Workflow template for legal and contracts
Outside-counsel invoice questions
When a law firm’s invoice arrives, legal operations has one worksheet ready: every line set against the agreed rates, the approved matter budget and the company’s own billing guidelines, each difference written as a neutral question for the firm. Nothing is sent, paid or rejected until people decide.
This workflow template prepares legal work for a lawyer to review. It gives no legal advice and has not been reviewed by a lawyer. A lawyer decides and signs.
Listed under
Add it to a workflow in the Fully Powered Planner, beside the teams and roles that will run it. Book a fit call
The outcome
Every outside-counsel invoice gets the same careful read, line by line, without anyone spending an afternoon on it. The worksheet sets each line beside the company’s own records and lists what does not match: a rate different from the agreed rate for that date, two entries that look like the same work, several tasks billed under one time, a timekeeper who is not on the matter’s staffing list, more people billing for one meeting than the number the company checks against, a phase that has gone past its budget, a line dated outside the invoice’s period. Each item names its invoice line and the record it was compared with, so anyone can check it in a minute.
Each item comes with a plain question for the firm, ready for the matter’s lawyer to confirm. The questions ask; they never accuse. A question such as “please give the time for each task” is meant to be easy for the firm to answer and to keep the working relationship good.
This is preparation, and it stays preparation. The workflow template gives no legal advice. It decides nothing about legal meaning, merit, validity, privilege, conflicts or deadlines, and it never says what an engagement letter or a guideline means. It gives no due date or time limit for paying or questioning an invoice, and counts no date. It sends, files, signs and calendars nothing, and it approves, rejects, reduces and pays nothing. It never says whether anything in the worksheet supports or rules out paying, holding, deducting, withholding or disputing an amount, and it never vouches for the draft: asked for a verdict, an amount, a date, a case or what to do, it names the person who decides and points to their line of the worksheet, and adds nothing. It writes no letter, dispute notice or demand to the firm, even for a lawyer to edit: the questions are the only words it prepares for the firm. Every item is a question, never a finding that the firm has broken its guidelines. Every worksheet is headed as a draft for the named lawyer, with a line for each question that lawyer must confirm.
Who starts the work, and when
The legal operations manager starts it when an outside-counsel invoice for a matter arrives, before anyone approves it for payment. The named lawyer, the in-house counsel responsible for the matter, confirms, changes or strikes each question. The legal budget owner, often the general counsel, decides payment once the firm has answered, and finance pays what was approved.
Where the company has no lawyer of its own, the named lawyer is outside counsel from a different firm than the one whose invoice is questioned. That lawyer confirms the check map and every question, exactly as in-house counsel would, before anything is sent. The firm being questioned never reviews its own questions, and the worksheet never tells the business whether the invoice is right. Without such a lawyer, the workflow template prepares nothing and asks for one.
What they supply
- The invoice: its header and its lines as an export, with the column headings the template names. If a heading does not match, the workflow template stops and asks.
- The agreed rate table for the engagement, with who approved it and when. Rates come from this table only.
- The approved staffing list for the matter.
- The approved matter budget, by phase, with what was billed before this invoice.
- The company’s billing guidelines, as numbered rules, and a short check map, approved once by a lawyer acting for the company and never by the firm whose bills it checks, that says which rule feeds which check.
- Earlier invoice lines for the same matter, if you want repeats from last month caught too.
The workflow template carries no rates, no benchmarks and no billing rules of its own. Everything it compares comes from your records.
What comes out
One worksheet, marked as a draft for the named lawyer:
- Records used, each with its approver and date, and any check that could not run.
- Tie-out: the lines add up to the invoice total, hours times rate equals each line’s amount, and every line is dated inside the invoice’s period. If the lines do not add up, nothing else is prepared.
- Five sections: rate differences, possible duplicate entries, block entries, staffing items, and the budget by phase with any overrun. Each reads “None.” when empty.
- Questions for the firm: one per item, in fixed patterns that quote the line and the record, cite a guideline rule by its number only, and ask the firm to explain or confirm.
- Lawyer to confirm: a line for each question, a line for the check map, a line that the records used are current, a line that any time limit for the invoice is the lawyer’s to check, and a line where the lawyer releases or holds back the section for the legal budget owner. Until the named lawyer signs, nothing in the worksheet is sent or acted on.
