Checklist · Costs, billing & litigation funding
Timekeeper check before billing generative AI work (United States)
A check a timekeeper completes before AI-assisted time or a per-use AI charge is put on a bill, so the bill reflects time actually spent and expenses the engagement allows.
- Kind
- Checklist. Steps or checks to work through and tick off.
- 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 2 authorities it cites, for United States.
- Version
- 1
- Source
- Written for this library
When to use it
Use when a bill will include time spent with a generative AI tool, or a separate charge for a tool. Do not use it to set the fee arrangement. That belongs in the engagement letter.
Used for these tasks
- Review a bill for AI-assisted work
- Build a draft bill from the time records and the disclosure
- 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 list draft time entries that mention a generative AI tool and flag entries with no review time. It does not decide that an entry is reasonable or move it onto the bill.
AI may
- List draft entries that mention a tool, with the minutes recorded
- Flag an entry that bills a per-use charge not named in the engagement letter
- Flag an entry described as learning a tool the firm uses for clients generally
AI must not
- Must not increase the minutes to a "value" the tool suggests
- Must not write off or add time
- Must not describe a grammar tool in ordinary software as a client expense
The lawyer checks
- Each entry is minutes a person actually spent, including prompt and review time
- No entry charges the client for general learning of a tool the firm uses regularly
- A per-use charge matches the engagement letter and is the actual cost, unless a different agreement was made in advance
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
- Billing and time-recording policy for AI-assisted work
- Worksheet comparing a draft bill with the costs disclosure
- 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