A legal timekeeping software RFP should evaluate the complete workflow from work activity to an approved billing entry. Feature lists alone are not enough. Law firms need to understand what the system captures, how accurately it prepares entries, how lawyers review them, how client billing requirements are handled, and how approved time reaches existing financial systems.
This checklist can be used by law firm operations, finance, IT, innovation, and practice leadership when evaluating automated or AI-assisted timekeeping platforms.
1. Work Activity Capture
Ask vendors to describe exactly what the system can capture today.
Questions should include:
Area | Questions and checks |
Communication | Which email systems are supported?; Which calendar systems are supported?; Can it capture meetings or calls? |
Documents and research | Can the platform capture document activity?; Does it integrate with iManage Work or other DMS platforms?; Can it recognize browser or legal research activity?; Can it capture local file activity? |
Fallbacks | How is offline work handled?; Can lawyers create manual entries or timers when needed? |
Capture controls | Can administrators control which applications or websites are included?; Does the system capture content, metadata, screenshots, or only activity signals? |
Request a clear architecture diagram showing the path from each work source to the final time entry.
2. Matter Matching and Entry Accuracy
Automatic capture has limited value if the resulting entries require extensive cleanup.
Ask:
Accuracy area | Questions to ask |
Matter matching and uncertainty | How are clients and matters matched? What happens when the system is uncertain? Can the lawyer change the proposed matter easily? |
Grouping and splitting | Can multiple activities be combined? Can one activity be split into separate entries? |
Duplicates, billing status, and corrections | How does the software prevent duplicate entries? Can it distinguish billable and non-billable activity? How does it learn from corrections? |
Evidence and pilot testing | What accuracy metrics can the vendor demonstrate? Can the vendor run a pilot using the firm's real matter structure? |
The RFP should require vendors to explain where AI is used and where deterministic rules are used.
3. Billing Narratives and Coding
Legal billing quality depends on more than duration.
Evaluate whether the platform can:
Area | Questions and checks |
Narrative quality | Draft clear billing descriptions; Follow firm narrative standards; Avoid vague terminology; Apply practice-specific language |
Billing codes | Suggest task codes; Suggest activity codes; Support UTBMS where required |
Lawyer control and client rules | Preserve lawyer control over final wording; Identify potentially sensitive invoice language; Handle multiple client-specific narrative requirements |
Ask vendors to provide before-and-after examples using realistic legal activities.
4. Outside Counsel Guidelines and Compliance
For firms with significant e-billing requirements, compliance should be tested during the time-entry process.
Ask:
Client-rule area | Questions to ask |
Configuration and variation | Can client billing guidelines be configured? Can rules vary by client and matter? |
Billing and coding checks | Can the system flag possible block billing? Can it identify prohibited activities or wording? Can it validate required task and activity codes? Can it warn about unauthorized timekeepers? |
Maintenance and auditability | Can rules be updated without vendor development? Who maintains the client rules? Is there an audit trail showing which rule triggered an alert? |
Release controls and exceptions | Does the system block release or simply warn the lawyer? How are exceptions handled? |
Avoid accepting a generic statement that the platform is "compliant." Ask which controls exist and how they operate.
5. Lawyer Review Workflow
Adoption often depends on how little friction the system adds.
Ask vendors to demonstrate the daily lawyer experience.
Evaluate:
Area | Questions and checks |
Review location | Where lawyers see captured activity; Whether entries can be reviewed on desktop and mobile; Whether lawyers need to open a separate application; Whether the system works inside Microsoft Teams or Outlook |
Editing and approval | How many clicks are required to approve an entry; How editing works; How entries are saved, merged, split, or released |
Follow-up | What happens when a lawyer ignores an entry; How reminders are handled |
Access permissions | Whether lawyers can see only their own captured activity; Whether assistants can help review time with appropriate permissions |
MIRA places review in Microsoft Teams and Outlook, where users can edit, save, merge, or release entries.
6. Billing, PMS and Finance Integrations
The RFP should identify the firm's systems of record before vendors respond.