- For the legal budget owner, once the lawyer has signed: the lines with no question (not approved, only not questioned), the lines with one, the guideline rules not checked, a plain note that the worksheet lists questions only and does not say whether to pay, hold or reduce anything, and that payment is theirs to decide after the firm answers, with any due date left to the named lawyer. It reaches the budget owner only when the named lawyer releases it, which matters most where the company has no lawyer of its own and the budget owner is not a lawyer.
The legal operations manager reads the worksheet against the invoice and gives it to the named lawyer. Only the questions the lawyer confirms are sent, by a person, from their own email.
An invented example
Illustrative example with invented data. Company A, an invented 400-person specialty insurer, and Firm B, the invented law firm it uses on a dispute with an invented distributor, Supplier C, are not real organisations. Every person, matter, invoice, rate, budget, billing guideline and check map below is invented. The billing guidelines are one invented company’s rules and must not be used for real work.
The legal operations manager’s inputs come first, in full, then what the workflow template prepares.
Input 1: the request
Sent by Tamsin Rook, legal operations manager.
Invoice B-26-0412 from Firm B came in on 6 November for the Supplier C
distribution dispute (matter LM-2026-014). Please prepare the invoice
questions worksheet.
Company: Company A
Firm: Firm B; responsible attorney P. Marlow, partner
Named lawyer: Leona Barsby, senior counsel, matter lead
Legal budget owner: Martin Ashgrove, general counsel
Run by: Tamsin Rook, legal operations manager
Today: 2026-11-11
Settings: defaults
Input 2: the invoice header
Invoice, Firm, Matter, Invoice date, Period from, Period to, Fees, Expenses, Total, Currency
B-26-0412, Firm B, LM-2026-014, 2026-11-06, 2026-10-01, 2026-10-31, 15945.00, 1760.00, 17705.00, USD
Input 3: the invoice lines
Invoice | Line | Date | Type | Timekeeper | Role | Phase | Hours | Rate | Amount | Description
B-26-0412 | 1 | 2026-10-01 | Fee | P. Marlow | Partner | MED | 1.5 | 640.00 | 960.00 | Review outline of mediation statement and send comments to S. Ruane.
B-26-0412 | 2 | 2026-10-02 | Fee | S. Ruane | Senior associate | DOC | 3.0 | 450.00 | 1350.00 | Review supplier delivery records, batch 4, for responsiveness.
B-26-0412 | 3 | 2026-10-02 | Fee | S. Ruane | Senior associate | DOC | 3.0 | 450.00 | 1350.00 | Review supplier delivery records, batch 4, for responsiveness.
B-26-0412 | 4 | 2026-10-05 | Fee | K. Ostby | Associate | DOC | 6.0 | 380.00 | 2280.00 | Review warehouse email export; prepare document index; call with J. Penhale on coding; update review protocol.
B-26-0412 | 5 | 2026-10-05 | Fee | J. Penhale | Paralegal | DOC | 2.0 | 180.00 | 360.00 | Load warehouse email export to review platform.
B-26-0412 | 6 | 2026-10-12 | Fee | R. Tiller | Associate | DOC | 4.0 | 340.00 | 1360.00 | Second-level review of priority documents.
B-26-0412 | 7 | 2026-10-20 | Fee | P. Marlow | Partner | MED | 3.0 | 640.00 | 1920.00 | Attend internal strategy meeting on mediation.
B-26-0412 | 8 | 2026-10-20 | Fee | S. Ruane | Senior associate | MED | 3.0 | 450.00 | 1350.00 | Attend internal strategy meeting on mediation.
B-26-0412 | 9 | 2026-10-20 | Fee | K. Ostby | Associate | MED | 3.0 | 360.00 | 1080.00 | Attend internal strategy meeting on mediation.
B-26-0412 | 10 | 2026-10-26 | Fee | S. Ruane | Senior associate | MED | 5.5 | 450.00 | 2475.00 | Draft mediation statement; revise exhibit list; call with Company A on mediation statement; emails with mediator's office on logistics.
