THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 66 | MAY 2026 Law Practice Tips By Julie Bays Transforming Billing Into Effective Client Communication 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.1 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.2 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.3 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.4 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.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==