Legal timekeeping software should help lawyers record work accurately without adding another complicated administrative process. The right system should fit the way the firm already works, make potential time easier to review, support clear descriptions, and move approved entries into the existing billing workflow.
A strong evaluation should look beyond a feature checklist. Law firms should examine how the software handles real work patterns, including interrupted tasks, mobile work, matter switching, client billing rules, and the daily review process.
Start with the Firm's Timekeeping Problems
Before comparing products, define the problems the firm needs to solve.
Common goals include:
Time capture problem to solve | Entry quality or workflow problem to solve |
Reducing missed billable hours | Reducing vague billing descriptions |
Improving same day time entry | Supporting UTBMS or other billing codes |
Making short tasks easier to capture | Reducing prebill corrections |
Improving matter selection | Simplifying lawyer review |
Improving timekeeper adoption | Connecting timekeeping with existing finance systems |
Increasing visibility into billable and non billable work |
The evaluation becomes more useful when each goal is connected to a measurable operational result.
For example:
Business problem | Possible evaluation measure |
Lawyers enter time late | Same day entry rate |
Short tasks are missed | Recovered or newly visible activity |
Descriptions require correction | Description edit rate |
Entries go to the wrong matter | Matter reassignment rate |
Lawyers avoid the system | Daily and weekly active use |
Billing review takes too long | Average review time per prebill |
Draft entries remain incomplete | Unreleased entry count |
Identify the Main Users
Legal timekeeping software affects more than lawyers.
The evaluation should include:
Partners
Associates
Paralegals
Legal assistants
Billing professionals
Finance leaders
Legal operations teams
Practice group leaders
Information technology teams
Information security and privacy teams
Each group has different needs.
Lawyers usually care about speed, convenience, and minimal interruption. Billing teams care about entry quality, coding, compliance, and correction volume. Finance teams care about workflow reliability and system integration. Technology and security teams care about permissions, data handling, support, and implementation.
Decide Which Capture Methods the Firm Needs
Timekeeping software can use several capture methods.
Manual entry
The user creates each entry directly.
Best for:
Firms with simple workflows
Users who already enter time promptly
Unusual tasks that cannot be detected from another system
Limitations:
High dependence on memory
Short activities may be missed
Delayed entry can reduce accuracy
Timers
The user starts and stops a timer while working.
Best for:
Focused drafting
Research
Long calls
Work with a clear start and end
Limitations:
Timers may be forgotten
Interruptions create inaccurate durations
Matter switching requires constant attention
Calendar based capture
The system uses scheduled events as a starting point.
Best for:
Client meetings
Hearings
Depositions
Internal matter conferences
Scheduled calls
Limitations:
Does not capture unscheduled work
Event duration may differ from actual work
Calendar titles may not provide enough context
Passive time capture
The system surfaces activity from connected tools for review.
Best for:
Document work
Short communications
Interrupted tasks
Work outside normal hours
Professionals who switch matters frequently
Limitations:
Requires review
May create duplicate or irrelevant activity
Matter and duration suggestions need confirmation
Combined capture
Many firms benefit from a combination of manual entry, timers, calendar review, and passive capture.
The important question is whether the software supports the firm's actual work patterns without forcing every timekeeper into one method.
Evaluate the Daily Review Experience
Capture is only the first step. The review workflow determines whether the system is practical.
A useful review experience should allow timekeepers to:
See captured activity by date
Identify the source of each activity
Select or correct the client and matter
Adjust the duration
Edit the description
Merge related activities
Separate unrelated tasks
Mark time as billable or non billable
Add task or activity codes
Remove duplicate or irrelevant activity
Save drafts
Release or submit approved entries
During a product demonstration, ask a lawyer to complete a normal day of review. Measure how many steps are required and where the process becomes confusing.
Test Matter Selection and Matching
Incorrect matter selection creates billing corrections and client risk.
Evaluate:
How matters are searched
Whether recent matters appear first
Whether favorite matters can be saved
How similar matter names are distinguished
Whether closed matters are hidden
Whether the system can suggest a matter
How users correct an incorrect suggestion
Whether matter data stays synchronized
How multiple offices or practice groups are handled
Matter matching should assist the user without removing the need for confirmation.
Review Description Quality Features
A legal time entry should explain what work was completed and why it related to the matter.
Useful description features may include:
Narrative drafting feature | Narrative quality-control feature |
Narrative drafting assistance | Warnings for vague descriptions |
Suggested action verbs | Detection of duplicate narratives |
Matter context | Support for client specific wording rules |
Editing before approval | Protection against unnecessary confidential detail |
Examples based on firm standards |
Ask the vendor how description suggestions are created and what data is used. The software should not invent work, legal conclusions, outcomes, or client instructions.
