Part 2: Best Practices for Billing Guidelines

Executive Summary: In an AI-first future, best practices for billing guidelines demand a dynamic, AI-ready information architecture built on four key principles: 1) Clarity with explicit definitions and hard thresholds; 2) Ease of Reference with logical, scannable structures; 3) Logic with consistent decision frameworks; and 4) Decision Authority for AI to interpret and enforce billing guidelines automatically.

This is Part 2 of our five-part series, “Stop the Leak: A Guide to Mastering Legal Spend.”

Outside Counsel Billing Guidelines (OCBGs) are the cornerstone of legal spend control, providing enforceable rules that govern how external law firms bill for services. Yet they are often the weakest link in the compliance chain. When OCBGs are missing, lack clarity, or scattered across documents, invoice review processes break down.

According to Bloomberg, 72% of in-house legal teams track legal spend, but only 18% measure compliance to their billing guidelines. Why are only one in five organizations applying OCBGs effectively? This article explores the reasons and what Legal Ops can do to extract more value from OCBGs, including how AI can enforce more consistent control.

Three Gaps to Close

For OCBGs to work, they must be accessible, unambiguous, and enforceable. Most fall short on at least one of these fronts, creating a significant gap between OCBG intent versus reality.

Accessibility

The most common challenge is guidelines are hard to find. Rules are scattered across Master Service Agreements (MSAs), letters, emails, and other sources. Reviewers waste hours piecing together applicable rules or relying on outdated systems.

• MSAs: Basic rate structures and general terms, but rarely comprehensive billing rules.
• Emails: Discussions and agreements are buried in threads and forgotten.
• Engagement Letters and Alternate Fee Arrangements (AFAs): Specific modifications based on the matter at hand that tend to contradict norms and overwrite OCBGs.
• Side Agreements: Verbal understandings that become informal precedents, captured in short-term memory, expected to be enforced, but often not documented properly.
• Rules Engines: The logic-based configurations and hard-coded rules used to automate reviews and power legacy e-billing systems. They are difficult to set-up and maintain.

Each vendor can have different rules, and different matters may have conflicting standards, making consistent enforcement messy.

Ambiguity

Even when an OCBG is expertly prepared, vague language leads to interpretation rather than enforcement. Consider what seems like straightforward language:

Guideline	Real-world example	Why it’s ambiguous
No block billing permitted.	Conference call regarding contract terms and follow-up research (3.5 hours).	Does combining these tasks count as block billing?
Partners should not bill for admin tasks.	Preparing sealed filing (AEO) (1.2 hours).	Is preparing a filing administrative or substantive work?
Only one timekeeper per meeting.	Senior associate and junior associate both attend an internal meeting.	If one is note-taking, does that still violate the rule? What if a specialist joins briefly?

Without explicit definitions, guidelines quickly become judgment calls. Enforcement varies by reviewer, leading to inconsistency and disputes.

Enforcement

In Part 1 of this series, “The Hidden Costs of Manual Invoice Review”, we reviewed why enforcement falls short. Humans apply standards unevenly, while rules engines are too brittle and difficult to update. Both approaches lead to inconsistent outcomes or guidelines being ignored.

The solution lies in AI. Companies that shift from manual to AI reviews, with limited human oversight, can expect more consistent enforcement. Even when billing guidelines are poorly organized, AI can begin to enforce rules more consistently.

And the real power comes when AI draws from best practice, with OCBGs optimized for AI.

1. Promote Clarity

AI excels when information is unambiguous and definitive. Unlike humans who can interpret context and fill in gaps, AI requires explicit clarity to make consistent decisions.

Create a comprehensive “Definitions” section at the beginning of your OCBGs. Explicitly define terms like:

• Block Billing: “Any time entry that describes more than one substantive task or combines activities that occurred at different times”.
• Administrative Tasks: “Document formatting, file organization, calendar management, invoice preparation, travel coordination, and filing”.
• Role Classifications: Clear definitions for “Senior Partner,” “Junior Associate,” with corresponding rate caps and authorization requirements.

Include a list of Explicit Prohibitions, a definitive “do not pay:”

• Billing for administrative tasks at attorney rates
• Block billing as defined
• Duplicate charges for identical services or expenses
• Time entries from unauthorized timekeepers not pre-approved in writing
• Charges exceeding approved rate caps without prior written authorization

Replace vague language with parameters and hard thresholds that enable AI to make firm decisions. For example:

• Instead of: “Reasonable research time” (requires human judgment)
• Use: “Legal research exceeding 4 hours for any single motion requires pre-approval per Section 3.2.1” (enables automated decision)

The goal is to replace ambiguity with a source of truth.

