A pre-bill review checklist for law firms

Review before the invoice leaves

A useful pre-bill review answers three questions: is the bill complete, are the details correct, and has the right person approved it? Set a billing cutoff and a review owner so questions have somewhere to go before invoices are sent.

The checklist below is a practical starting point to adapt to your firm’s engagement terms and approval process. It is not a promise that software will find every omission.

Five checks for each draft bill

1. Confirm the client and matter. Check who receives the bill, the matter being charged, the billing period and relevant instructions. A correct amount on the wrong matter is still a problem.
2. Verify the applicable rates. Compare draft charges with the firm’s approved billing terms. Check exceptions and matter-specific settings as well as the timekeeper’s default rate.
3. Ask about missing work. Have timekeepers confirm whether billable time and expenses for the period have been entered. An empty activity list does not prove there was no work; do not invent entries to fill a gap.
4. Review descriptions and support. Look for duplicate entries, unclear narratives and expenses that need a receipt or explanation. Bring questions about chargeability or adjustments to the authorized reviewer.
5. Record approval. Resolve open questions, identify who approves the final version and confirm the agreed delivery method and due date before sending.

Look beyond the default setting

For example, a fictional firm updates a timekeeper’s default rate, but an older matter still has its own billing-rate setting. Checking only the default can miss the rate actually applied to a bill. Clio’s rate-type reporting documentation (opens in a new tab or window) describes this hierarchy. Compare the draft with the approved terms rather than assume one settings screen tells the whole story.

In Clio, billing permissions and rate settings (opens in a new tab or window) affect what users can do. Its draft and approval states (opens in a new tab or window) can support a review process, but firms must choose and configure their workflow. These are examples from clients’ existing software, not a Mako integration or a claim that every subscription has identical features.

Build a review packet before opening draft bills

A reviewer needs more than a list of invoice totals. Assemble the draft bills, the firm's approved billing terms for each matter, the time and expense records for the period, and an exception list from the previous cycle. Keep sensitive matter information in the authorized billing environment rather than spreading copies across ordinary messages.

Our suggested starting point is a clear cutoff. Identify which work dates belong to the cycle and when timekeepers are expected to finish entering their records. This is a firm workflow decision, not a universal legal deadline. It gives the preparer a consistent point from which to ask whether the bill is complete.

For a fictional September cycle, the firm might prepare drafts after confirming that work through September 30 has been entered. An expense received after that confirmation should be reviewed under the firm's procedure for late items. It should not disappear from consideration simply because the initial report was already generated.

Keep a small inventory of matters expected to bill, matters intentionally held and matters needing a decision. This makes omissions visible. If a matter has no draft invoice, establish whether there was no billable activity, the fee arrangement uses a different process, or an unresolved question prevented preparation.

Give every report an identifiable date or version. A later draft can have a different total after a correction, and an approval should refer to the version actually reviewed. A packet called “final” is not reliable evidence if several different files use that name.

Check the matter, recipient and billing instructions

Begin with identity. Confirm that the invoice belongs to the intended client and matter, that the description and billing period are correct, and that the proposed recipient is authorized under the firm's instructions. A familiar contact name is not enough when the client has several matters or different people manage different invoices.

For example, a fictional business client has a contract-advice matter and a dispute matter. Its accounting contact receives routine contract invoices, while the firm has separate instructions for the dispute. Combining the records without checking those instructions can create both a billing question and an unnecessary disclosure of matter information.

We recommend reviewing changes to recipient details through the firm's established process before delivery. If an unexpected message requests a new destination, flag it for confirmation rather than treating the latest message as sufficient authority. Record the resulting instruction where the person sending the bill will see it.

Also check the information needed for the client's payment workflow: an approved reference, matter label or purchase-order number, if applicable. Do not invent a reference to make a field look complete. Missing information should have an owner and a decision about whether it prevents the bill from being issued.

This review is an operational aid. It does not determine who is legally responsible for a charge or whether a particular disclosure is permitted. Questions about the engagement, confidentiality or a change in payment responsibility belong with the responsible attorney.

Worked example: the right hours at the wrong rate

Imagine a fictional matter with an approved hourly rate of $400 for the work being reviewed. A draft contains 6.5 hours at $425, for a total of $2,762.50. The hours may be correct, but the resulting charge differs from 6.5 hours at $400, which is $2,600. The difference is $162.50.

The first action is to confirm the applicable terms and dates, not simply choose the lower rate. A valid change could apply to part of a period, or the record being consulted could be outdated. In this example, assume the reviewer confirms that $400 applies to all 6.5 hours. The authorized correction can then be documented and the revised bill reviewed.

Where a rate change takes effect during a period, separate the affected entries. For a second fictional example, four hours at $400 and two hours at $425 produce $2,450: $1,600 plus $850. Applying $425 to all six hours produces $2,550, a $100 difference. The example assumes the dates and new terms have already been confirmed.

