By Julie Bays 

Earlier this year, I wrote a Courts & More tip about a legal technology startup that generated a great deal of interest at ABA TECHSHOW. The company, CollBox, focuses on a persistent challenge in law practice: getting paid.

Their solution is straightforward. They step in before accounts are sent to collections and follow up with clients through structured and consistent communication. It resonated with many lawyers because it addresses something we all recognize but often avoid. Most lawyers do not enjoy calling clients about unpaid bills.

At the time, my takeaway was simple: While tools like this can be helpful, they are not a substitute for a solid billing system. If expectations are unclear, invoices are delayed or clients do not understand what they are being charged for, then the problem begins long before collections.

Since writing that piece, I have been thinking more about billing but from a different perspective.

A Prompt from Ethics and AI

Recently, I had the opportunity to present at the Virginia State Bar Techshow on artificial intelligence and legal ethics. As part of that program, we discussed a new ethics opinion approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia addressing fees in the context of emerging technologies.

The question the opinion tackles is one that many lawyers are now asking: If technology allows me to complete work more efficiently, can I still charge a reasonable fee?

The answer, perhaps not surprisingly, is yes. But the reasoning is important. The opinion emphasizes that value is not determined solely by time. Instead, it reflects the lawyer’s judgment, experience, skill and the results obtained.

That is not a new concept. Oklahoma lawyers have long operated under ORPC 1.5, which sets out multiple factors for determining the reasonableness of a fee, only one of which is the time and labor required.

But hearing this issue framed in the context of rapidly advancing technology prompted me to reconsider something more fundamental: If time is no longer the primary proxy for value, how are we communicating that value to our clients?

The answer, in many cases, is found in the billing statement itself.

Billing as a Communication Tool

Billing is often treated as an administrative function that happens at the end of the month or at the end of a task. In reality, it is one of the most consistent and important communications a lawyer has with a client.

Under ORPC 1.4, lawyers are required to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their matter and to explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary to permit informed decisions. Billing statements are one of the most regular opportunities to do exactly that.

Yet many billing statements fall short. They rely on abbreviations, vague descriptions and internal shorthand that may make sense to the lawyer but provide little clarity to the client. Entries such as “research,” “review” or “conference” do not tell the client what was done, why it mattered or how it moved the matter forward.

By contrast, a well-crafted billing entry tells a story. It explains the issue being addressed, the work performed and the relevance of that work to the client’s goals.

The difference is illustrated in the billing comparison examples. A vague entry may technically record time, but it does not communicate value. A clear entry, written in plain language, demonstrates judgment, reinforces progress and builds trust.

Billing Comparison Examples

Example 1: Poor/Unclear Billing Statement (What Not To Do)

Date	Description	Time	Amount
3/10	Rsch	1.8	$810.00
3/11	Draft re above	2.4	$1,080.00
3/11	Rev/edits	1.2	$540.00
3/12	Doc review	2.0	$900.00
3/13	Conf w/ A.L.	0.6	$270.00
3/13	Misc	0.5	$225.00

• No explanation of what research was done or why it mattered
• Heavy use of initials and abbreviations
• No indication of attorney judgment, strategy or outcome
• The client cannot tell how value was delivered

Example 2: Clear, Ethical, Client-Centered Billing Statement (Best Practice)

Date	Description of Services	Time	Amount
3/10	Legal research on Oklahoma and 10th Circuit case law addressing wrongful termination and retaliation claims; verified all authorities and applicability to client’s fact pattern	1.0	$450.00
3/11	Drafted memorandum outlining potential claims and defenses, including risks and recommended strategy; reviewed and edited for accuracy and tone	Document Flat Fee	$675.00
3/12	Reviewed personnel records and termination documents; analyzed inconsistencies relevant to causation and damages	1.2	$540.00
3/13	Attorney review and revision of research summaries produced with research assistance tools, Westlaw CoCounsel; independently confirmed citations and conclusions	0.8	$360.00
3/13	Client strategy call to explain findings, answer questions and discuss next steps	0.6	$270.00

• Uses plain-language descriptions the client can understand
• Shows lawyer judgment, review and verification (especially when efficiency tools are used)
• Connects tasks to strategy, risks and next steps
• Demonstrates value, not just task completion

The Impact of Efficiency

Technology, including generative artificial intelligence, is accelerating this shift.

Tasks that once took hours can now be completed more quickly. Research can be performed faster. Drafting can be streamlined. Workflows can be automated. From a lawyer’s perspective, this is a significant benefit. It allows for greater efficiency and, in many cases, better outcomes for clients.

From a client’s perspective, however, the reduction in visible time can create confusion. If the work appears to take less time, what exactly is the client paying for?

This is where billing as communication becomes critical. The answer is not found in the tool. It is found in the lawyer’s role. Clients are paying for the lawyer’s ability to analyze, apply judgment, verify information and develop strategy. Those elements do not disappear simply because technology is involved. In many ways, they become even more important.

Clear billing entries help make that distinction. They demonstrate that while technology may assist in the process, the lawyer remains responsible for the work and the outcome.

Fixing the Process Before the Problem

Tools like CollBox reveal that most billing problems aren’t actually about collections. They are about communication. In my work with lawyers across Oklahoma, I often see the same patterns:

• Fee structures are not fully explained at intake;
• Billing is inconsistent or delayed;
• Clients are unsure what to expect;
• Invoices do not clearly describe the work performed; and
• There is no systematic follow-up process.

When these issues are present, it is not surprising that accounts go unpaid. Improving billing practices in these areas can have a significant impact. Lawyers who set clear expectations, bill regularly and communicate value effectively often find that collections issues decrease without the need for additional tools.

Where Technology Can Help

This is not to say that technology has no role. Tools designed to assist with billing, payments and collections can add structure and consistency. They can make it easier for clients to pay and help firms maintain regular follow-up.

But they are most effective when they are supporting a process that is already working. Technology can enhance communication. It cannot replace it.

A Shift in Perspective

The convergence of these issues, from legal technology to ethics opinions to day-to-day practice management, suggests a broader shift. Billing is no longer just about tracking time or generating invoices. It is about explaining value in a way that clients can understand. When billing is approached with that mindset, it becomes more than a financial tool. It becomes part of the service itself – a highly effective communication tool.

Conclusion

The conversations happening around technology, artificial intelligence and legal ethics are not just about new tools. They are prompting lawyers to revisit long-standing practices and consider how those practices serve clients.

Billing is one of those areas. When done well, a billing statement does more than request payment. It reinforces the lawyer’s role, demonstrates progress and builds trust with the client.

Ms. Bays is the OBA Management Assistance Program director. Need a quick answer to a tech problem or help solving a management dilemma? Contact her at 405-416-7031, 800-522-8060 or julieb@okbar.org. It’s a free member benefit. 

Originally published in the Oklahoma Bar Journal — May, 2026 — Vol. 97, No. 5