Inside Wolters Kluwer's Take on Machine Learning in E-Billing
The LegalVIEW BillAnalyzer looks to support, not supplant, corporate legal department billing staff.
April 09, 2017 at 06:25 PM
3 minute read
It's no secret that many law firms bill clients as much as they reasonably can for services. Corporate legal departments working with outside counsel often go through invoices line by line looking for potential overcharges or compliance missteps before payments are made, forcing law firms and legal departments into standoffs over invoicing.
Wolters Kluwer's LegalVIEW BillAnalyzer is a new tool in the belt of corporate legal departments using Wolters' billing software. The BillAnalzyer software uses machine learning to help bill reviewers find potential overcharges in invoices.
David Moran, senior director of product management for Wolters Kluwer's Legal Analytics, spoke to Legaltech News about the new product and its machine learning capabilities.
Who it serves: Like many Wolters Kluwer products, BillAnalyzer is geared toward high-volume work. While the product is scalable, Moran said corporate legal departments and insurance claim defense organizations “that have a significant throughput of invoices in a month (greater than 400) and oversee a number of law firms (75-plus) are ones that should look at this offering.” High volumes and huge data sets are where machine learning approaches actually bring efficiency benefits, so gearing the product this way actually aligns best with the technology.
What it does: BillAnalyzer takes in invoices and uses machine learning to establish rules and hierarchies that allow the software to flag probable areas worth contesting, which then go to billing department staff for expert review. Moran noted the technology can identify possible overcharges. “Reviewers are able to identify in a timely manner issues that are ambiguous, like if the work being billed for was done by the proper level of experience (i.e. paralegal vs. associate),” Moran said.
Keeping tech “disruption” at bay: Machine learning tools often are designed with the intent to replace manual human labor, but the BillAnalyzer positions itself as squarely in the realm of assistive technology for staff. Moran said the workflow enabled by BillAnalyzer “allows reviewers to compare invoices against internal models,” but the work of that comparison is still imagined as a human job. Moran noted that the product could be used on either side of human review, but BillAnalyzer doesn't seem to be looking to automate anyone out of a job.
What it's trying to do: Basically, the tool infuses machine learning into invoicing analysis to provide “better benchmarking and identification of noncompliant invoices,” Moran said. Perhaps a fairly modest goal in a technology atmosphere promising a machine learning revolution, BillAnalyzer is looking more to dip a machine-learning toe into e-billing to see how the technology can best be used to curb legal spending costs.
Feeding the machine: While this tool has a lot to offer corporate legal departments, it might create headaches for billing specialists on the law firm side. Wolters Kluwer's own research finds that firms are asked by clients to support an average of 13 different e-billing platforms. Given that law firm billing staffs are already oversaturated with different platforms they have to submit invoices to, they're unlikely to be thrilled about adding another platform to their docket.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250