Time Entry Narrative Cleaner
At the end of the day or before a billing run, when your time notes are accurate but too terse, block-billed or inconsistent for the client to accept.
Time entries are where good work turns into collected fees, and they are where a lot of revenue quietly leaks away. Notes like "research and calls, 3.2" invite write-downs, and many client billing guidelines reject block-billed or vague entries outright. Rewriting them by hand at the end of the month is tedious, and the temptation to pad a thin entry is a real ethical risk, not a style issue.
This prompt rewrites your rough notes into clear, one-task-per-entry narratives in the client's required format. It starts each line with an action verb, names the document or issue your notes identify and splits block-billed entries. When the notes do not say how the time divides between tasks, it keeps the total and flags the entry rather than inventing an allocation. It then lists entries that look duplicated, entries that remain vague and entries that may be non-billable.
The prompt is built to never add work that is not in your notes, because embellished narratives can produce an unreasonable fee under ABA Model Rule 1.5 and its state counterparts, and a bill that misdescribes the work raises honesty concerns of its own. Claude cannot know what you actually did beyond what you wrote, and it cannot decide whether time is billable under your agreement. The timekeeper confirms every entry, every hour and every split, and the output is a draft for attorney review.
The Prompt
Rewrite my rough time notes into billing entries for [CLIENT NAME], matter [MATTER NAME]. <document name="time_notes"> [PASTE ROUGH TIME NOTES: DATE, TIMEKEEPER, HOURS, DESCRIPTION] </document> <document name="billing_format"> [PASTE THE CLIENT'S REQUIRED BILLING FORMAT OR TASK CODES, OR WRITE "NONE"] </document> Rules: 1. Never add tasks, time, people, documents or detail that are not in the notes. If a note is too thin to describe properly, keep it short and flag it instead of filling it in. 2. Split block-billed notes into separate entries, one task per entry. Only assign hours to a split entry if the notes state the time for that task; otherwise keep the total and flag it as "needs time split by attorney." 3. Start each narrative with an action verb and name the document, person or issue the notes identify (for example "Draft reply brief section on standing" rather than "work on brief"). 4. Follow the billing format above, including task codes if given. 5. Keep privileged strategy out of the narrative where the notes allow a neutral description, and flag entries where that is hard. Output a table: Date | Timekeeper | Hours | Revised narrative | Task code (if any) | Flag. Then list: - Entries that look duplicated (same date, similar task, different timekeepers or repeated time). - Entries that are vague even after rewriting. - Entries that may be non-billable under the client's format. For every flagged entry, quote the original note. Embellished narratives can produce an unreasonable fee under ABA Model Rule 1.5 (or [JURISDICTION]'s counterpart) and a misleading bill. This is a draft for my review before billing.
Example Output
A table of rewritten, one-task-per-line entries in the client's format with a flag column, followed by lists of possible duplicates, still-vague entries and possibly non-billable items.
Illustrative example — names, figures, and facts are fictional.
REVISED TIME ENTRIES (DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW) Client: Pellridge Logistics, Inc. | Matter: Wage-and-hour class action defense Date | TK | Hrs | Revised narrative | Code | Flag [DATE] | JMS | 1.4 | Review plaintiffs' second set of document requests and identify custodians for requests 4-11 | L310 | [DATE] | JMS | 0.6 | Telephone conference with client HR director regarding timekeeping system records | L310 | [DATE] | JMS | 2.3 | Draft responses and objections to second set of document requests; research proportionality objections | L310 | Needs time split by attorney (two tasks, one total) [DATE] | ALK | 0.4 | Review file | L120 | Vague even after rewrite: notes do not say which documents [DATE] | ALK | 0.6 | Telephone conference with client HR director regarding timekeeping system records | L310 | Possible duplicate of JMS entry; confirm both attendees were needed [DATE] | ALK | 0.3 | Prepare binder of deposition exhibits | L330 | Possibly non-billable: client format lists "clerical tasks" as non-billable POSSIBLE DUPLICATES - Two entries for the same HR call (JMS 0.6, ALK 0.6). Original notes: "call w/ HR re timekeeping" (JMS) and "HR call" (ALK). STILL VAGUE - ALK "review file" (original note: "file review .4"). Add what was reviewed and why. POSSIBLY NON-BILLABLE - ALK binder preparation. Billing format, para. 6: "Clerical and administrative tasks will not be paid." NOTES - No entry was given added detail beyond the original notes. The JMS 2.3 entry combines drafting and research (original note: "RFP responses + proportionality research 2.3"); please allocate the time.
Tips
- •Paste the client's billing format or outside counsel guidelines excerpt. Without it, Claude can only apply general clarity rules.
- •Do not ask Claude to make entries sound more substantial. The value of the prompt is clarity, and any added detail that did not happen is a billing integrity problem.
- •Fix the time split yourself when Claude flags it. Allocating hours across tasks is a factual question only the timekeeper can answer.
- •Run it daily on small batches rather than monthly on hundreds of notes. Memory of what you did fades fast, and you can correct flagged entries while you still remember.
- •Review every entry before it goes on an invoice. The output is a draft for attorney review, not a final bill, and any rule or guideline section it cites must be verified against the source.
Frequently Asked Questions
Will Claude make my time entries look better than the work actually was?
It should not, and the prompt forbids it. The instruction is to clarify, not embellish: name the task and the document your notes already identify, split combined tasks and flag anything too thin to describe. If a note says "review file," the rewrite stays short and gets flagged. Adding detail or time that did not happen is a billing integrity and honesty problem, not a formatting choice.
How does it handle block billing?
It splits each block-billed note into one entry per task. If your note says how long each task took, the hours are split accordingly. If it does not, the prompt keeps the total on one line and flags it as needing a time split by the attorney, because only the timekeeper knows how the time actually divided. Guessing an allocation would make the bill inaccurate.
Can I use UTBMS task codes with this prompt?
Yes, if you paste the code set or the client's required codes in the billing format block. Claude will assign the code that best matches each narrative and leave the field blank when nothing fits. Check code assignments before billing, because some clients reject invoices with mismatched codes, and Claude may choose differently than your billing team would.
Is it safe to paste time entries into Claude?
Time entries often reveal strategy and privileged subject matter, so treat them like any other confidential client information. Use a plan whose data terms fit your firm's AI policy, and consider replacing client names with matter numbers. The prompt also asks Claude to keep privileged strategy out of the narratives where a neutral description works, which helps if invoices are later produced in a fee dispute.
Get New Prompts Like This Every Week
Join the free Claude for Lawyers newsletter — weekly prompts, tutorials, and practice-specific guides.