B-26-0412 | 11 | 2026-09-28 | Fee | J. Penhale | Paralegal | DOC | 1.0 | 180.00 | 180.00 | Prepare production set 2 for transmittal.
B-26-0412 | 12 | 2026-10-29 | Fee | P. Marlow | Partner | MED | 2.0 | 640.00 | 1280.00 | Revise mediation statement.
B-26-0412 | 13 | 2026-10-15 | Expense | | | DOC | | | 1450.00 | Review platform hosting, October.
B-26-0412 | 14 | 2026-10-22 | Expense | | | MED | | | 310.00 | Courier, mediation binders to mediator's office.
Input 4: the agreed rate table
Agreed rate table: Firm B for Company A, 2026.
Approved by Martin Ashgrove, general counsel, on 2026-01-15.
Firm | Timekeeper | Role | Rate | From | To
Firm B | P. Marlow | Partner | 640.00 | 2026-01-01 | 2026-12-31
Firm B | S. Ruane | Senior associate | 450.00 | 2026-01-01 | 2026-12-31
Firm B | K. Ostby | Associate | 340.00 | 2026-01-01 | 2026-09-30
Firm B | K. Ostby | Associate | 360.00 | 2026-10-01 | 2026-12-31
Firm B | J. Penhale | Paralegal | 180.00 | 2026-01-01 | 2026-12-31
Input 5: the staffing list
Staffing list: matter LM-2026-014. Approved by Leona Barsby, senior counsel.
Matter | Timekeeper | Role | Approved on
LM-2026-014 | P. Marlow | Partner | 2026-02-02
LM-2026-014 | S. Ruane | Senior associate | 2026-02-02
LM-2026-014 | K. Ostby | Associate | 2026-02-02
LM-2026-014 | J. Penhale | Paralegal | 2026-02-02
Input 6: the approved budget
Approved budget: matter LM-2026-014.
Approved by Martin Ashgrove, general counsel, on 2026-02-02.
Amounts cover fees and expenses.
Billed before this invoice: through invoice B-26-0377.
Matter | Phase | Phase name | Approved budget | Billed before this invoice
LM-2026-014 | DOC | Document collection and review | 38000.00 | 31200.00
LM-2026-014 | MED | Mediation | 25000.00 | 13600.00
Input 7: the billing guidelines
Company A Outside Counsel Billing Guidelines, version 3.
Effective 2026-03-01. Approved by Martin Ashgrove, general counsel.
G1. Rates are those in the agreed rate table. A rate change takes effect
only once Company A has added it to that table in writing.
G2. Only timekeepers on the staffing list for a matter may bill to it.
Additions need written approval from the matter lead before work
starts.
G3. Record time by task. Each entry covers one task, with its own time.
G4. No more than two timekeepers may bill for attending the same internal
meeting, call or session, unless the matter lead approved more in
advance.
G5. Record time in tenths of an hour.
G6. Work expected to take a matter over its approved phase budget must be
raised with the matter lead before it is done.
G7. Time spent preparing invoices, or answering questions about them, is
not billed.
G8. Travel time is billed at half rate.
Input 8: the check map
Check map for Company A Outside Counsel Billing Guidelines, version 3.
Approved by Leona Barsby, senior counsel, on 2026-03-04.
Check | Rule | Limit
Rates | G1 |
Staffing list | G2 |
Time by task | G3 |
Attendance | G4 | 2
Budget raised in advance | G6 |
Input 9: earlier invoice lines
Invoice | Line | Date | Type | Timekeeper | Role | Phase | Hours | Rate | Amount | Description
B-26-0377 | 1 | 2026-09-15 | Expense | | | DOC | | | 1450.00 | Review platform hosting, September.
B-26-0377 | 2 | 2026-09-24 | Fee | S. Ruane | Senior associate | DOC | 2.5 | 450.00 | 1125.00 | Review supplier delivery records, batch 3, for responsiveness.
B-26-0377 | 3 | 2026-09-28 | Fee | J. Penhale | Paralegal | DOC | 1.0 | 180.00 | 180.00 | Prepare production set 2 for transmittal.
B-26-0377 | 4 | 2026-09-29 | Fee | K. Ostby | Associate | DOC | 4.0 | 340.00 | 1360.00 | Review warehouse email export, first pass.
