Where time entry narratives break
Picture a small litigation firm at the end of the month. The responsible attorney opens the prebill for a busy matter and finds entries like "work on file," "email," "research," and one line that covers a whole afternoon of different tasks. She spends the evening rewriting narratives from memory before the invoice can go out, and the client still calls to ask what "review" meant. That scene is an illustration, not a TwoQM client.
Most of the time on a law firm invoice is recorded well. The trouble is the narrative: the short description that tells the client what was done and why. When narratives are written days later, in shorthand, or with too much or too little detail, prebill review turns into a rewrite.
This is an operations article, not legal or ethics advice. Your engagement agreements, your firm's billing policy, any client billing guidelines, and the responsible attorney decide what is billed and how it is described. Questions about fees or confidentiality go to the attorney, the firm's ethics counsel, or the State Bar of Texas, not to software.
For context, the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct published by the State Bar of Texas list "the time and labor required" among the factors that may be considered in judging whether a fee is reasonable (Rule 1.04), address confidentiality of client information (Rule 1.05), and expect supervising lawyers to make reasonable efforts so that nonlawyer assistants' conduct fits the lawyer's obligations (Rule 5.03). A workflow cannot meet those duties for a firm, but it can make the attorney's review easier.
TwoQM has already written about conflict check intake fields before a matter number and about trust-account receipt logging handoffs. This piece is different: getting time entry narratives right when the time is recorded, so the prebill is a review, not a rewrite.
Here is an original example, not a measured result. Small firms usually see the same patterns:
Vague verbs. "Work on," "attention to," and "handle" do not tell the client what happened.
Several tasks in one entry. A single block of time covers a call, a draft, and research, so nobody can tell what took how long.
Entered from memory. Time recorded at the end of the week loses the detail it had on the day.
Internal shorthand. Initials, nicknames for documents, and office abbreviations reach the client.
Too much detail. A narrative describes strategy or sensitive facts the attorney would not want on an invoice that accounts payable or an insurer may also read.
Mixed languages. Bilingual staff jot notes in Spanish and English, and the invoice reads unevenly.
Write a short narrative standard first
Before choosing any tool, the attorneys agree on a one-page standard staff can follow. A common shape:
One task per entry. Separate the call, the draft, and the research.
Action, object, and purpose. "Drafted response to motion to compel; revised exhibit list" says more than "motion work."
Name documents plainly. Use the title a client would recognize, not an internal nickname.
Describe the work, not the strategy. The attorney decides how much detail belongs on the invoice.
Use the matter's billing codes when a client's guidelines require them.
One invoice language per client, chosen by the attorney, with staff notes translated before review.
A before-and-after pair helps: "Email re file" becomes "Emailed client requested document list for production; answered questions on deadlines." Keep a few of these in the standard so new staff can copy the pattern.
Capture narratives when the work happens
Clean narratives start at entry time, not at prebill. Ordinary business automation can help:
Same-day prompts for timekeepers with no entries at a time the firm chooses.
Vague-word flags that mark entries using phrases from the firm's own list.
Missing-matter or missing-code flags before an entry is saved.
A prebill queue per responsible attorney, with flagged entries at the top.
When timekeeping lives in one system and billing in another, connected systems can keep matters, codes, and approval status in step so nobody retypes entries. When a firm's review steps do not fit an off-the-shelf tool, custom software can build the queue around how the attorneys actually approve.
Keep the attorney in charge of every invoice
A simple status path keeps responsibility clear: draft, staff cleanup, attorney review, approved, invoiced. Staff can tidy wording and fix codes. Only the responsible attorney approves narratives, changes time, applies write-downs, and releases the invoice. Keep a record of who changed what, so edits are visible later.
Confidentiality applies to the workflow itself. Limit who can see each matter's entries, and use only tools the firm has approved for client information. Never paste client details into a public chatbot.
Where AI helps, and where it stops
AI can suggest a clearer version of a vague entry from the timekeeper's own notes, point out entries that look like several tasks in one, propose a split for the timekeeper to confirm, and draft an English version of a Spanish note for review. AI does not finalize narratives, change time or rates, decide write-downs, or send invoices. The attorney reviews and approves every narrative and every invoice.
Where to start this week
Pull last month's prebill for one matter. Highlight every entry the attorney had to rewrite, sort them by pattern, and turn the three most common into lines in your narrative standard. Next month, compare how many entries needed rewriting.
TwoQM builds automation, connected systems, and custom software for law firms. If prebill review still means rewriting narratives late at night, TwoQM can scope a time entry review workflow around the tools your firm already uses. Pricing explains how business apps, systems, and custom software are scoped.
Describe Your Time Entry Review Workflow · Explore TwoQM business automation