Guideline billing check: hand or software?

Published 17 October 2026. Updated 17 October 2026.

A corporate client sends a billing guideline. Your firm bills against it every month. Sooner or later someone asks whether the careful read before each invoice should be done differently: in a spreadsheet, with software tied to the billing system, or with a tool that takes a draft invoice and checks it once. This guide compares those approaches and says plainly when the cheapest one is the right one.

What the job actually takes

Whichever way you do it, a guideline check has the same parts:

1. Know which version of the guideline applies to this client and this matter.
2. Turn the guideline into a list of rules that can be tested, each with its clause number.
3. Test the rules that are arithmetic or patterns: time increments, travel limits, how many timekeepers attend a meeting, which timekeeper types may do which work.
4. Read every narrative against the rules that depend on wording: lumped tasks, vague descriptions, clerical work, internal conferences between lawyers of the firm.
5. Decide what to do with each flagged entry: rewrite, split, reduce, or keep and explain.
6. Record what was found, so the same mistakes are not repeated next month.

The first two parts are one-off work per client, redone when the guideline changes. Parts three and four repeat on every invoice, and part four is the slow one. If you want the full routine step by step, see how to check an invoice against billing guidelines.

Approach 1: by hand, with a spreadsheet

This is the simplest place to start. The invoice is exported or printed, the rule list sits in a document or a spreadsheet tab, and one person reads down the entries.

Where it works well

• One or two guideline clients and invoices of a few dozen entries.
• One biller who knows the client's rules by heart and reads the whole invoice anyway.
• A spreadsheet that does the arithmetic checks: a column for hours, a column for the increment test, a filter for travel entries.

Where it breaks down

• Fatigue. The narrative read is repetitive. Entry 140 gets less attention than entry 14.
• Rules drift. The rule list gets out of date when the client sends a new version and nobody updates the sheet.
• No clause attached. A flag written as "vague?" is hard to act on or defend later. The discipline of writing the clause number next to each flag is the first thing to slip when time is short.
• One person knows how. If the person who builds the checks is away, the method goes with them.
• Retyping. Copying entries between systems and sheets introduces errors of its own.

Approach 2: software that sits in your billing system

Some products in the legal billing market are compliance tools connected to a firm's time and billing system. In general, these check entries as time is entered or as the invoice is built, and they are often sold by quote or per seat. What a specific product checks, and how it handles prose rules, differs from one product to the next, so ask each vendor for the answers rather than assuming.

Where it works well

• A larger firm with many timekeepers and several clients under guidelines, where catching a problem at the moment of entry saves the most rework.
• A firm that already wants one billing system to hold every rule for every client.

Where it can be more than you need

• A small firm with a handful of guideline invoices a month, where a subscription or a setup project costs more than the occasional write-down it prevents.
• A firm that is not ready to change its billing workflow just to run a check.

Approach 3: a one-off check on the draft invoice

A third category sits between the two: upload the draft invoice and the client's guideline, get back a marked-up copy, and fix the entries before sending. There is nothing to connect, which keeps it light, and it also means it does not see time as it is entered.

Where it works well

• You want the repetitive first pass done for you, with the clause quoted so you can verify each flag in seconds.
• Volume is moderate, so paying per invoice can cost less than a seat or a setup project.

Where it is the wrong choice

• You need checks inside your billing screen as timekeepers enter time.
• You need rules that depend on history across invoices, such as annual caps, and you want them tested for you.

Side by side

The last row is the same on purpose. None of these approaches decides what is billable. They only help the lawyer see the question sooner.

When checking by hand is the better choice

Choose by hand when most of these are true:

• You have one or two guideline clients.
• Invoices are small enough that one person reads every entry in a sitting.
• The same person writes the rules list and does the check, so nothing is lost in handover.
• Write-downs are rare and small.

In that case the best money you can spend is on a good rule list and a clause-numbered checklist, not on software. The checklist at the end of this guide works for a hand check too.

When software is worth the cost

Look at software when you see any of these:

• The same rules keep slipping through, month after month.
• Invoices are long enough that the narrative read is skipped or rushed.
• The person who does the check is a bottleneck at billing time.
• A client has started writing down more than before and cites rules you thought you were meeting.

Then compare the options above on the question that matters to your firm: do you need the check inside the billing system, or is a file upload on the draft enough?

A checklist that works whichever you choose

• Confirm the guideline version before each invoice.
• Keep a one-line rule per clause, each with its clause number.
• Test the arithmetic rules first. They are quick and certain.
• Read narratives in short sittings, asking the same questions of every entry (step 4 of the full routine lists five).
• Attach the clause to every flag, or the flag does not count.
• Have the responsible lawyer decide on each flagged entry.
• Never rewrite a narrative to describe work that did not happen.
• Record the number of flagged entries and their billed value, and review the pattern each quarter.

If you are still setting up the rule list, how to read outside counsel guidelines covers it. For the wording rule that trips firms most often, see what block billing is and how to avoid it.

How BillPrecheck does this

BillPrecheck is the third kind of approach: a check on the draft invoice. You upload the client's guideline and the draft invoice. The invoice can be a LEDES 1998B file, a CSV or Excel export of your time entries, or a Word or PDF table. A scan or photo of an invoice is read too, and every value read from it is marked to check.

Every entry comes back as Pass, Flag or To check. Number and pattern rules are evaluated by code. Narrative rules are judged by an AI model, one verdict per entry. Each flag quotes the guideline clause word for word, gives a plain reason and suggests a rewrite. If a quote cannot be found word for word in the guideline, the entry shows as To check, not as a flag. A second, stronger AI model reviews every result, fixes what it can, and lists what is left for you to decide. Results are model output checked by code and by a second model; they are not verified by a person.

You download an annotated invoice (CSV or Excel), a report with the entries flagged and the billed value of those entries (Markdown and PDF), and a rules file to reuse on that client's next invoice.

What it does not do: it does not connect to Clio, Tabs3 or TimeSolv, so you upload a file. It does not check rate caps or daily hour caps today, so check those yourself. It does not decide what is billable. It has been tested only on invented guidelines and invoices so far, and there are no customers yet.

One invoice check costs 23 credits, with packs from $25 for 25 credits, and no subscription. Create an account to run a draft invoice through it.

Questions

Is checking by hand enough for a firm with one guideline client?

Often yes. With one client, a short rule list and a modest invoice, a careful read before sending is cheap and works. The case for software grows with the number of clients, the number of entries and how often rules are missed.

Does software remove the need to read the guideline?

No. Someone still has to know what the client's rules say, decide what to do with each flagged entry and handle exceptions agreed with the client. Software changes who does the first pass, not who is responsible.

What should a firm record to decide whether its current method works?

Keep a simple log for a few months: invoices sent, entries the client wrote down or rejected, and the rule behind each. If the same rules keep slipping through, the method has a gap, whichever method it is.

Can a spreadsheet and software be used together?

Yes. A firm can keep its rule list and tracking in a spreadsheet and use a tool for the narrative read. Whatever the mix, the useful test is whether every flag points to a clause someone can open and read.