Invoicing software for law firms is usually chosen on how quickly it produces a bill. The better question is what the bill looks like to the person deciding whether to query it. A client reading a legal invoice is doing one thing: trying to match what they remember happening to what they are being charged for. A bill that lets them do that is paid; a bill that does not is queried, and a queried bill is both slower and, after the argument, smaller. This page is about what has to be on the invoice for that matching to be possible.
Traceable lines beat a tidy total
Each line should trace to a matter, a fee earner, a date and a rate. It is more text and it is read more kindly, because the client can check the two entries they actually remember and stop. A single narrative line for $6,400 invites a conversation about all of it.
Put write-offs where they happened
A discount shown against the line it relates to is a courtesy the client can see. The same money taken off the total reads as a negotiating position, and it teaches clients to negotiate. This is a formatting decision with a realisation consequence.
Disbursements are not fees
Court fees, search fees and expert fees pass through the firm and are usually shown separately and without a mark-up, because that is what they are. Mixing them into the fee lines is the fastest way to make an honest bill look like a padded one, and it is the kind of thing a client remembers on the next matter.
Questions people ask about invoicing software for law firms
Should the narrative be detailed or brief?
Detailed enough to be checkable, brief enough to be read. A useful test: could the client match each line to something they knew was happening that week?
How soon after the work should a bill go out?
As close as the firm can manage. Bills argued about are almost always old ones, because the client's memory of the work has faded while the number has not.
Does the invoice have to state the basis of the fee?
In many jurisdictions the fee basis has to have been communicated to the client, and restating it on the bill is cheap insurance. Your own regulator's rules govern the requirement.