WorkflowLaw Firm Finance & Operations

Time Entry Narrative Review

Time entry narrative review that underlines a vague verb or a block-billed entry while the timekeeper types it, names the client’s clause, and offers a rewrite that client has paid for before.

Watch it work Book a walkthrough

Follow one entry from underline to exception ↓

Watch with transcript →

The problem

The pre-bill markup asks what re: issues meant, and nobody remembers

An associate writes up her time after the last call of the evening, across several matters for several insurers, each with its own guidelines. One carrier holds the line on block billing, another reduces general descriptions by half, a third only advises. The narratives go in as typed, and the task codes are guessed or left blank.

Nobody reads them again until a billing partner works through the pre-bill with a red pen weeks later, and each edit becomes a question about work the timekeeper no longer recalls. What survives is read next by the client’s bill reviewer, then by an auditor, and a reader who cannot tell what was done cuts the line.

Built forAssociatesPartnersLegal assistantsBilling specialists

The Problem Today

Clients cut vague and block-billed narratives first, and nobody checks them until the pre-bill, weeks later.

18%: invoice rejection rate across about 400 firms in 2025, from 11% published
71%: firms still checking outside counsel guidelines mainly manually published

Still read line by line

Narratives
Task codes
Guidelines
Pre-bills

Fixed weeks too latePartners ask about work the lawyer no longer recalls
Each client, other rulesWhat one insurer pays, the next one rejects

The Solution

Underlined as it is typedVague verbs, two tasks in one entry, clerical work: each with its clause
Split, hours from the logA block-billed entry becomes one per task, timed from the phone log
Wording the client has paidThe rewrite shows the paid entry it learned from, beside the cut one
Exceptions to the partnerAn entry kept as typed needs a reason; the billing partner decides

Built-in controls

A person accepts, edits or keeps each entry
One client’s wording never used for another
Each client’s billing history stays inside the firm

What You Get

Entries reach the pre-bill already checked, so partners approve exceptions instead of rewriting narratives.

2 hours: saved per billing partner each monthly pre-bill cycle our estimate

Codes filled in on each lineTask and activity codes, with a question when unsure
Each client’s own rulesEach flag names its clause, each rule its version
Exceptions with a reasonApproved, edited, written down or sent back by the partner

Nine screens, one entry box

Time entry narratives checked clause by clause while the timekeeper types

One screen per feature, ordered as the work runs: the underline, the rewrite, the codes, the day, the rules, the exceptions and the month.