Changing a user's default rate does not, by itself, prove which rate a particular historical entry or matter should use. Check the actual draft line items and their supporting terms. If a settings change is needed, confirm who has permission to make it and whether it affects other matters or later bills.

Review completeness without inventing time

A pre-bill reviewer can identify questions about missing entries, but cannot reconstruct billable work from assumptions. Ask the responsible timekeeper to confirm whether work for the period has been recorded. A calendar item, a document timestamp or an empty activity report may prompt a question; none independently establishes the time or chargeability of work.

Use a targeted request. “Please confirm whether the September 24 conference has been entered for this matter” gives the timekeeper a specific item to resolve. “Add more time because the bill looks low” encourages a conclusion unsupported by the record. Keep the distinction between completing documentation and increasing an invoice clear.

Check for duplicated entries as well as missing ones. Similar descriptions can represent separate tasks, so similarity alone is not proof of duplication. Compare the dates, timekeeper, supporting context and the author's explanation. If a duplicate is confirmed, retain the correction trail required by the firm's process instead of leaving reviewers to infer why a total changed.

Consider entries assigned to the wrong matter. A charge may have the right timekeeper and rate but still appear on the wrong invoice. Ask for confirmation of the matter reference and supporting work, then route the correction through the authorized workflow. Recheck both affected drafts so one correction does not leave another bill incomplete.

Before closing the review, identify any timekeeping questions that remain unresolved. The firm should decide whether to hold the affected bill, exclude a particular item pending review, or take another supported action. The accounting preparer should not silently make a fee decision on the attorney's behalf.

Tie expenses to evidence and the correct treatment

For each expense on a draft, compare the amount and matter reference with the supporting record and the firm's approved billing terms. Confirm whether the expense was paid by the firm, incurred on a personal card, refunded or already charged. A receipt proves a purchase occurred; it does not automatically establish that the client should be billed for it.

In a fictional example, a $180 invoice supports an expense, but the draft includes that amount twice: once from an import and once from manual entry. If the records confirm a single billable expense, the proposed client charge should be reviewed as $180 rather than $360. Document which entry was duplicated and how the corrected draft was produced.

A personal-card purchase can involve two different processes: reviewing whether the client may be charged, and reviewing whether the firm should reimburse the cardholder. Those are separate decisions. Tracking one does not prove the other was completed. Keep the original record and its disposition connected so a payment or reimbursement is not accidentally repeated.

Where an expense includes mixed items or lacks a clear business purpose, request the missing detail instead of inferring it from the merchant. Ask for the receipt, what was purchased, which matter it relates to and whether a refund or reimbursement has occurred. Mako's bookkeeping support can be scoped around organizing these records and resolving accounting questions.

Also distinguish a client-bill correction from an accounting entry. Removing an expense from a draft does not necessarily erase the firm's cost, and adjusting the books does not necessarily update the billing system. Agree which system records each decision and who verifies the related records afterward.

Make descriptions understandable without rewriting the facts

Review narratives for clarity, duplication and obvious inconsistencies. A description should help the intended recipient understand the item within the firm's disclosure and billing policies. The accounting reviewer can flag vague wording or a mismatched date, but the person responsible for the work should supply any missing factual detail.

For example, “work on matter” may not explain the activity sufficiently for the firm's review process. Ask the timekeeper for an accurate description rather than replacing it with a more impressive task. A polished narrative is not an improvement if it changes what actually happened or reveals information that should not be included.

Keep editorial cleanup separate from substantive changes. Correcting an obvious formatting issue is different from changing the task, duration, chargeability or client allocation. Establish which edits a preparer may make and which require attorney or timekeeper confirmation. This reduces repeated questions while preserving the decisions that need professional judgment.

If client-specific billing guidelines apply, identify the version and the matters covered before relying on them. Do not assume that instructions for one client apply to another. Missing or conflicting guidance belongs on the exception list with a named person responsible for resolving it.

A useful final pass reads the invoice as a whole. Check that headings, dates, totals and narratives agree. A correct set of individual entries can still create confusion if the cover information describes the wrong period or an outdated matter name.

Approve the version that will actually be sent

Separate preparation, approval and delivery in the workflow, even if a small firm assigns several steps to one person. Preparation assembles the draft and identifies questions. Approval resolves the fee and release decisions. Delivery confirms that the approved version reaches the intended recipient through the agreed channel.

Clio's documentation describes an optional bill-approval step and notes that its displayed approval information does not show when approval occurred or which firm user approved it. If the firm needs that evidence, choose and verify an appropriate supporting record rather than assume a bill state supplies a complete approval history. Product behavior should be checked against the version and configuration actually in use.

Our suggested approval note identifies the matter, draft version or invoice reference, total, resolved exceptions, approver and decision date. If a material change is made after approval, return the changed version for the necessary review. Do not reuse an earlier approval to imply that an altered bill was considered.

