Check time entries against billing rules
Flag draft entries that conflict with approved billing guidelines, with a rule reference.
Tools for the documented steps
Practice relevance
Cross-practice idea · A general operational method. Review the stated tool and jurisdiction limits before use.
The problem
Flag draft entries that conflict with approved billing guidelines, with a rule reference.
Why it matters: A time entry can conflict with a client's billing rules even when the work was performed. A rule-linked review lets the billing lawyer resolve coding or narrative issues without changing recorded time or disguising the work.
Sources & evidence
Proposed / not tested. The public discussion supports the problem; the method source supports only the documented features. No outcome from this adapted recipe has been verified.
What’s been verified
The linked sources support the complaint and documented method components. We have not run this recipe or verified its results. The example below is synthetic, not a customer result.
What to measure: During the pilot, count findings confirmed by the reviewer, false alarms, and missing-input cases. Do not infer time or money saved.
- Pain evidence: Firm billing guidelines all over the place ↗Firm billing guidelines all over the place, 2025-06-16, older. OP describes inconsistent instructions; a later reply identifies insurer/client guidelines and rejected entries. The discussion includes poor advice: none is adopted here as a billing rule.
- Method: Clio activity categories ↗Clio activity categories documents categorized activities and UTBMS support; generate bills documents a bill-approval stage.
- Method: generate bills ↗Additional official capability reference. It does not validate the complete proposed recipe.
Source checked: October 15, 2026. Pain reports are self-reported and identities are unverified. Method documentation supports components, not a tested end-to-end workflow. We wrote these prompts. The adapted workflow hasn’t been tested.
Suggested approach
Start when: Prebill is prepared
- compare entries to current, lawyer-approved client guidelines
- Keep row or page references and mark missing or ambiguous evidence. Do not apply the suggested changes.
- The responsible staff member checks the draft against the source records and approves any separate action.
Limits and review
The assistant drafts or reports only. Check source records and review the output before a human performs any separately approved send or change. No automatic legal decision, money movement, account connection or publication is included.
Who reviews it: Billing lawyer resolves guidelines and approves changes. Test a non-billable admin entry, missing code and duplicate entry; no invented time or embellished work may appear.
What you need
Your firm-approved AI assistant · prepared files
- Access to the selected Clio Manage time entries and the applicable client-approved billing guidelines/version.
- Only a timekeeper can verify the work actually performed and approve a corrected narrative; billing judgments remain human.
- Firm-approved Excel; optional Copilot entitlement and tenant approval for the exact minimized data. Native Excel analysis can be done manually if Copilot is absent.
- Keep raw exports and identifying source pointers in a separate restricted location. The AI workbook contains only approved alias-based tables and visible policy/scope text, never raw client records on another tab.
- Use synthetic inputs first. Keep real data in firm-approved accounts and processing, with appropriate access, confidentiality and retention controls. Aliases alone do not anonymize records. Never paste credentials, API keys or unnecessary client details.
How to use
Documentation-checked proposed route; source collection and human approval required
- No native export of every kit field is established here. This is a bounded manual capture from actual time entries, suitable for a small reviewed sample.
- Rounded recorded duration is not raw elapsed time. A rewritten narrative cannot add work, change minutes/rates or cure missing evidence.
Check access and setup
- Actual account access, plan and source-data completeness have not been tested.
Read actual selected time entries
Clio Manage · Matters > selected matter > Activities (or main Activities with date/user filters)
Select a small defined invoice/period sample. Inspect each actual time entry’s description, duration, rate and any activity/task codes; use Edit only to view details and close without saving. Record the entry reference and actual fields locally.
- Expected output
- Observed entry records and a sample/period note; no generated entries or export claims.
- Next step
- Retain restricted source references for every entry_id.
- Check before continuing
- Confirm the selected item is a time entry, not an expense or flat-fee quantity; note currency, rounding and missing fields.