Ask:
Integration area | Questions to ask |
Supported connections | Which billing and finance systems have existing connectors? Is Aderant supported? Is Elite supported? Are other systems available through APIs or custom connectors? |
Data and synchronization | How are clients, matters, timekeepers, rates, and codes synchronized? Is integration real-time or scheduled? |
Errors, closed matters, and corrections | How are errors handled? What happens when a matter is closed? Can approved entries be returned for correction? |
Audit, implementation, and upgrades | What audit logs exist? What implementation work is required from firm IT? What happens after the billing system is upgraded? |
MIRA's source material identifies Aderant and Elite integrations and describes custom integration options through its connectivity framework.
Integration acceptance tests
Ask every vendor to demonstrate the ordinary handoff and the failure cases. Confirm the exact finance product, version, deployment, and required fields before testing.
Test | Evidence of an acceptable outcome | Owner to assign |
Approved entry on an open matter | Destination record matches approved matter, duration, narrative, status, and required codes | Billing and integration owner |
Closed or invalid matter | Visible unresolved state and an agreed correction path | Billing |
Interrupted connection | Destination acceptance is known before retry | Integration owner |
Overlapping source activity | One justified final entry without double-counting | Timekeeper |
Correction after release | Agreed system of record and correction method | Billing |
These are procurement tests, not assertions about a vendor's implementation. Retain the observed result and any limitation for each one.
7. Microsoft 365 and DMS Fit
For Microsoft-centered law firms, ask vendors to demonstrate actual workflow integration rather than simply listing Microsoft as a supported technology.
Questions include:
Environment area | Questions to ask |
Teams, Outlook, and permissions | Is the product available inside Microsoft Teams? Does it integrate with Outlook? What Microsoft 365 permissions are required? |
Files and identity | Does it connect to OneDrive? How does identity and authentication work? |
Document management | Is iManage Work supported? Which DMS activity is captured? |
Components and updates | Does the user need a browser extension, desktop agent, Teams app, or multiple components? How are Microsoft updates handled? |
This section is particularly important when minimizing platform switching is a core adoption objective.
8. Privacy, Security and Governance
Time capture touches sensitive legal workflows, so privacy questions should be detailed.
Request information on:
Area | Questions and checks |
Hosting and identity | Data hosting; Tenant architecture; Identity and access management; Data residency |
Security and resilience | Encryption; Logging; Backup and disaster recovery; Incident response; Security certifications |
Privacy and retention | Data retention; Administrative access; Screenshot capture; Content capture; User exclusions; Personal activity controls |
AI governance | Subprocessors; AI model providers; Whether customer data trains shared models; Private AI or dedicated model options |
The firm should involve security, privacy, risk, and information-governance stakeholders before the pilot begins.
9. Implementation and Administration
Ask the vendor to describe the complete deployment, not only software installation.
Questions should include:
The deployment response should describe Typical deployment sequence; Required IT resources; Required billing-team resources; Configuration responsibilities; Training requirements; Pilot duration; Data migration requirements; Integration testing; Production cutover; User provisioning; Ongoing administration; Support model; Upgrade process; Cost of implementation; Cost of custom integration.
MIRA positions its product as a low-lift deployment with no implementation fees and a Microsoft 365-centered user experience. Firms should still validate these assumptions against their specific environment.
AI timekeeping implementation checklist
Translate the RFP response into a controlled deployment plan. Each stage needs an accountable owner and evidence that it is ready; the sequence below is not a promise that any vendor completes rollout in a fixed number of days.
Stage | Acceptance evidence |
Scope | Document practice groups, test matters, activity sources, exclusions, and the systems of record |
Permissions | Obtain approved access, define roles and retention, and record the firm's privacy and security review |
Pilot | Test representative tasks, source coverage, overlap handling, matter matching, and draft-entry accuracy |
Lawyer review | Confirm editing, exclusion, approval, and supported billing handoff with named reviewers |
Rollout | Train users, assign support and issue owners, and review adoption and correction measures |
Agree on success measures before deployment: entry timeliness, correction rates, reviewer effort, and reconciled approved output. Do not substitute total captured minutes for accurate billable time. Provide a rollback or suspension procedure if permissions, output accuracy, or the handoff fails.
