Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Contingencies In August 2015, Howard Welgus, a purported stockholder, filed a putative securities class action lawsuit, Welgus v. TriNet Group, Inc., et. al., under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint was later amended in April 2016 and again in March 2017. On December 18, 2017, the district court granted TriNet’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, without leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the district court’s order on January 17, 2018. Plaintiff-Appellant filed his opening appeal brief before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 27, 2018. TriNet filed a responsive brief on June 28, 2018. Plaintiff-Appellant filed his reply brief on August 20, 2018. Oral arguments were held before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 14, 2019. On March 26, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the amended complaint in its entirety. Plaintiff-Appellant may appeal the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals but to date has not done so. We are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or expense, or range of losses and expenses, if any, arising from this litigation. We are and, from time to time, have been and may in the future become involved in various litigation matters, legal proceedings, and claims arising in the ordinary course of our business, including disputes with our clients or various class action, collective action, representative action, and other proceedings arising from the nature of our co-employment relationship with our clients and WSEs in which we are named as a defendant. In addition, due to the nature of our co-employment relationship with our clients and WSEs, we could be subject to liability for federal and state law violations, even if we do not participate in such violations. While our agreements with our clients contain indemnification provisions related to the conduct of our clients, we may not be able to avail ourselves of such provisions in every instance. We have accrued our current best estimates of probable losses with respect to these matters, which are individually and in aggregate immaterial to our consolidated financial statements. While the outcome of the matters described above cannot be predicted with certainty, management currently does not believe that any such claims or proceedings or the above-mentioned securities class action will have a materially adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. However, the unfavorable resolution of any particular matter or our reassessment of our exposure for any of the above matters based on additional information obtained in the future could have a material impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Contingencies

In August 2015, Howard Welgus, a purported stockholder, filed a putative securities class action lawsuit, Welgus v. TriNet Group, Inc., et. al., under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint was later amended in April 2016 and again in March 2017. On December 18, 2017, the district court granted TriNet’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, without leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the district court’s order on January 17, 2018. Plaintiff-Appellant filed his opening appeal brief before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 27, 2018. TriNet filed a responsive brief on June 28, 2018. Plaintiff-Appellant filed his reply brief on August 20, 2018. Oral arguments were held before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 14, 2019. On March 26, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the amended complaint in its entirety. Plaintiff-Appellant may appeal the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals but to date has not done so. We are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or expense, or range of losses and expenses, if any, arising from this litigation.

We are and, from time to time, have been and may in the future become involved in various litigation matters, legal proceedings, and claims arising in the ordinary course of our business, including disputes with our clients or various class action, collective action, representative action, and other proceedings arising from the nature of our co-employment relationship with our clients and WSEs in which we are named as a defendant. In addition, due to the nature of our co-employment relationship with our clients and WSEs, we could be subject to liability for federal and state law violations, even if we do not participate in such violations. While our agreements with our clients contain indemnification provisions related to the conduct of our clients, we may not be able to avail ourselves of such provisions in every instance. We have accrued our current best estimates of probable losses with respect to these matters, which are individually and in aggregate immaterial to our consolidated financial statements.

While the outcome of the matters described above cannot be predicted with certainty, management currently does not believe that any such claims or proceedings or the above-mentioned securities class action will have a materially adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. However, the unfavorable resolution of any particular matter or our reassessment of our exposure for any of the above matters based on additional information obtained in the future could have a material impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.