What the workflow template prepares
NOTE TO Tamsin Rook
- Checks not run: None.
- Rules marked "wording unclear": None.
- Still to do: read this draft against the invoice; give it to Leona Barsby; send only the questions Leona Barsby confirms.
- Nothing has been sent, approved or paid.
DRAFT FOR Leona Barsby, senior counsel, matter lead · OUTSIDE-COUNSEL INVOICE QUESTIONS
Questions, not findings. Gives no legal advice. Decides nothing about legal
meaning, merit, validity, privilege, conflicts or deadlines. Sends, files,
signs and calendars nothing.
Nothing has been sent, filed, signed, calendared, approved, rejected or paid.
Company: Company A
Firm: Firm B; responsible attorney P. Marlow
Matter: Supplier C distribution dispute, LM-2026-014
Invoice: B-26-0412, dated 2026-11-06, period 2026-10-01 to 2026-10-31. USD 17705.00 (fees 15945.00, expenses 1760.00)
Prepared by: Tamsin Rook, legal operations manager, 2026-11-11
For: Leona Barsby confirms the check map and the questions. Martin Ashgrove decides payment after the firm answers.
RECORDS USED
- Agreed rate table: Firm B for Company A, 2026, approved by Martin Ashgrove on 2026-01-15.
- Staffing list: matter LM-2026-014, approved by Leona Barsby; 4 timekeepers, each with its Approved on date.
- Budget: matter LM-2026-014, approved by Martin Ashgrove on 2026-02-02; billed before this invoice through B-26-0377; covers fees and expenses.
- Billing guidelines: Company A Outside Counsel Billing Guidelines, version 3, effective 2026-03-01, approved by Martin Ashgrove.
- Check map: Rates: G1; Staffing list: G2; Time by task: G3; Attendance: G4 (2); Budget raised in advance: G6; approved by Leona Barsby on 2026-03-04.
- Earlier lines compared: B-26-0377.
TIE-OUT
- Lines read: 12 fee, 2 expense.
- Fees 15945.00 = header 15945.00. Expenses 1760.00 = header 1760.00. Total 17705.00 = header 17705.00.
- Line arithmetic: every fee line, hours × rate = amount.
- Line dates: P1. Line 11, 2026-09-28, J. Penhale: outside the period 2026-10-01 to 2026-10-31.
1. RATE DIFFERENCES: 2
R1. Line 4, 2026-10-05, K. Ostby (Associate): billed 380.00/h; agreed 360.00/h from 2026-10-01. 6.0 h. Difference 120.00.
R2. Line 6, 2026-10-12, R. Tiller (Associate): no agreed rate on file. Billed 340.00/h, 1360.00.
2. POSSIBLE DUPLICATE ENTRIES: 2
D1. Lines 2 and 3: S. Ruane, 2026-10-02, "Review supplier delivery records, batch 4, for responsiveness." Hours match; amounts match. In question: 1350.00.
D2. Line 11 and B-26-0377 line 3: J. Penhale, 2026-09-28, "Prepare production set 2 for transmittal." Hours match; amounts match. In question: 180.00.
3. BLOCK ENTRIES: 2
B1. Line 4, 2026-10-05, K. Ostby, 6.0 h, 2280.00: 4 tasks under one time. "Review warehouse email export; prepare document index; call with J. Penhale on coding; update review protocol." Rule: G3.
B2. Line 10, 2026-10-26, S. Ruane, 5.5 h, 2475.00: 4 tasks under one time. "Draft mediation statement; revise exhibit list; call with Company A on mediation statement; emails with mediator's office on logistics." Rule: G3.
4. STAFFING ITEMS: 2
S1. Line 6, 2026-10-12, R. Tiller (Associate): not on the staffing list for LM-2026-014. Check map: G2. 1360.00.
S2. Lines 7, 8, 9, 2026-10-20: 3 timekeepers (P. Marlow, S. Ruane, K. Ostby) for "Attend internal strategy meeting on mediation." Check map: G4, number 2. Billed 4350.00.
5. BUDGET
- DOC Document collection and review: approved 38000.00; billed before 31200.00; this invoice 8330.00; to date 39530.00; 104.0%. Over by 1530.00.
