Checklist · Costs, billing & litigation funding
Worksheet comparing a draft bill with the costs disclosure
Internal worksheet that sets a draft bill beside the last costs estimate, later updates, uplift and AI-assisted time, before the bill is sent.
- Kind
- Checklist. Steps or checks to work through and tick off.
- Where it applies
- New South Wales
- AI use
- Yellow You and the tool draft together, with you directing. You check every statement you rely on.
- Law stated as at
- 22 October 2026
- Status
- Maintained. Checked on 22 October 2026 against the 5 authorities it cites, for New South Wales.
- Version
- 1
- Source
- Written for this library
When to use it
Use before a bill is given, when the draft has been built from the time records. It does not replace a significant-change letter or a costs disclosure. It records whether one of those is now required.
Used for these tasks
- Compare a draft bill to the last costs disclosure and any updates
- Build a draft bill from the time records and the disclosure
- Review a bill for AI-assisted work
- Compare a funding, uplift or common-fund agreement to the current rules
Each task page says how far AI may help with the task and what the lawyer must review.
How AI may be used
AI may copy figures from the disclosure, the updates and the draft bill into the table. The principal decides whether the change is significant and whether the bill can go out.
AI may
- Copy the estimate, each update and the draft bill total from the documents supplied
- List time entries the records mark as AI-assisted, without deciding if they are billable
AI must not
- Must not decide that a change is or is not significant
- Must not calculate an uplift or treat a percentage of the outcome as a permitted fee
- Must not approve the bill
The lawyer checks
- The running total is compared with the last figure the client was given, and a significant-change notice is sent if s 174(1)(b) requires it, before or with the bill
- Any uplift matches the conditional costs agreement and s 182, and no fee is a percentage of the outcome
- AI-assisted entries record work done by a person, and the principal has signed the worksheet
Method: how the Green, Yellow and Red levels are decided. This is guidance for planning, not legal advice.
Read the full text
The full text is available after you log in. It is free. When you log in you can:
- read the whole precedent, with its drafting notes beside it;
- copy it, or download it as a Word file or Markdown;
- add it to your firm’s knowledge base, so colleagues can find it;
- let the AI tools you connect read it from that knowledge base.
The summary, the law it rests on and the AI-use guidance above stay public. Privacy.
More in Costs, billing & litigation funding
- Without prejudice save as to costs offer, with the client's settlement figures kept off the letter
- Uniform Law standard costs disclosure form (matters likely to cost $750 to $3,000): completion guide
- Engagement letter with a generative AI clause (United States)
- Costs disclosure and costs agreement letter (Uniform Law ss 174 and 180)
- Offer of compromise under UCPR rule 20.26 (NSW)
- Statement disclosing third-party litigation funding (United States)
- Engagement and costs agreement clauses: AI use, client consent and charging for AI-assisted work
- Itemised bill and letter answering a request for one
- Timekeeper check before billing generative AI work (United States)
- Billing and time-recording policy for AI-assisted work
- Letter when a flat fee should change because a tool did the work (United States)
- Disclosure to an associated third party payer, and of another law practice
- Notice to client of a significant change in legal costs (Uniform Law s 174(1)(b))
- Litigation funding agreement review checklist (including class actions)
- Progress report of legal costs incurred
All precedents for Costs, billing & litigation funding · Tasks and AI use in this area