Map the observed records to the starter input
Excel and authorized staff · Separate analysis workbook > Home > Format as Table
In entries.csv assign matter aliases and preserve actual_recorded_minutes, rate_if_needed, actual_work_description, activity_code and task_code exactly as supported. Minimize descriptions only with reviewer approval and preserve their meaning. Copy the applicable approved-guidelines.txt into a visible Guidelines worksheet with version and scope. If sensitive descriptions are not approved for Copilot, complete the same review locally without AI. Create named tables for Entries and Guidelines. Put the policy and review scope in visible worksheets or paste them into the next prompt.
- Expected output
- Entries and Guidelines tables; unknown codes/rates stay unknown.
- Next step
- Check the mapping against each original source before using AI.
- Check before continuing
- Aliases and missing policy fields are staff-created; do not relabel a native export as the kit schema. Unknown stays blank/unknown, not false or zero.
Review the bounded evidence with Copilot
Excel Copilot, optional · Approved analysis workbook > Copilot icon at lower right > Chat only
Use Chat only and submit the prompt. Without Copilot: compare each entry to the supplied guideline clauses and write questions/edits in a separate review column.
- Expected output
- Guideline-linked exception checklist and conservative draft edits.
- Next step
- Copy the draft exception list to the reviewer; retain row references.
- Check before continuing
- Check every flagged row and the scope. A fluent answer is not evidence of completeness; no automatic workbook or source-system edits.
Approve the review result
Final human reviewResponsible staff reviewer · Reviewed local worksheet
The timekeeper and billing reviewer inspect original entries, approve or reject every proposed edit and keep the approved guideline version with the audit. Apply any actual change separately through the firm’s billing process.
- Expected output
- Approved correction list, with original minutes and source records retained.
- Next step
- Any external message, source change, payment or deletion requires its own authorized process.
- Check before continuing
- No automatic rewriting or bulk save; a plausible narrative is not proof the work occurred.
What you’ll get
billing-exceptions.csv: entry_id, guideline_version, rule_id, possible_exception, source_rows, reviewer_status; suggested narrative edits in a separate file. No live changes.
Inputs and a sample test Synthetic example · not a measured result
Input files
- entries.csv: entry_id, matter_alias, actual_recorded_minutes, rate_if_needed, actual_work_description, activity_code, task_code. approved-guidelines.txt includes version, rule IDs and client_alias.
Synthetic example
E1: copying, policy labels it non-billable E2: required activity code missing E3: narrative conflicts with a supplied rule
Expected output
E1: billing-lawyer review, no disguised legal work E2: missing-code finding E3: cite rule and preserve original narrative
Test a failure
Billing lawyer resolves guidelines and approves changes. Test a non-billable admin entry, missing code and duplicate entry; no invented time or embellished work may appear.
Try with the sample files
Follow the tool steps above and use the inputs named in each step. Where provided, native-* files are blank scaffolds and NATIVE-INPUT-MAPPING explains their fields. Original examples and the optional full review prompt use a separate prepared-input schema. Keep them separate unless the mapping explicitly connects them. Downloading a kit does not connect accounts or prove the workflow works.
Download inputs and checklist 8 files
Instructions, blank templates and separate synthetic examples; these files do not install an automation. Blank templates still need verified source data.
- Download starter kit All inputs, synthetic examples and review notes in one ZIP. No automation is installed.
- Start here: get the sources and prepare the review Documentation-checked acquisition, explicit manual mapping, exact prompts and human review limits
- Setup and review checklist Required inputs, file use, review steps and limits
- Entries blank CSV Blank input headers for entries.csv
- Entries synthetic example Synthetic test records for entries.csv
- Approved guidelines template Required policy or native-input preparation aid; synthetic when marked example
- Approved guidelines example Required policy or native-input preparation aid; synthetic when marked example
- Synthetic example expected results Compare a pilot result with the planted exceptions
Optional full review prompt for prepared inputs
Prepared-input review prompt with Your firm-approved AI assistant · prepared files
Proposed / not tested · editorial prompt. This prompt uses the original prepared-input schema shown in the sample test. Step prompts may use different tables. Follow NATIVE-INPUT-MAPPING where supplied; do not mix the original examples with native-step inputs without mapping and checking every field.