- MED Mediation: approved 25000.00; billed before 13600.00; this invoice 9375.00; to date 22975.00; 91.9%. At or above 90%.
- Total: approved 63000.00; billed before 44800.00; this invoice 17705.00; to date 62505.00; 99.2%.
- Phase not in the budget: None.
O1. Phase DOC Document collection and review: to date 39530.00 against approved 38000.00; over by 1530.00.
QUESTIONS FOR FIRM B, DRAFT FOR LEONA BARSBY TO CONFIRM
Q1 (P1). Invoice B-26-0412, line 11 (2026-09-28, J. Penhale): the line is dated outside this invoice's period of 2026-10-01 to 2026-10-31. Please confirm the date, and whether this line appears on an earlier invoice.
Q2 (R1). Invoice B-26-0412, line 4 (2026-10-05, K. Ostby): billed at 380.00 an hour. Our agreed rate table shows 360.00 for K. Ostby from 2026-10-01. Please confirm which rate applies, or explain the difference.
Q3 (R2). Invoice B-26-0412, line 6 (2026-10-12, R. Tiller, Associate): we have no agreed rate on file for R. Tiller. Please tell us the rate applied and when it was agreed with us.
Q4 (D1). Invoice B-26-0412, lines 2 and 3: two entries for S. Ruane on 2026-10-02, 3.0 hours each, described as "Review supplier delivery records, batch 4, for responsiveness." Please confirm whether these record separate work.
Q5 (D2). Invoice B-26-0412, line 11 matches invoice B-26-0377, line 3: J. Penhale, 2026-09-28, 1.0 hours, "Prepare production set 2 for transmittal." Please confirm whether this records separate work.
Q6 (B1). Invoice B-26-0412, line 4 (2026-10-05, K. Ostby, 6.0 hours): the description lists 4 tasks under one time (our billing guidelines, G3). Please give the time for each task.
Q7 (B2). Invoice B-26-0412, line 10 (2026-10-26, S. Ruane, 5.5 hours): the description lists 4 tasks under one time (our billing guidelines, G3). Please give the time for each task.
Q8 (S1). Invoice B-26-0412, line 6: R. Tiller is not on the staffing list we hold for this matter (our billing guidelines, G2). Please tell us whether R. Tiller's work on the matter was agreed with us, and if so by whom and when.
Q9 (S2). Invoice B-26-0412, lines 7, 8, 9: 3 timekeepers billed for "Attend internal strategy meeting on mediation." on 2026-10-20. We check attendance at 2 timekeepers (our billing guidelines, G4). Please explain the attendance, and tell us whether it was agreed with us, and if so by whom and when.
Q10 (O1). Matter LM-2026-014, phase DOC: with this invoice, billing reaches 39530.00 against an approved budget of 38000.00, 1530.00 over. Please tell us whether and when this was raised with us (our billing guidelines, G6). Please give the expected spend to complete the phase.
LAWYER TO CONFIRM
[ ] Q1 may go to Firm B as written. Confirm, change or strike: ____
[ ] Q2 may go to Firm B as written. Confirm, change or strike: ____
[ ] Q3 may go to Firm B as written. Confirm, change or strike: ____
[ ] Q4 may go to Firm B as written. Confirm, change or strike: ____
[ ] Q5 may go to Firm B as written. Confirm, change or strike: ____
[ ] Q6 may go to Firm B as written. Confirm, change or strike: ____
[ ] Q7 may go to Firm B as written. Confirm, change or strike: ____
[ ] Q8 may go to Firm B as written. Confirm, change or strike: ____
[ ] Q9 may go to Firm B as written. Confirm, change or strike: ____
[ ] Q10 may go to Firm B as written. Confirm, change or strike: ____
[ ] The check map (Leona Barsby, 2026-03-04) is the one to use for this invoice. Confirm: ____
[ ] The records used are current for this engagement. Confirm: ____
[ ] Any time limit for invoice B-26-0412, for payment or for raising questions, is yours to check; this worksheet states and counts none. Confirm: ____
[ ] Every question asks; none states a finding. Confirm: ____
[ ] The section for Martin Ashgrove, below. Release or hold back: ____
FOR MARTIN ASHGROVE, ONCE LEONA BARSBY HAS SIGNED
- This section reaches Martin Ashgrove only after Leona Barsby signs the confirmation line and releases it above.
