A practical approval workflow separates preparation, review, and release. Not every entry needs every stage: exception approval should be used when an issue actually requires it.
Workflow stage | Purpose |
Activity capture and draft entry | Prepare a reviewable record of the work. |
Timekeeper review | Confirm the matter, duration, description, codes, and billing status. |
Automated checks | Surface missing fields, conflicting entries, and relevant rule warnings. |
Exception approval, when needed | Resolve issues that require a supervising decision. |
Release | Move reviewed and approved time toward the billing workflow. |
Prebill review | Review entries in the context of the proposed invoice. |
This is a general workflow model, not a claim that every stage is provided by one product.
Timekeeper Review
The timekeeper should confirm client, matter, date, duration, billing status, narrative, codes, confidentiality, and client requirements. This is the most important review because the timekeeper knows the work.
Automated Checks
Systems can flag missing matter, invalid code, duplicates, overlap, block billing, vague narrative, client-rule conflicts, or budget warnings. Automated checks should not silently rewrite the final entry.
Exception Approval
Issues such as out-of-scope work, unapproved staffing, travel exceptions, or budget thresholds may require supervisor approval. The approver should see both the rule and the entry.
Role Design
Typical roles include the timekeeper, supervising lawyer, billing team, finance team, and system administrator. Avoid making one role responsible for every decision.
Save vs Release
A saved entry is not necessarily approved or released. Define statuses consistently so the person responsible for the next action is clear.
Illustrative status | What it communicates |
Draft | The entry is still being prepared. |
Saved | The record is retained, but the required review may still be outstanding. |
Approved | The applicable review has been completed. |
Released | The entry has moved forward; check transfer outcomes separately. |
Rejected or returned for correction | The responsible user needs a specific reason and a correction path. |
These are useful status definitions for workflow design, not a verified list of MIRA interface labels.
Batch Approval
Batch approval can be efficient for low-risk entries, but users should still be able to open individual entries, inspect warnings, correct fields, and exclude irrelevant activity.
Audit Trail
Record original entry, AI suggestion, user edits, approver, approval date, exceptions, release status, failed transfer, and post-release correction. Auditability matters when AI prepared part of the entry.
Rejection and Return
When an entry fails review, return it to the responsible user with the exact reason, preserve the original, allow correction, rerun relevant checks, and record the final outcome.
Avoid Over-Approval
Too many approvals create delay, rubber stamping, and unclear ownership. Use risk-based or exception-based review where appropriate.
Metrics
Track approval time, return rate, correction rate, exception rate, entries released without edit, failed finance transfers, and prebill changes after approval.
How MIRA Fits
MIRA presents captured time inside Microsoft Teams and gives users controls to edit, merge, exclude, save, and release entries. Explicit user review is part of the workflow before approved time moves toward supported finance systems.
Frequently Asked Questions
Should every time entry require partner approval?
Not necessarily. Firms can use risk-based and exception-based approval.
Who should approve AI-generated time entries?
The timekeeper or another authorized reviewer who understands the work should confirm the entry.
What should an audit trail include?
It should preserve source, suggestion, edits, approvals, exceptions, and release status.
Can MIRA release reviewed entries to finance systems?
MIRA's current materials describe release of approved entries toward supported finance systems.