For MIRA, ask the team to demonstrate the Microsoft Teams review experience and the connections relevant to the firm's actual environment. Verify supported configurations rather than assuming that every system named in an RFP is integrated. Keep the manual timer evaluation framework alongside the pilot record.
10. Commercial Model and Total Cost of Ownership
Compare total cost rather than license price alone.
Request:
Area | Questions and checks |
License and contract | Per-user or enterprise licensing; Minimum commitments; Contract term; Renewal terms; Exit and data-export terms |
Setup and services | Implementation fees; Integration fees; Support fees; Training fees; Professional services |
Usage and future changes | Data-storage charges; AI usage charges; Upgrade costs; Customization costs |
A product with a lower license cost can still have a higher total cost if implementation and administration are complex.
Run a 30-Day Pilot Before Final Selection
A pilot should answer measurable questions.
Score each vendor on:
Pilot Measure | What to Measure |
Capture completeness | Does the system surface the work lawyers expect to see? |
Matter matching | How often is the proposed matter correct? |
Narrative quality | How much editing is required? |
Coding quality | Are suggested codes useful and accurate? |
Compliance | Does the system flag known billing-rule issues? |
Review time | How long does daily review take? |
Integration | Do approved entries reach the billing system correctly? |
Privacy | Do lawyers understand and trust the capture model? |
Adoption | Do lawyers continue using the workflow without repeated intervention? |
Administration | How much ongoing work is required from IT and finance? |
The pilot should use a representative mix of partners, associates, practice groups, working styles, and technology usage.
A scorecard tied to actual requirements
Record each requirement, its importance, the evidence requested, the observed result, and any unresolved issue. Keep mandatory conditions separate from weighted preferences. A high average score should not cancel a failed critical requirement.
Criterion | Evidence to retain | Decision treatment |
Source coverage and matter context | Approved capture examples and correction tests | Score against the firm's required work sources |
Lawyer review and adoption | Observed review effort and user feedback | Compare with the baseline routine |
Billing connection | Reconciled accepted entries and exception tests | Treat unresolved critical transfer issues as a hold |
Privacy and governance | Approved collection scope, terms, access, and retention | Require clearance from the responsible firm owners |
Commercial and implementation scope | Written fees, responsibilities, support, and exit terms | Compare like-for-like proposals |
Use “untested” when evidence is missing. Do not score an unverified marketing claim as a successful demonstration. Keep the scorecard and acceptance-test record together so procurement, billing, and IT assess the same evidence.
Pilot decision and rollout readiness
Agree on critical gates before the pilot: approved privacy scope, supported configuration, reconciled transfers, acceptable review effort, named support owners, and a plan for unresolved exceptions. Set any numerical targets from the firm's own baseline.
At the final review, choose expansion, an extended pilot with specific changes, or a stop. Record the reasons and responsibility for each remaining action. A feature-rich demonstration is not a substitute for operational readiness.
Use the Aderant guide, Elite 3E guide, and DMS evaluation guide for system-specific questions. The partner rollout plan gives a proposed sequence; the cost guide helps compare complete commercial scope.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who should participate in a legal timekeeping RFP?
A strong evaluation usually includes finance, billing, IT, information security, operations, innovation, practice leadership, and representative lawyers.
Should a firm require a pilot?
Yes. Timekeeping is highly dependent on real user behavior and existing systems. A pilot reveals issues that a feature checklist cannot.
What is the most important timekeeping integration?
There is no universal answer. The most important integrations are the systems where the firm's lawyers work and the systems that own client, matter, and billing data.
How should firms evaluate AI accuracy?
Measure specific tasks such as matter matching, narrative quality, code suggestions, and captured-activity acceptance. Avoid relying only on a single vendor-provided accuracy percentage.
What makes lawyer adoption more likely?
Low workflow friction, useful captured activity, fast review, transparency about privacy, reliable matter matching, and integration with tools lawyers already use all improve the likelihood of adoption.