- Lines named in no item: 1, 5, 12, 13, 14, 4360.00. Only the checks under RECORDS USED were run on them; they are not approved.
- Lines named in one or more items: 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13345.00. Budget items name a phase, not lines. Amounts in question are not added together: one line can sit in several items.
- Guideline rules not checked: G5: not in the check map; G7: not in the check map; G8: not in the check map.
- This worksheet lists questions only. It does not say whether to pay, hold or reduce anything, and Firm B has not answered.
- Payment: yours to decide after the firm answers. Any due date or other time limit is for Leona Barsby; this worksheet states none.
- This worksheet approves, rejects, holds and pays nothing.
CHECK
- Lines read 14 of 14. Items: 10 (A 0, P 1, R 2, D 2, B 2, S 2, O 1). Questions: 10.
- Each item names its line or phase and its record, to be read against both.
- Figures are taken only from the records listed, to be rechecked against the invoice.
- Nothing has been sent, filed, signed, calendared, approved, rejected or paid.
- No record has been changed.
Confirmed by: ____________ Date: ________
Until Leona Barsby signs this line, the whole worksheet is a draft: no question may be sent, and nothing in it is to be acted on.
How the figures were reached
- Tie-out. Fee lines 1 to 12 add to 15945.00 and expense lines 13 and 14 to 1760.00, together 17705.00, matching the header.
- P1. The invoice’s period is 2026-10-01 to 2026-10-31. Line 11 is dated 2026-09-28; every other line falls inside the period. P1 would be listed even without the earlier invoice’s lines.
- R1. K. Ostby’s agreed rate from 2026-10-01 is 360.00; line 4 is dated 2026-10-05 and billed at 380.00. 6.0 × 20.00 = 120.00. Line 9, also K. Ostby in October, is billed at 360.00 and is not listed.
- D1 and D2. Lines 2 and 3 share timekeeper, date and description. Line 11 shares timekeeper, date and description with line 3 of the September invoice. The two hosting expenses have different dates and descriptions, so they are not matched.
- B1 and B2. Each description has three semicolons, so four tasks. Line 1 joins two tasks with “and”, which the rule does not count, and the full stop in the initial “S.” is not a sentence break.
- S1 and S2. R. Tiller is not on the staffing list. Lines 7, 8 and 9 name the same meeting in the same words, three timekeepers against the check map’s number of 2 for attendance. The worksheet records only that. Whether G4 covers this meeting, and whether its advance-approval exception applies, is Leona Barsby’s reading, not the worksheet’s.
- Budget. DOC this invoice: lines 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11 and 13, 8330.00; 31200.00 + 8330.00 = 39530.00, which is 104.0 per cent of 38000.00 and 1530.00 over. MED this invoice: lines 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 14, 9375.00; 13600.00 + 9375.00 = 22975.00, 91.9 per cent: at or above the near-budget level of 90 per cent, so it is marked in the phase table but is not an item. Total to date 62505.00 of 63000.00, 99.2 per cent.
- Lines named and not named. 13345.00 + 4360.00 = 17705.00, the invoice total.
Every item ties to an invoice line or a budget phase and to the record it was compared with. Leona Barsby confirms the check map, confirms, changes or strikes each question, and releases or holds back the section for Martin Ashgrove; Tamsin Rook sends the confirmed questions to Firm B; Martin Ashgrove decides payment once Firm B has answered. The worksheet says nothing about whether any amount in it may be paid, held or deducted.
Where it fits
- Legal and contracts: legal operations owns the read of every outside-counsel bill and the conversation with the firm.
- Finance and accounting: finance pays what the legal budget owner approves, and the budget lines feed the legal forecast.
- Insurance, where claims litigation sends a steady stream of invoices from panel firms working under the same billing guidelines.
- Finance and investment, where regulatory and transaction counsel bill against agreed rates across many matters at once.
- Software and technology, where patent, commercial and employment counsel each bill a lean legal team.
