For
a
profession
whose
business
model
is
still
primarily
the
billable
hour,
the
work
process
to
feed
the
model
could
not
be
any
more
clunky.
Or
prone
to
produce
errors,
miscommunications, and
write-offs.
And
it
is
ripe
for
effective AI disruption.
Think
about
the
process.
It
depends
at
the
outset
on
a
professional
stopping
what
they
are
doing
and
entering
the
time
spent
and (hopefully) a
comprehensible
description
of
what
was
done.
When
you
are
recording
time
on
a
6-minute
increment,
the
recording
of
the
time
spent
could
take
more
time
than doing
the
work
that’s being
recorded.
So
what
happens:
timekeepers
procrastinate
to
the
end
of
the
day
or
the
end
of
the
week
or
in
some
cases
even
the
end
of
the
month (!) to
try
to
reconstruct
and
record
time. Or
they
hurry
through
it
and
write
the
barest minimum
description. It’s
no
wonder
the
amount
spent
and
the
what
and
why of
the
work done
are all
too
often absent, vague,
or
just wrong.
Add
to
this
that
the
billing
partner,
the
one
responsible
for
getting
the
bills
out,
has
to
review
and
approve
often
vague
and
estimated
time entries
of other timekeepers
they
often know
little
about, potentially compounding
the errors.
But
there’s
more:
most
corporate
and
insurance
clients
have
billing
guidelines
and
requirements
that
have
to
be
met in
order
to
be
paid.
What
can
and
cannot
be
charged.
How
things
must
be
characterized
and
described. These
guidelines
differ
and
sometimes
differ
significantly
from
one
another.
They
are
devilish
to
keep
straight.
And
once
the
bills
are
sent,
many
clients,
especially
insurance
carriers,
use
third-party
vendors
to
review
the
bills
and
look
for
entries
that
are
inconsistent
with
what
the
guidelines
require. When
they
find
them,
they
write
off
that
time.
It’s
a
mess.
But
it’s
just
the
kind
of
work
process
that
AI
tools
ought
to
be
able
to
fix.
And several vendors
are
indeed
trying, as
I have
discussed before. One vendor, Elite,
has recently
focused on
using
AI
to
improve
compliance
with the
multiple billing
guidelines firms
must
satisfy.
Elite’s Validate Tool
Elite
is
a
law
firm
financial
management
and
business
operations
solutions
provider.
At
its
recent
user
conference,
it
announced
a
new
tool
that
may
go
a
long
way
in
making sure billing
guidelines
are
met
and,
indirectly,
fewer
write-offs
by
the third-party reviewers
occur.
The
tool
reviews
the
various
billing
guidelines
and
then
flags
entries
that
appear
to
be noncompliant or
in
the
risk
zone
of
the
relevant
and
applicable guidelines. In
and
of itself this will
save
hours for
both
the
timekeepers and,
perhaps
more
importantly,
the
billing
partner. It
will also reduce
the
risk
of
miscommunication
and
write-offs.
But
more
than
this,
the
tool
will
also
flag
entries
that
suggest
that
what
was
done
was what
Elite
labels
as “doubtful
necessity” and
will
surface
subjective risks
associated
with
the
entries. Moreover,
it
learns
as
it
goes,
further
improving
future
entries.
These
are
important
benefits. I
know
from
experience. In
the
heat
of
trying
to
meet
a
deadline
or in
the
midst
of intense
work,
it’s
easy
to
quickly
record
time
and
offer
a
description
that
says
very
little
or
next
to
nothing
about
why
the
work
was
done.
It
would
certainly
be
comforting
to
have
a
tool that
would tap
you
on
the
shoulder
and
say
you
need
to
say
this
better.
Of
course,
as
with
most
vendor
tools,
I
can’t
vouch
for
how
well
this
tool
will
do
these
things.
But
if
it
does
these
things
well,
it
will
do
three
critical
things
to
improve
the
billing
process.
The
most
obvious
benefit
is
improved compliance
with billing guidelines
and
reduced write-offs. But
it
will
do
two
other
things
that, while more subtle, could nevertheless be substantial.
Improved Client Communications
Lawyers
and
legal
professionals
often
forget
that
bills
are
client communications. Clients
look
at
bills
not
only
to
assess
how
much
time
is
being
spent
but
why
the
work was done
and its importance.