Check Billing Code Support
Many clients require task, activity, expense, UTBMS, ABA, or custom billing codes.
Evaluate whether the system can:
Display required code sets
Suggest task or activity codes
Support client specific code rules
Require code selection before submission
Allow the timekeeper to correct suggestions
Separate task codes from activity codes
Support multiple code sets
Pass approved codes into the finance system
Report on coding errors or missing codes
Code suggestions should support review. They should not replace the firm's responsibility to follow outside counsel guidelines.
Confirm Finance and Billing System Integration
Legal timekeeping software should fit the firm's existing billing process.
Ask:
Which finance systems have standard integrations?
Which workflows require custom integration?
How are clients and matters synchronized?
How are timekeepers synchronized?
How are approved entries released?
How are rejected entries returned?
What happens when a matter is closed?
How are duplicate entries prevented?
Can billing status be viewed in the timekeeping system?
How are integration failures reported?
Who is responsible for monitoring the connection?
Are there additional implementation or connector fees?
The software should be positioned clearly within the workflow. A timekeeping product may improve capture and entry quality without replacing the firm's billing or practice management platform.
Evaluate Integration with Daily Work Tools
The product is more likely to be adopted when it connects with the tools lawyers already use.
Relevant systems may include:
Microsoft Teams
Outlook Calendar
Microsoft OneDrive
iManage Work
NetDocuments
Web browsers
Email platforms
Phone systems
Practice management software
Finance and billing systems
Do not evaluate integrations by logo count alone. Ask what data moves, how often it synchronizes, what permissions are required, and what the timekeeper can do inside each integration.
Review Privacy and Data Collection
Timekeeping software may process sensitive information, including client names, matter details, document titles, calendar subjects, and work patterns.
The firm should understand:
What activity is collected
Whether content or metadata is collected
Whether keystrokes are recorded
Whether screenshots are captured
Which applications can be excluded
Whether personal activity can be filtered
Who can view captured activity
Whether users review activity privately first
How long data is retained
How data can be deleted
Whether customer data is used for model training
Where data is stored
Which subprocessors are involved
How access is logged
A clear privacy model supports trust and adoption.
Evaluate Security and Compliance
Security review should match the sensitivity of the firm's client and matter data.
Key areas include:
Data encryption in transit
Data encryption at rest
Authentication
Multi factor authentication
Single sign on
Role based access
Audit logs
Data isolation
Backup and recovery
Incident response
Vulnerability management
Penetration testing
Secure software development
Data residency
Business continuity
Vendor employee access
Security certifications and independent assessments
The firm should request current documentation and confirm the scope of each certification or assessment.
Consider User Adoption
A technically strong product can still fail when lawyers do not use it consistently.
Evaluate adoption factors such as:
Daily workflow adoption factor | Training and support adoption factor |
Number of steps required each day | Training requirements |
Whether the system works inside familiar tools | Availability of role based training |
Mobile support | Support response |
Review speed | User feedback during the pilot |
Quality of matter suggestions | |
Number of irrelevant activity records | |
Ease of correcting mistakes | |
Visibility into incomplete time |
The system should reduce the effort required to create a high quality entry.
Evaluate MIRA for Legal Timekeeping
Frequently Asked Questions
What is legal timekeeping software?
Legal timekeeping software helps lawyers and legal professionals capture, review, organize, and submit time worked on client matters and internal activities.
What features should legal timekeeping software include?
Important features may include manual entry, timers, passive capture, matter selection, description editing, billing code support, review workflows, integrations, security controls, and reporting.
Should legal timekeeping software integrate with billing systems?
Yes. Approved entries should move reliably into the firm's existing finance or billing workflow. The firm should confirm how the integration works and what it costs. Legal timekeeping software usually does not replace billing software; many products focus on capturing and preparing time entries before approved records move into a connected billing or finance system.
Is passive time capture necessary?
It is not necessary for every firm, but it can help firms that struggle with missed short tasks, delayed entry, matter switching, and work completed across several applications.
How important is Microsoft Teams integration?
It is valuable for firms that already use Microsoft Teams as part of their daily workflow. Working inside a familiar application can reduce training and improve adoption.
Can artificial intelligence write legal billing descriptions?
Artificial intelligence can assist with draft descriptions, but the timekeeper should review the narrative for accuracy, confidentiality, client compliance, and professional judgment.
How should a law firm test timekeeping software?
A firm should run a pilot with representative users, test real workflows, measure adoption and correction rates, and confirm integration reliability before firmwide rollout.
What is the biggest risk when choosing timekeeping software?
A common risk is selecting a product based on features without testing the daily lawyer experience. Poor adoption can prevent the firm from receiving value from the software.