2. Create Ease of Reference

Although AI can navigate poorly structured documents, a well-structured data set enables AI to work more efficiently with humans. A simple numbering system allows AI to generate citations, supporting explainability and traceability. A citation, such as “Violation of Section 3.1.2 – vague description standards”, will lead to better understanding of the issue than a general reference. This helps to reduce mistakes and facilitate instances when invoices need to be reviewed by a human.

3. Enable Logical Thinking

AI works best when information follows consistent logical patterns. This ensures a more consistent application of an analytical framework across thousands of invoices.

OCBGs should demonstrate explicit and logical guidance:

Invoice Submission Requirements:

• All invoices must be submitted within 60 days of service completion.
• Late submissions (61-90 days) subject to 10% reduction.
• Submissions beyond 90 days will not be paid.

Required Invoice Fields

• Matter name & number ensure charges are tied to the correct case or project. These must match your system matter information
• Timekeeper name & role identifies who did the work
• Hours worked & hourly rate show the effort and cost per person
• Task/activity code & description explains what was done, eliminates block billing, and enables spend reports
• Itemized expenses break out the costs like travel or filing fees separately

Exception Hierarchies:

Travel time is non-billable except for:

• Matters requiring specialized expertise unavailable locally.
• Depositions where attorney presence is mandated by court order.
• Pre-approved client meetings in international jurisdictions.

Clarity on Fee Structures:

• Capped fees: Standard hourly rates with firm limits on total matter costs
• Fixed fees: Flat fees for defined projects or work portfolios
• Success fees: Lower base fees combined with performance bonuses tied to specific outcomes

Your OCBG is a procedural guide for the entire vendor relationship. The more logical it is, the more predictable it can be for both sides in relation to invoice reviews.

4. Enable Decision Authority

 The real transformation comes when AI can enforce OCBGs independently, escalating only edge cases for human review.

Enable AI decisions:

Principle	What it means	Example
Replace uncertain language	Use absolutes instead of conditionals so AI can enforce without interpretation	Instead of “firms should generally avoid…,” use “The following activities are prohibited and will result in automatic charge rejection”
Include or reference the detail	Provide full references to policies and standards that guide enforcement	Expense policies, AFAs, matter-type standards, escalation matrices
Define material vs. minor violations	Give clear criteria so AI can apply judgment consistently	AI can independently reject minor infractions while escalating material ones

Enable paths for cases that require human judgment:

Principle	What it means	Example
Define escalation triggers	Specify the situations that require human review	Novel scenarios, new expense types, or disputed charges
Establish hierarchy	Clarify who can approve exceptions and under what circumstances	Senior counsel vs. Legal Ops vs. Finance
Create learning feedback	Feed human decisions back into the system to improve AI consistency	Update rules and exceptions based on past escalations

AI Transformation

Integrating OCBGs with AI enables consistent, automated enforcement. There is no speculation, only enforcement. If AI encounters a line item that challenges its interpretation of the OCBGs, it can be escalated. Over time, as clarity improves in the guidelines, AI can reduce the need for human reviews.

The path towards AI transformation provides several advantages:

1. No Backlogs: AI processes invoices immediately upon receipt.
2. Consistent Communication: Precise, actionable feedback on every violation.
3. Reduced Friction: AI removes personal dynamics.
4. Pattern Detection: AI identifies systemic compliance issues.
5. Freed Human Resources: Lawyers and Legal Ops professionals can shift focus to more complex work such as vendor management, benchmarking, and other core functions.

The Path Forward

Organizations don’t need perfect OCBGs to realize benefits from AI reviews. However, those willing to invest in optimizing their billing guidelines can achieve substantially better results.

The optimal path forward involves three phases:

Phase 1: Implement AI review for immediate financial gains and improved visibility. Begin with existing guidelines and start capturing the violations manual reviews consistently miss.

Phase 2: Use AI to identify which guidelines need clarification, which rules are consistently violated, and how to optimize the information for AI.

Phase 3: Develop more comprehensive OCBGs to power future AI invoice reviews.

This approach benefits from a feedback loop that enables quick wins as well as long-term improvements. Rather than guessing which rules might work, organizations can observe which guidelines drive compliance and iterate from there.

The Gist of It

Most Outside Counsel Billing Guidelines (OCBGs) fail because they are inaccessible (scattered across emails and systems), ambiguous (written with vague, interpretive language), and unenforceable by legacy rules engines or inconsistent human review. To succeed in an AI-first world, OCBGs must:

• Promote clarity with explicit definitions
• Provide structured references
• Enable logical thinking with clear decision frameworks
• Grant the AI decision authority to enforce rules

Organizations can start by applying AI to their existing guidelines to capture immediate benefits, then iterate toward a fully optimized, AI-ready information architecture.

---

In Part 3: We explore forecasting spend and the potential for more accurate reporting, demonstrating how AI transforms legal spend data from historical accounting into predictive intelligence.