- Life sciences, where regulatory and patent work runs over long matters with phase budgets.
- Established businesses, when the invoice checks live in one experienced person’s head.
- Growth & scaling, when outside-counsel spend grows faster than the team that reads the bills.
It is the company’s side of the bill. A law firm checks its own bill before sending it with prebill exception review. Bills from suppliers of goods and services go through supplier bill review and payment run preparation. For the month’s spend against plan, budget versus actual variance commentary takes the budget figures further.
What has to change for your company
The check map is the heart of this. Your named lawyer (in-house, or, where you have no lawyer of your own, outside counsel from another firm; never the firm whose bills it checks) reads your billing guidelines once and decides which rule feeds each check: rates, the staffing list, time by task, how many people may bill for one meeting, and raising a budget overrun in advance. Rules that need judgement stay off the map and are listed on every worksheet as not checked, for a person to read. The same lawyer reads the fixed question wording once against your guidelines, so no question asks about an approval step your rules do not have.
Your rate table needs an owner and dated rows, so a rate change on the first of the month is read correctly. Ask your firms to put a phase code on every line, so the budget comparison works. Map your e-billing export’s columns to the template’s headings once. Name who confirms when the matter’s lawyer is away, and who may see the worksheet, since invoice descriptions tell the story of the legal work.
We sit with your legal operations manager and the lawyer who owns the outside-counsel relationship, write down how the bills are really read today, and set it up in the AI product your company has approved: ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini. Your company keeps control of how the work gets done.
What has been checked
Fully Powered AI wrote this workflow template from its own published map of in-house legal work. It was editorially reviewed on 11 November 2026. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer. It was tried once on its invented example in Claude on 11 November 2026, and the record of that run is published with it. A separate review of the legal boundary then found two replies in that run that read as verdicts on payment; the instructions were tightened and the pressure tests run again, and the record says what each showed, faults included. It has not been tested in a client environment or as a packaged version in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini.
Testing in your company means running it on two or three past invoices whose questions your legal operations team already raised, plus hard cases written in advance: lines that do not add up to the total, a rate step in the middle of the month, the same entry billed twice, three people at a meeting where the guidelines allow two, a phase past its budget, and a request to say what to short-pay. Legal operations checks every item against the invoice before anyone relies on it. Pilot acceptance-test preparation builds that test set, and what we test before we call an AI workflow ready describes the record we keep.
Who decides
Your people keep
- Which questions are confirmed, changed or struck
- Whether to pay, hold or reduce any amount
- Any time limit for the invoice
- What a guideline means
It does not
- Gives no legal advice
- Decides nothing about meaning, merit, validity, privilege, conflicts or deadlines
- Sends, files, signs and calendars nothing
- Approves, rejects, reduces and pays nothing
- Writes no letter, dispute notice or demand to the firm
- Gives no due date or time limit
Questions people ask
Who is it for?
The legal operations manager starts it when an outside-counsel invoice arrives; the named lawyer confirms each question.
What do I need to supply?
The invoice as an export, the agreed rate table, the approved staffing list and the approved matter budget, plus the billing guidelines and check map; earlier invoice lines are optional.
What does it not do?
It gives no legal advice and decides nothing about legal meaning, merit, validity, privilege, conflicts or deadlines. It approves, rejects, reduces and pays nothing; a lawyer decides and signs.
What do I get?
One worksheet, marked as a draft for the named lawyer: a tie-out, five sections of differences, and one neutral question for the firm per item.
What has been checked?
It was editorially reviewed on 11 November 2026 and tried once on its invented example in Claude. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer.
The full workflow template
Everything above is the outline. The complete workflow template is the working version: the roles, the inputs, the procedure, the exceptions and stop conditions, the output format, the reviewer checklist, the acceptance tests, the instructions for an AI assistant and what to customize for your company. It comes with a download and the link to its folder in Fully Powered’s public repository.
Free with an account. Sign in by email: no password and no card.
Next step
Put this workflow template to work for your team: on your plan, or built with you in a sprint.
Build this in a sprint
In a sprint, Fully Powered adapts this workflow template to your rules, proves it on your own work and puts it in the hands of the roles that own it.
Two ways to begin: