Letter · Costs, billing & litigation funding
Letter when a flat fee should change because a tool did the work (United States)
A letter telling the client that a flat fee may no longer be reasonable because a generative AI tool has reduced the work, and asking agreement to a revised amount before further work is billed that way.
- Kind
- Letter. A letter or email you adapt and send.
- Where it applies
- United States
- 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 3 authorities it cites, for United States.
- Version
- 1
- Source
- Written for this library
When to use it
Use when the engagement is a flat fee and a tool has meant the lawyer will do little or no work for that fee. Do not use it to raise a fee after the work is done, or to bill hourly time that was not spent.
Used for these tasks
- Draft a costs disclosure from the matter scope and the scale or estimate
- Compare a draft bill to the last costs disclosure and any updates
Each task page says how far AI may help with the task and what the lawyer must review.
How AI may be used
A tool may draft the description of the remaining scope from the lawyer's note. The lawyer decides the revised amount and whether the original fee is still reasonable.
AI may
- Restate the original scope and the remaining tasks from the engagement letter and the lawyer's note
- Flag a draft that changes the fee without showing the original amount
AI must not
- Must not set the revised fee
- Must not say the original fee was unreasonable as a conclusion
- Must not send the letter
The lawyer checks
- The original fee, the scope, and the proposed amount are all stated
- The change is communicated before the firm relies on the new basis, as Rule 1.5(b) requires for a change in the basis or rate
- The letter is not used to charge for time no person spent
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
- Worksheet comparing a draft bill with the costs disclosure
- 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