Turn Rough Time Notes Into Clean Billing Narratives
Paste a week of rough time notes and the client's billing guidelines, and get back flagged problem entries, clean task-based narratives with the time unchanged, and a short invoice cover note.
When to use this
Use this at the end of each week or billing cycle, when you have a pile of shorthand entries, calendar items, and email subjects to turn into invoice-ready narratives. Claude flags entries that are block-billed, vague, likely administrative, or out of line with the client's guidelines, then rewrites the descriptions while leaving every time figure exactly as you recorded it. You confirm every entry before it goes on a bill.
Billing narratives are where good work gets undersold or written off. "Review file" and "research" tell the client nothing, block entries invite reductions, and entries that break a client's billing guidelines get cut at audit. Rewriting them is tedious, and it usually happens late, in a hurry, from notes that made sense only on the day.
Claude can do the first pass well: it reads the rough entries alongside the client's guidelines, flags the problems with the guideline quoted, and rewrites each description to say what was done and why. The rule that matters most is in every prompt below: Claude never adds, removes, or rounds time. Where an entry is vague enough that Claude cannot tell what work was done, it marks the entry for you instead of inventing a description.
The timekeeper owns every narrative and every number. Before an invoice goes out, confirm each entry against your own records and keep the reasonableness requirements of Model Rule 1.5 (or your jurisdiction's version) in mind. If you used Claude or any other tool to do the work being billed, read what ABA Formal Opinion 512 says about billing for that time before you decide how to bill it.
The Workflow
Gather the week's notes and the client's guidelines
Collect the rough time entries, the relevant calendar items, and the subject lines of the emails you worked on, plus the client's outside counsel or billing guidelines if they have them. Strip details that neither the guidelines nor the narrative needs, such as personal information about third parties. Paste each source in its own document tag.
PromptI am cleaning up billing entries for [CLIENT NAME OR CODE], matter [MATTER NAME OR NUMBER]. We represent [CLIENT] as [ROLE, e.g., defendant in a contract dispute]. The billing period is [DATES]. <document name="time_entries"> [PASTE ROUGH ENTRIES: date | timekeeper | hours | note] </document> <document name="calendar_and_email"> [PASTE RELEVANT CALENDAR ITEMS AND EMAIL SUBJECT LINES] </document> <document name="billing_guidelines"> [PASTE THE CLIENT'S BILLING GUIDELINES, OR "none"] </document> First, restate the time entries as a table with columns Date | Timekeeper | Hours | Original note, exactly as given. Total the hours by timekeeper. Do not change any figure. Then list any entry you cannot read or match to a date.
What you get: A clean table of the original entries with totals that match your records. If the totals do not match, fix the input before going further.
Flag the problem entries
Have Claude review each entry against general narrative standards and the client's guidelines. Every flag should quote the guideline it relies on, so you can check it and so you are not acting on a rule the client never imposed.
PromptReview each entry in the table and flag any that fall into these categories: 1. Block billing: several distinct tasks under one time figure 2. Vague description: e.g., "review file", "research", "attention to matter", "emails" 3. Possibly administrative or non-billable: e.g., scheduling, file organization, internal logistics 4. Conflicts with the client's billing guidelines Return a table: Date | Original note | Flag(s) | Reason | Guideline quote (exact text and section from the guidelines, or "general standard, no client guideline"). Do not decide whether anything should be written off. Do not change any hours. If an entry is acceptable as written, say so.
What you get: A flag table with the guideline quoted for every guideline-based flag. Category 3 flags are questions for the timekeeper, not write-off decisions.
Rewrite the narratives with time unchanged
Now have Claude rewrite each description as a task-based narrative: what was done, on what, and for what purpose. The hours column must come back identical. Where Claude cannot tell what work was done, it marks the entry for you rather than filling the gap.
PromptRewrite the narrative for each entry. Rules: - Each narrative states the task, the subject matter, and the purpose, in past tense, in one or two sentences (e.g., "Drafted response to plaintiff's first requests for production; analyzed requests 4-9 for objections based on overbreadth."). - Use only information in the time entries, calendar items, and email subjects. Do not add tasks, documents, or details that are not there. - Never add, remove, round, or reallocate time. The Hours column must match the original exactly. - If you cannot tell what work was performed, keep the original note and add [CLARIFY: what was done?]. - Follow the client's guidelines on format, e.g., [ANY REQUIRED TASK CODES OR LENGTH LIMITS]. - Do not disclose privileged strategy in more detail than the original note does. Return: Date | Timekeeper | Hours (unchanged) | Original note | Revised narrative. Then re-total the hours and confirm the totals match Step 1.
What you get: Revised narratives with matching totals. Any [CLARIFY] entry needs the timekeeper's input before it can be billed.
Propose splits for block entries
For block-billed entries, have Claude suggest how to break the work into separate task entries. It should never guess how the time divides; it leaves a placeholder for the timekeeper to fill in from memory or records.
PromptFor each entry flagged as block billing, propose a split into separate task-level entries that the timekeeper can confirm. For each proposed line give: the date, the timekeeper, a task narrative written to the same rules as the previous step, and [CONFIRM TIME] in place of an hours figure. Base each task only on what the original note, calendar items, and email subjects show; if the note mentions a task you cannot describe, add [CLARIFY]. Under each split, show the original total and a line reading "Split lines must total [ORIGINAL HOURS]". Do not estimate or suggest how the time should be divided between tasks, even approximately.
