficiencies.

In November 2013, Physiotherapy Holdings, Inc., and certain subsidiaries and affiliates (including PA) filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, which resulted in part from claims related to an alleged overstatement of PA’s revenues and profitability in connection with the sale of PA in 2012. The Joint Prepackaged Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”), which was confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court in December 2013, establishes and funds a Litigation Trust to pursue certain claims on behalf of certain beneficiaries. The Plan discloses a lengthy list of potential defendants and witnesses regarding these claims, including but not limited to the debtors’ officers, directors, certain employees, former owners, investment bankers, auditors, and various consultants. This list of potential defendants and witnesses includes Huron, as well as three of Huron’s current or former employees.

The Plan suggests that Huron, among others, was involved in “actively marketing PA” for sale and provided opinions to unnamed parties “defending the quality of PA’s earnings.” While we believe that we have meritorious defenses, to avoid the time and expense of protracted litigation, in September 2015 we reached an agreement in principle with the Litigation Trust to settle the matter for $3.6 million. As a result, in the third quarter of 2015 we increased our accrued liability from $1.3 million to $3.6 million, and increased our insurance receivable from $0.5 million to $2.8 million. The settlement agreement, once finalized between the parties, will be subject to approval by the Bankruptcy Court.

From time to time, we are involved in legal proceedings and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. As of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, we are not a party to any other litigation or legal proceeding that, in the current opinion of management, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations. However, due to the risks and uncertainties inherent in legal proceedings, actual results could differ from current expected results.

Guarantees and Indemnification

Guarantees in the form of letters of credit totaling $5.2 million and $5.1 million were outstanding at September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively, primarily to support certain office lease obligations.

To the extent permitted by law, our bylaws and articles of incorporation require that we indemnify our officers and directors against judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in connection with civil or criminal action or proceedings, as it relates to their services to us if such person acted in good faith. Although there is no limit on the amount of indemnification, we may have recourse against our insurance carrier for certain payments made.