Many Law Firms Lack Software to Ensure Client Invoice Compliance
Accusations of third-party bias, a lack of technology, and misunderstandings over a client's guidance are leading to reduced invoices, according to a new survey.
March 25, 2020 at 11:30 AM
3 minute read
While law firms may think they are complying with clients' billing guidelines, many can be shocked when they see deductions on their submitted invoices, according to a new report.
The "2020 CLM Defense Counsel Study," released March 18 and sponsored by tech companies Bottomline Technologies, Envision Legal, InvoicePrep and others, surveyed 400 mostly insurance defense attorneys. The report found that 74% of these attorneys feel they are complying with billing guidelines better than three years ago.
However, lawyers also report that after their client reviews the firm's proposed invoice, and an appeals process takes place, the original bill is reduced by 7%.
InvoicePrep founder, CEO and president Wayne Nykyforchyn said the "significant" reduction highlights that the process, people and technology needs to be improved.
Nykyforchyn noted the survey reported 89% of respondents didn't have software, separate from a time and billing system, to pre-check an invoice against client guidelines before submission, which he called a "startling" statistic given the 7% invoice reduction rate.
"We are 20 years into e-billing and invoice compliance, and 89% aren't using tools to go after that 7% they say they are getting reduced," he said.
Nykyforchyn explained firms can avoid significant reductions by adequately "translating" the description of the attorney's work to meet the client's guidelines.
To be sure, creating an efficient, universal language to describe legal services is a task more associations are working toward as data-driven decisions become a mainstay in corporate legal departments.
Indeed, in December 2019, the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) joined the Standards Advancement for the Legal Industry (SALI) Alliance to develop a "matter standard" for describing legal matters among law firms, corporate clients and legal tech companies. In February Winston & Strawn and a team of Am Law 100 firms, Fortune 500 legal-ops departments, alternative legal service providers (ALSPs) and others launched a collaborative effort to create real-time metric dashboards for diversity, pro bono engagement, budget accuracy, billing time and other measurements.
While initiatives are growing for more metrics, Nykyforchyn noted invoice reductions aren't completely driven by law firms not matching up to their clients' expectations.
Indeed, only 18% of respondents said the adjustments are objective and are based on clear guideline violations, according to the survey. Still, Nykyforchyn said the guidelines are detailed, but the bigger issue is many lawyers question the subjectivity of clients' third-party auditors.
"The guidelines are very detailed but there is this area around them called reasonableness that is very subjective. You can't have details around reasonableness and I think for the law firms it's hard for them to accept that," he explained.
Despite the growing need for details and data, law firms see client-required metrics as a challenge over the next five years.
"I think they are definitely challenged with keeping up with their clients in terms of collecting data to demonstrate the value they are giving to their clients. You need the tools and as far as your business, you need the people, the tools and workflows," Nykyforchyn said.
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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: The Recorder and Law.com's California Legal Awards 2025
- 2The Week in Data Dec. 13: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
- 3Antitrust Class Actions Against CVS, Other Pharmacy Benefit Managers Are Piling Up
- 4Judge Grinds NY's Cannabis Licensing Regime to a Halt Again
- 5On the Move and After Hours: Barclay Damon; VLJ; Barnes & Thornburg
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