If
an
entry only reads
4.0
hours
for
legal research,
that
tells
the
client
nothing
about
what
the
research
was
for
and,
more
importantly
why it’s
being
done.
Certainly,
bills
are
no
substitute
for
ongoing
discussions with
clients about
strategy
and
work
that’s
needed.
But
vague
and
ambiguous
entries sow
seeds
of
doubt
about
what
the
lawyer
is
doing.
It
breeds
distrust.
It’s
not
only
a
write
down
issue,
it’s
much
more.
So
having
a
tool
like Validate
that
can
help
flag
entries
that
don’t
meet
billing
guidelines
because
they
are
vague
or
where
the
necessity
is
not
clear could help improve
the
overall
relationship.
Combatting Third Party
Write-Offs
Validate
may
also
provide
firms
with
ammunition
to
better
contest inappropriate write
downs. Third-party
reviewers
are
hired
to
find discrepancies with guidelines and
make
cuts
to
legal
bills.
That’s
their
job
and,
as
a
result, they
can
be
quite
aggressive. So often
there
are
questionable
calls
made.
Yet,
it’s
hard
to
question
and
appeal
some
of
these
because
it
takes
more
time
than
it’s
worth. You
tender
a
$5,000
bill
and
the
provider
writes
off
$500.
Your
time
would
be better
spent on
billable
matters that
advance
the
client’s
interest than
spending
the non-billable time
fighting
the
decision.
In
addition,
all
too
often
the
actual
client
doesn’t
want
to
hear any
objection
to
the
write-off
since
proving the
reviewer
wrong
is
difficult. The
issue often falls
in a
gray
area
and
the
law
firm
has
little
evidence to support
its
arguments. Add
to
this
the
fact
that
historically
the
reviewer has, more
often
than
not, been right when
it
concluded that
an
entry
did not
meet
the
guidelines. So
there
is
a
presumption
of
accuracy.
But
with
a
validation
tool
like
Validate,
the
matrix changes.
Law
firms
have something tangible to
support
their
claim
that
an
entry
meets
the
guidelines.
And
that
the
write-off
is
wrong.
Data
and
analysis
versus whining
about
the
injustice
of
it
all. It’s
akin
to
reviewing
the
reviewer
and
keeping
them
honest.
Having
that
kind
of evidence at
your
fingertips
reduces
the
time
needed
for
an
appeal,
making
it
worthwhile. And
by
improving
the entries and
guideline
compliance,
it
gives
the
law
firm
greater credibility when
it
does
question
a
write-off. It
flips
the
switch.
Improved
client
confidence
and
fewer
write-offs.
A
win-win.
The Reality
But even with
these improvements,
there
are
still realities
and
risks. As
with
any
AI
tool,
the
possibility
for
overreliance
is
present.
Blind
reliance
on
what
a
tool
like
Validate
does
without
human
review
can
lead
to
entries
that
don’t
match
what
was
done,
not
because
there
is
anything
wrong
with
the
tool
but
because
it
can’t
know
all
a
human
does
about
the
client
and
the
relationship.
Bills
and
billing
entries
often
require
value
judgment
and
client
understanding
that
an
AI
tool
does
not
have.
And
let’s face
facts,
when
a
client continually complains
about
a
bill and writes
off substantial time,
there
are really
only
a few
options.
You
can
fire
the
client
and
withdraw,
assuming,
if
it’s
a
litigation
matter,
the
court
grants
permission. You
can
conclude
the
matter
and
decide
never
to
represent
the
client
again,
losing
money
in
the
process.
Or
you
can
sue
the
client
which could lead
to
counterclaims, unwanted
disruption, and publicity. The
options
aren’t
pretty. That’s
what
gives
the
client
and
reviewer
leverage.
But
used
correctly,
and
assuming
Validate
does
what
it
says
it
does,
it
will
reduce risk
and
make
for
a
smoother
billing
process. It provides you with
more leverage
in
the
relationship. By
doing so, hopefully you
never
get
to
the
point
of
having
to
make
the choice of
withdrawing
from
the
matter
(assuming
you
can)
or
filing
an
ugly lawsuit.
And
it
will
make
that
dreaded
daily
ritual of recording your time
a
little
less
painful.
Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger,
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.