01The entry box, checking as she types
Each phrase checked against this client’s clauses as the entry is typed
How it works
- Vague verbs, unclear subjects, two tasks in one entry and clerical work are underlined like a spelling check
- Each underline names the client’s rule and its clause
- A risk chip reads High · 71%, drawn from 3,552 past entries with this insurer
- The insurer’s rules for this entry tick off on the right as the words change
Litigation associateLearns what the insurer would cut while she still remembers which documents she read and who was on the call.
02What the rewrite learned from
A rewrite in wording this insurer has paid, beside wording it cut
How it works
- Borrows phrasing from a paid entry on a similar matter, 2.1 h paid in full
- Shows the entry the insurer cut beside it, rejected as a vague description
- A phrase is offered only after 20 paid examples from that client
- The borrowed words are listed, so the timekeeper sees what came from where
Litigation associateWrites the narrative the way this insurer’s reviewer pays it, without guessing which words the reviewer reads as vague.
03Split into two entries
A block-billed entry split per task, hours read from the timekeeper’s logs
How it works
- A 3.4 h document review and client call become two entries of 2.6 h and 0.8 h
- Each line links to the document log or the phone log it was timed from
- Each line carries its own task and activity codes, at 94% and 92% sure
- The rejection risk falls to Low · 6% before she saves
Litigation associateSplits a block-billed entry without rebuilding the afternoon from memory, and without adding a fact she did not write, open or log.
04Task and activity codes
Task and activity codes filled in from the narrative, with the reason
How it works
- Codes come from the verb and the matter’s phase, in the client’s own code set
- A drafted response is coded draft and revise; a call with the client, communicate
- Under 80% sure, the code suggester asks the timekeeper
- One insurer takes task codes only, and the set follows the client
Legal assistantStops guessing codes from a partner’s notes, and stops losing lines that the client rejects at upload for a missing activity code.
05The day, as typed and as saved
The day in one ledger, each line as typed and as saved
How it works
- 14 entries became 16 lines: 12.0 h recorded, 11.4 h billable, 0.6 h no charge
- Each fixed entry shows its first wording struck through above the saved one
- $1,835.50 of the day’s time was at risk as typed
- 5 of 5 flags fixed before saving, 0 kept as typed
Litigation associateEnds the day knowing each line is ready for the pre-bill, with nothing waiting on the billing partner.
06Rewrites and their source
Each rewrite traced to the paid and cut entries behind it
How it works
- Each card shows the entry as typed, the rewrite and the risk before and after
- The deposition entry went from High · 64% to Low · 6% once split
- The library holds 24 months of each client’s e-billing results
- Of the day’s five: 4 accepted as offered, 1 edited first, 0 kept as typed
Billing partnerSees why each narrative changed and what it was modeled on before the pre-bill reaches her desk.
07Client rules
A client’s guideline read into rules, each tied to its clause
How it works
- A 34-page guideline becomes 8 rules, each showing how strict it is and the agent that checks it
- Cuts in 24 months sit beside each rule: 214 for block billing, 187 for vague verbs
- New rule candidates come from recent rejections, with the count behind them
- Nothing switches on until the billing specialist approves it
Billing specialistKeeps up when an insurer revises its guidelines mid-year, and sees which fresh rejections should become rules.
08Exceptions for the billing partner
Entries kept as typed reach the billing partner with the reason attached
How it works
- Each exception shows the flag, its clause and the timekeeper’s reason
- The agent’s view and a recommended decision sit beside it
- She approves as kept, edits the wording, writes time down or sends it back
- 7 of 7 open this week, 22.3 h at stake
Billing partnerDecides one exception at a time with the reason in front of her, not by rewriting narratives across the whole pre-bill.
09Fix rate
Fix rates by timekeeper and rejected lines by insurer, in one view
How it works
- First month: 18,940 entries checked, 3,126 flagged, 2,781 fixed before saving (89%), 345 sent to partners
- The strictest insurer’s rejected lines fell from 22% to 13%
- Pre-bill narrative edits by billing partners fell from 212 a month to 118
- Each timekeeper’s fix rate shows, fixed before saving against flagged
Director of billingShows which clients and which timekeepers still lose lines, measured against the insurers’ own e-billing notices.

One associate’s five flagged entries, each fixed before it was saved

A day of 14 entries on six matters for three insurers, 12.0 hours in all. These five were flagged as they were typed.

As typed	Hours	What the client would cut	Saved as
Work on discovery	0.9	A vague verb	Draft responses to plaintiff’s second set of interrogatories (Nos. 14–22) on comparator employees
Bates-label and upload production set to vendor portal	0.6	Clerical work	Recorded as no charge
Attention to file	0.3	A vague verb	Review and analyze the incident report and maintenance log to update case evaluation
Draft deposition outline for plaintiff and prepare for deposition of facility manager	2.2	Two tasks in one entry	Split into 1.4 h and 0.8 h
Review docs and call w/ client re: issues, 3.4h	3.4	Two tasks, a vague verb and an unclear subject	Split into 2.6 h and 0.8 h

Behind the underlines

Clauses, logs and settings behind each time entry narrative check

Opened around the entry box by the associate, the billing team and the firm’s administrator.

Guideline passage opened from an underline: descriptions must identify the document reviewed, the person communicated with and the subject — **The clause behind an underline**Click an underline and the guideline itself appears: here, the insurer’s clause that a description name the document, the person and the subject.

