Example agent design
Pre-Bill Review Agent for Law Firms
A pre-bill review agent checks every proforma entry against the client's billing guidelines, rate letters, and staffing rules before the invoice goes out, and drafts the fix for the timekeeper and billing partner to approve. This is a starting design. An AI Blueprint adapts it to your goals and the systems it will connect to.
It proposes fixes from facts already in the entry or matter record and never adds time. The billing system still produces the invoice.
- Owner
- The billing partner, who approves write-downs, staffing exceptions, and release
- Reads
- Proforma entries and UTBMS codes · Client billing guidelines and rate letters · E-billing rejection reasons · Matter records within each user's permissions
- Never writes
- Hours or tasks, or an entry's date or timekeeper. It changes or releases nothing without timekeeper and billing-partner approval, and never submits to a client's e-billing platform.
- Typical cost
- AI Blueprint $4,500–$7,500, credited toward the build. Typical first build $35,000–$75,000. Agent Operations after launch $2,500/mo for one production agent. See the first engagement
The workflow
Pre-bill review today and with the agent
Planning comparison only. Scope, timing, and outcomes vary by data, workflow, approvals, adoption, and implementation conditions.
- Guideline checks
- TodayPartners review proformas line by line at month end.
- With the agentEvery entry is checked against the client's rules, and each flag cites its clause.
- Vague and block-billed entries
- TodayRejected under a client's billing guidelines after the invoice goes out.
- With the agentFlagged before release, with a narrative rewrite drafted from facts already in the entry.
- Rate and staffing exceptions
- TodayFound after the invoice goes out.
- With the agentHeld for the billing partner before release.
- Write-downs
- TodayRecorded without a reason anyone can learn from.
- With the agentEach proposed write-down carries the clause behind it, for the billing partner to approve.
- Rejections
- TodayWorked by hand from each client's e-billing portal.
- With the agentMapped to the clause behind them and drafted as appeals for partner approval.
How it runs
Five steps from proforma to release
An illustrative solution design, not a reported client result. It fits firms that bill hourly to institutional clients; for a mostly contingency-fee practice, a medical-record chronology agent usually comes first.
Turn each client's guidelines into rules
The agent extracts rate caps, approved timekeepers, staffing limits, non-billable tasks, and AI-use clauses from each client's guidelines, links each rule to its clause, and the billing manager approves the set.
Human approval point
Check every proforma entry
Fixed checks catch rate, timekeeper, increment, task-code, and duplicate problems. The model flags block billing, vague narratives, clerical work, and extra attendees, citing the clause each time.
Propose the fix, never more time
It drafts narrative rewrites from facts already in the entry or matter record and suggests splits, task-code changes, or write-downs. It does not add hours or tasks, or change a date or timekeeper.
Route to the timekeeper and billing partner
Timekeepers confirm that each rewrite is accurate. The billing partner approves write-downs, staffing exceptions, and release, and rate questions go to the billing manager.
Human approval point
Release, then learn from rejections
Approved changes post to the billing system, which still produces the invoice and LEDES file. E-billing rejections flow back, map to the clause behind them, and become draft appeals for partner approval.
Systems
The systems it reads
Aderant and Intapp sell billing-compliance tools inside their own systems. ITECS compares the native module first and builds only the cross-system, firm-specific layer the firm still needs.
- Billing system
- Proforma entries: timekeeper, hours, rate, narrative, and UTBMS codes, from Aderant, Elite 3E, Juris, PCLaw, or Clio.
- Document system
- Client guidelines, rate letters, and approved-timekeeper lists, from iManage, NetDocuments, or Microsoft 365.
- E-billing portals
- Rejection and reduction reasons from client e-billing portals, in LEDES and UTBMS terms.
- Matter records
- Narrative context, within each user's matter permissions.
Technologies ITECS evaluates and integrates; listing a product does not imply a formal partnership. The AI Blueprint confirms which system holds the authoritative record.
Controls
Read-heavy and write-controlled by design
- Read-heavy
- Reads the systems listed above through access scoped to this workflow.
- Write-controlled
- Writes nothing listed under Never writes in the spec at the top of this page. Anything it drafts waits at the approval points below.
- Approval points
- Timekeepers confirm each rewrite. The billing partner approves write-downs, staffing exceptions, and release, and rate questions go to the billing manager.
- Audit trail
- Each run keeps its inputs, sources, output, and the reviewer's decision.
In this design
- Proposed fixes come only from facts already in the entry or matter record. Hourly entries bill actual time, not time a tool saved.
- Retrieval inherits matter permissions and ethical walls from the source systems, and access is denied when a permission is unconfirmed.
- It runs under no-training terms ITECS verifies before production, and privileged material stays inside the firm's tenant or on its own server.
- Client guideline clauses that restrict AI use are tracked per client. Whether to seek a client's consent stays with the firm and its counsel.
- ITECS does not provide legal advice through its agents, and no design promises an outcome. The agent drafts and flags; the firm's attorneys review the work and make every decision.
Deployment fit
Where this design can run
- Hosted AI Agents
- Runs in a governed Linux environment ITECS operates, on frontier models through enterprise API agreements, connected to the billing system, the document system, and client e-billing portals through controlled integrations, with human review and an audit trail.
- Private AI Servers
- Runs on local models on a server inside your network, for time-entry narratives and client billing terms that should not leave it. The same build ladder applies; server hardware is quoted after a sizing call.
Typical first engagement
Start with an AI Blueprint
The AI Blueprint sets the actual build rung and its fixed-fee not-to-exceed. The rows below show the typical path and the catalog range for each step.
- FirstAI BlueprintAgent Discovery & Technical Specification. Credited toward the build.$4,500–$7,500
- Typical first buildIntegrated / Line-of-Business AgentIt is an integrated build because it reconciles billing entries, client guidelines, and e-billing rejections, with an audit trail and a reviewer workflow.$35,000–$75,000
- After launchAgent Operations, one production agent$2,500/mo
Prices from the published AI pricing catalog.
Customize this design
Bring your goals and your systems. The AI Blueprint decides the scope and the systems, not this example, and ends with a fixed-fee not-to-exceed for the build.
FAQ
Pre-Bill Review Agent FAQ
Does the agent add time or change billed hours?
No. It proposes narrative rewrites, splits, task-code changes, or write-downs from facts already in the entry or matter record. It never adds hours or tasks, or changes an entry's date or timekeeper.
Who approves changes before an invoice goes out?
Timekeepers confirm that each rewrite is accurate. The billing partner approves write-downs, staffing exceptions, and release, and rate questions go to the billing manager. The billing system still produces the invoice and LEDES file.
We already run Aderant or Intapp. Do we still need a pre-bill agent?
Maybe not. Both vendors sell billing-compliance tools inside their own systems, so ITECS compares the native module first and builds only the cross-system, firm-specific layer the firm still needs.
Does it submit invoices to client e-billing portals?
No. It reads rejection and reduction reasons from the portals and drafts the appeal or corrected resubmission for partner approval. Submission stays with the firm.
Is this legal advice?
No. ITECS does not provide legal advice through its agents. The agent applies rules the firm approved and drafts or flags for review; the firm's attorneys decide, and no design promises an outcome.
Related examples