If a law firm can complete a task faster with AI, it is reasonable to ask how that change affects the bill. The answer is not always a lower total. A tool may help a lawyer review more material, improve a draft or identify issues that require further work. But an efficiency claim should still be capable of explanation. For the client paying the invoice, the useful question is simple: what work was done, by whom, and how does the fee reflect it?
Start with the work, not the label
“AI-assisted” describes a method. It does not tell you whether the task needed the time recorded or whether the charge is consistent with your agreement. Equally, the absence of an AI label does not tell you that a tool was not used. Begin with the task and the billing basis. Compare what the invoice describes with the agreed scope, estimate and staffing plan.
For hourly work, consider the actual time spent and whether it was reasonably required in context. For a fixed fee, the agreement may price an outcome rather than individual hours. The same efficiency can therefore have different implications under different arrangements. A review should take account of that distinction rather than assume every use of AI produces a particular discount.
Four places to look more closely
Unchanged estimates. If the proposed workflow has changed materially but the estimate has not, ask what assumptions support it. The explanation may be sound: a larger document set, more complex issues or additional verification. What matters is making those assumptions visible before the work proceeds.
First-pass review and drafting. These entries deserve enough detail to distinguish initial processing from a lawyer’s checking and substantive advice. A short description such as “review documents” may conceal several different tasks. Ask for a breakdown where the scale of the charge warrants it, without demanding unnecessary disclosure of confidential working material.
Repeated review. An AI-assisted draft still needs professional checking. That checking is valuable work. The question is whether multiple reviewers each added something necessary, and whether the staffing and review time match the task. The tool’s involvement is a prompt to understand the workflow, rather than proof that a charge is wrong.
Technology charges. Check separate technology, processing or platform charges against the engagement terms. Ask whether the charge was agreed, how it was calculated, and whether there is overlap with another fee. A clear explanation makes it easier to distinguish a genuine external cost from a charge that needs further discussion.
Three questions for your next engagement
1. Where do you expect technology to change this matter’s workflow? Invite the firm to identify suitable tasks and the controls around them. This creates a practical discussion about scope, quality and efficiency before an invoice arrives.
2. How will those changes appear in the budget and billing? Ask how estimates, time recording, fixed fees and any separate technology charges will be treated. Agree a way to discuss material changes during the matter, rather than leaving the issue until the final bill.
3. What information will help us understand the result? Agree proportionate invoice descriptions and reporting. You may need to distinguish processing, checking and advice, but you do not necessarily need a detailed account of every tool interaction. Keep the reporting useful for the people who approve the bill.
Keep the conversation constructive
A query works best when it identifies an entry, explains the question and refers to the relevant agreement or expectation. “Please explain the checking time following the initial review” is more useful than an assumption that all technology-assisted work should be free. Give the firm room to explain context that the invoice does not show.
The aim is a fair, transparent bill and a strong working relationship. Clear expectations can help both sides: the client understands the value received, and the firm knows what information is needed to support payment. Where there is a genuine disagreement, a focused query schedule provides a practical starting point.
Test one firm’s invoices
A Legal Spend Health Check reviews twelve months of one firm’s invoices alongside the engagement terms. It identifies the entries we would query, explains why and recommends changes to budgets and billing guidelines. It is a way to understand how efficiency is reflected in your own bills, with a fixed fee agreed upfront.
General information only. The treatment of any charge depends on the engagement terms, the work and the circumstances. Examples describe review questions, not findings about any particular firm.
Explore the Legal Spend Health Check ↗