Keep as typed dialog with an empty reason box, explaining that the entry goes to the billing partner, and a button to send it — **Kept as typed, with a reason**A timekeeper can keep an entry as written, even where the client holds the save. A reason is required, and the billing partner decides.

Phone log entry behind the split: an outgoing call from 5:02 to 5:50 PM, 48 minutes, recorded as 0.8 hours — **Where the 0.8 hours came from**The call’s time comes from the phone log: 5:02 to 5:50 PM, 48 minutes, recorded as 0.8 h. The split adds nothing the logs do not hold.

Saved entry: two lines of 2.6 and 0.8 hours with their codes, both ready for the pre-bill, and all 14 of the day’s entries saved — **Saved as two lines**Both lines go to the November pre-bill at 6% risk. All 14 of the day’s entries are saved, and nothing waits for the billing partner.

Audit trail of a time entry narrative check: who typed, flagged, coded, offered and accepted each line, people and agents, with times — **Who typed, flagged and accepted each line**Who typed, flagged, coded, offered, accepted and saved each line, people and agents alike, with the time and the clause. No line of this record can be altered.

Settings: strictness per client set to hold the save, warn or advise, beside the learning window of 24 months and 20 paid examples — **How strict, client by client**Hold the save, warn or advise, set by the partner who owns the client. Rewrites learn from 24 months of results and need 20 paid examples.

No agent saves, splits or writes down an hour; people make those calls

Agents check, code and draft. People decide.

Saving, splitting or writing down timeThe timekeeper accepts, edits or keeps each entry. No agent saves an entry, splits it or writes an hour down.

Approving an entry kept as typedOnly the billing partner decides an exception, and the person who kept the entry can never approve it.

Switching a client rule onThe rule reader drafts each rule from the guideline. The billing specialist approves it, and each version of the rule set is kept.

Adding a fact to a narrativeA rewrite uses only what the timekeeper wrote, opened or logged. When the logs hold nothing, it asks for the detail.

Paid and cut narratives, kept per insurer, feed each rewrite

What the check reads, and where each part of a saved line comes from.

Draft time entriesRead as they are typed in the firm’s time-entry system, with the checked lines written back.

Each client’s billing guidelinesRead clause by clause into rules, with the version and the page each rule came from.

The client’s e-billing historyTwo years of narratives each client paid or cut, with the reason: 2,940 paid and 612 cut for the strictest insurer.

The timekeeper’s document and phone logsThe hours in each split come from them, cited to the minute the file opened or the call ended.

Questions on narratives, codes and entries kept as typed

What is time entry narrative review?

Time entry narrative review checks each narrative against that client’s guidelines while the timekeeper types it. It underlines what the client would cut, names the clause, fills in the task and activity codes, and offers a rewrite in wording that client has paid for. The timekeeper decides each entry.

How does it handle block billing?

When an entry holds two tasks, the rewrite splits it into one entry per task. The hours for each come from the timekeeper’s own document and phone logs. Where a guideline allows two tasks together, such as preparing for and attending a deposition on the same day, the timekeeper keeps the entry with that reason, and the billing specialist can refine the rule.

Where do the rewrites get their wording?

From the same client’s e-billing history: narratives it paid in full and narratives it cut, with the reason. Each rewrite shows the paid entry it borrowed from beside the cut one it avoids. A phrase is offered only once that client has paid for it enough times.

Can a timekeeper keep an entry as written?

Yes, with a reason, even when the client’s setting holds the save. The entry goes to the billing partner, who approves it as kept, edits the wording, writes time down with a reason or sends it back.

Does the firm’s billing history leave the firm?

Narratives and e-billing results stay within the firm’s workspace, and the rewrites for one insurer draw only on that insurer’s history. Each check, suggestion, acceptance and decision goes into a read-only audit trail.

Law Firm Finance & Operations