Before delivery, compare the approved total with the final invoice, confirm recipient instructions and check the agreed due date and payment information. Treat a proposed change in payment instructions as its own verification task. The person sending a bill should know what to do if a required check is incomplete.

Retain a delivery status that reflects what is known. “Sent” may mean the sending process accepted the message; it does not prove the client read it, agreed with it or paid it. If delivery fails, assign follow-up and correct the destination through the authorized process before trying again.

Assign an owner to each billing question

A draft-bill exception is easier to resolve when the next step is explicit. Record the matter, the item requiring clarification and who can authorize a correction. Separate missing information from a fee decision that needs the responsible attorney.

After an invoice is issued, keep follow-up notes connected to the outstanding balance. A disputed item, a promised payment and an unanswered reminder need different responses; an aging total alone does not explain the next action.

Use one exception log instead of repeated message chains

A compact exception log helps the firm see which bills are ready and which require a decision. Record a matter reference, the issue, the evidence or question, the responsible person, the requested response date and the outcome. Keep sensitive supporting detail in the designated system and use a reference in the log when that is sufficient.

Useful categories include rate question, missing time confirmation, unsupported expense, recipient instruction, attorney fee decision and delivery issue. Categories help route work; they should not replace a precise explanation. “Rate question” is less actionable than “Confirm whether the new rate applies to entries before September 15.”

For a fictional cycle, three bills might be waiting for different reasons. One needs a timekeeper's confirmation, another needs a receipt, and a third needs the responsible attorney's decision about an adjustment. Sending the same general reminder to everyone is less useful than routing each request to the person who can answer it.

When a response arrives, connect it to the resulting action. If the approved rate is confirmed, note which draft was regenerated. If an expense remains unsupported, record the firm's decision about that item. A answered question is not fully resolved if nobody applies the decision to the bill being sent.

Review recurring categories after the cycle. Several rate questions on the same matter may indicate a setup issue; repeated missing receipts may indicate an unclear handoff. Use the pattern to improve the next cycle, while keeping each current bill's approval decision explicit.

Give unpaid invoices a next step

After sending, maintain a list of outstanding invoices with a responsible person and next follow-up date. Separate missing delivery details from a disputed charge or a payment-timing question. Your firm decides how to handle fee adjustments and client relationships.

Retainer questions require their own review. An unpaid invoice is not, by itself, an instruction to transfer client funds. Coordinate any proposed transfer with the responsible attorney and the agreed authorization process.

A repeatable review creates a clearer handoff between accounting support and the firm. Mako’s workspace can support record requests and exchange; invoicing stays in the firm’s existing billing system. No process guarantees collection or a particular payment timetable.

Hand off approved invoices to collection follow-up

After issuance, the useful question changes from “Is this draft ready?” to “What is the next action on this outstanding balance?” Keep the invoice date, amount, delivery status, relevant correspondence and assigned follow-up together. An aging report can help identify balances to review, but it does not explain every reason a balance remains unpaid.

In a fictional example, one invoice is awaiting corrected delivery details, another has a disputed expense and a third has a documented payment promise. These need different responses. Correcting delivery, obtaining an attorney decision and checking whether a promised payment arrived are separate tasks with different owners.

Use the firm's approved communication protocol for reminders. Confirm that a payment has not already been received or applied elsewhere before sending another request. If a client raises a dispute, preserve the details and route the issue to the responsible person rather than continuing a generic reminder sequence as though nothing changed.

Questions involving retainers or trust funds should follow the separate authorization and recordkeeping process. An unpaid operating invoice should not automatically trigger a movement of client funds. For California accounts, Mako's trust accounting service can be discussed alongside billing support, with the responsible attorney retaining the relevant decisions.

This handoff is intended to make work clearer and reduce avoidable follow-up. It does not guarantee payment or establish how a firm must handle a fee dispute. Confirm the engagement and applicable obligations before adopting a particular collection practice.

Put the checklist into one billing cycle

Start with a manageable group of matters and the five checks at the top of this guide. Confirm the cutoff and review owner, assemble the supporting records, record exceptions and route decisions. At the end, compare the approved drafts with the invoices actually issued and identify anything still awaiting action.

Measure the process using facts the firm can verify: bills awaiting information, unresolved rate questions, missing expense support and drafts changed after approval. Avoid attributing every delay to one person or promising a specific improvement from a single cycle. Use the evidence to decide which handoff needs clarification.

When seeking outside help, describe the volume of matters, billing frequency, existing software and where work is getting held up. Mako's billing and collections support can be scoped around those needs. Request a consultation with business contact details only; client invoices and matter records belong in the agreed secure workflow.

Suggested billing workflows and fictional examples for discussion with your firm. Clio primary documentation checked October 5, 2026. Firm-approved engagement terms, applicable requirements and current product configuration govern the actual process; this guide does not promise collection or authorize transfers.