Whether task-based billing codes do better than automated bill review software

A short white-paper by Mike Lipps, managing director for LexisNexis of corporate counsel solutions, explains a study that pitted UTBMS coding against his company’s proprietary technology for bill review. According to the paper, CounselLink “processes more than $3 billion of invoices annually through SmartReview.” That automated bill review software does not require any codes in matter records since it relies on scrutinizing the text of the invoices.

The head-to-head study included 15 law departments and 25 law firms and from them a sample of 100 invoices that totaled nearly $3 million. First, the researchers used standard billing guidelines and UTBMS codes to review the invoices; next, they used the same guidelines and SmartReview. The paper asserts that from more than 8,400 timekeeper entries and 1,100 expense entries, the UTBMS review adjusted 0.4 percent of the charges whereas the SmartReview software adjusted more than 18 percent. I could not find the paper on the website, but I have a copy from a friend of mine.