What you get: Task-level lines with [CONFIRM TIME] placeholders. The timekeeper enters the actual allocation and checks that the lines add back to the original figure.
Draft the invoice cover note
Once the entries are confirmed, ask for a short cover note that summarizes the period's work and where the matter stands. It is a client communication, so it should be plain and accurate, and it should not promise outcomes.
PromptUsing the confirmed narratives below, draft a short invoice cover note to [CLIENT CONTACT] for [BILLING PERIOD]. <document name="confirmed_entries"> [PASTE THE CONFIRMED ENTRIES] </document> Include: (1) two to four bullet points summarizing the main work, grouped by phase or task, (2) one or two sentences on where the matter stands and what comes next, drawn only from the entries and this note: [STATUS NOTE], (3) a line inviting questions about the invoice. Under 175 words. Plain language, no legal conclusions, no predictions about outcome, no hours or amounts unless I add them.
What you get: A brief, readable note to attach to the invoice. Check that every statement matches the confirmed entries.
Timekeeper and attorney review
The timekeeper confirms every narrative, resolves every [CLARIFY] and [CONFIRM TIME] placeholder, and checks the totals against the original records. The billing attorney reviews the invoice for reasonableness under Model Rule 1.5 and against the client's guidelines before it is sent. Claude's flags and rewrites are suggestions, not billing decisions.
Example Output
Illustrative example — names, facts, and figures are fictional.
FLAGGED ENTRIES (fictional matter: Corvane Systems v. Tidewell Logistics, we represent Tidewell) Date | Original note | Flag | Guideline quote 9/22 | "Research, emails, call w/ client re docs" (3.4) | Block billing; vague | Guidelines s. 4.2: "Each task must be recorded as a separate entry." 9/23 | "Review file" (0.8) | Vague | General standard, no client guideline 9/24 | "Calendar depo dates" (0.3) | Possibly administrative | Guidelines s. 5.1: "Scheduling and calendaring are not billable." REVISED NARRATIVES (hours unchanged) 9/23 | RK | 0.8 | Original: "Review file" | Revised: Review file [CLARIFY: what was done?] 9/25 | RK | 1.6 | Original: "draft RFP resp, objections" | Revised: Drafted responses and objections to Corvane's first requests for production. PROPOSED SPLIT (9/22, original 3.4) - Researched [CLARIFY: research topic not shown in notes, calendar, or email subjects]. [CONFIRM TIME] - Telephone conference with client regarding collection of shipping records (calendar: "Call w/ Tidewell re shipping records"). [CONFIRM TIME] - Reviewed and responded to opposing counsel's emails regarding ESI protocol (email subject: "Re: ESI protocol draft"). [CONFIRM TIME] Split lines must total 3.4. Totals check (all entries above are RK): 6.1 original / 6.1 revised. Match. DRAFT FOR TIMEKEEPER REVIEW. No time has been added, removed, or reallocated.
Tips
- •Always ask Claude to restate and total the hours first, and to re-total after rewriting. A mismatch is the fastest way to catch an error.
- •Paste the client's billing guidelines every time, not from memory. Flags tied to a quoted guideline are much easier to act on than general advice.
- •Keep narratives specific but not revealing. Describe the task and purpose without spelling out strategy the original note did not.
- •Treat "possibly administrative" flags as questions. Whether a task is billable depends on the engagement terms and the client's guidelines, and that is the timekeeper's call.
- •Do this weekly. Notes that are a week old are still recoverable; notes from last month often end up as [CLARIFY] entries.
- •If a client disputes an invoice later, the billing-dispute-responder prompt picks up where this workflow ends.
A note on confidentiality
Time entries and email subject lines can reveal privileged strategy, client identities, and information about opposing parties. Paste only the entries and guidelines needed, use matter codes where possible, and use a Team or Enterprise plan whose commercial terms do not use your content for training (or confirm your consumer-plan privacy settings). Every narrative and time figure is a draft for the timekeeper and billing attorney to confirm against firm records; Claude never sets or changes the time billed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Will Claude change my hours?
It should not, and every prompt in this workflow forbids it. Claude restates the original hours, rewrites only the descriptions, and re-totals at the end so you can confirm nothing moved. For block entries it proposes task lines with [CONFIRM TIME] placeholders instead of estimating an allocation.
Can Claude decide which entries to write off?
No. It flags entries that look vague, block-billed, administrative, or inconsistent with the client's guidelines, and it quotes the guideline it relies on. Whether to bill, adjust, or write off an entry is a decision for the timekeeper and billing attorney.
What if my rough note is too vague for Claude to rewrite?
Claude keeps your original note and adds a [CLARIFY] marker. Fill in what you actually did from your calendar, emails, or work product. Claude is told not to invent a description, because a narrative for work that was not done is worse than a vague one.
How should I bill for work done with Claude's help?
Read ABA Formal Opinion 512 and any guidance from [JURISDICTION] on billing for work done with generative AI, and check the client's billing guidelines and your engagement letter. Fees must be reasonable under Model Rule 1.5; the billing attorney decides how to apply that to the matter.
Prompts used in this workflow
Get New Workflows Like This Every Week
Join the free Claude for Lawyers newsletter — practical workflows, prompts, and guides for everyday practice.