The Oklahoma Bar Journal May 2026

L aw P ractice T ips

Transforming Billing Into Effective Client Communication

By Julie Bays

E ARLIER THIS YEAR, I wrote a Courts & More tip about a legal technology startup that gener ated a great deal of interest at ABA TECHSHOW. The company, CollBox, focuses on a persistent challenge in law practice: getting paid. 1 Their solution is straightfor ward. They step in before accounts are sent to collections and follow up with clients through structured and consistent communication. It resonated with many lawyers because it addresses something we all recognize but often avoid. Most lawyers do not enjoy calling clients about unpaid bills. At the time, my takeaway was simple: While tools like this can be helpful, they are not a substitute for a solid billing system. If expec tations are unclear, invoices are delayed or clients do not under stand what they are being charged for, then the problem begins long before collections. Since writing that piece, I have been thinking more about billing but from a different perspective. A PROMPT FROM ETHICS AND AI Recently, I had the opportunity to present at the Virginia State Bar Techshow on artificial intel ligence and legal ethics. As part of that program, we discussed a new ethics opinion approved by

the Supreme Court of Virginia addressing fees in the context of emerging technologies. 2 The question the opinion tack les is one that many lawyers are now asking: If technology allows me to complete work more effi ciently, can I still charge a reason able fee? The answer, perhaps not sur prisingly, is yes. But the reasoning is important. The opinion empha sizes that value is not determined solely by time. Instead, it reflects the lawyer’s judgment, experience, skill and the results obtained. That is not a new concept. Oklahoma lawyers have long operated under ORPC 1.5, which sets out multiple factors for deter mining the reasonableness of a fee, only one of which is the time and labor required. 3 But hearing this issue framed in the context of rapidly advancing technology prompted me to recon sider something more fundamental: If time is no longer the primary proxy for value, how are we com municating that value to our clients? The answer, in many cases, is found in the billing statement itself. BILLING AS A COMMUNICATION TOOL Billing is often treated as an administrative function that hap pens at the end of the month or at

the end of a task. In reality, it is one of the most consistent and import ant communications a lawyer has with a client. Under ORPC 1.4, lawyers are required to keep clients reason ably informed about the status of their matter and to explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary to permit informed decisions. 4 Billing statements are one of the most regular opportunities to do exactly that. Yet many billing statements fall short. They rely on abbreviations, vague descriptions and internal shorthand that may make sense to the lawyer but provide little clarity to the client. Entries such as “research,” “review” or “con ference” do not tell the client what was done, why it mattered or how it moved the matter forward. By contrast, a well-crafted bill ing entry tells a story. It explains the issue being addressed, the work performed and the relevance of that work to the client’s goals. The difference is illustrated in the billing comparison exam ples. A vague entry may tech nically record time, but it does not communicate value. A clear entry, written in plain language, demonstrates judgment, reinforces progress and builds trust.

66 | MAY 2026

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL