Why Law Firms Do Not Track Time, and How to Fix It

Gökçen Beyazoğlu LL.B.

Chief Product Officer · Attornaid

Copy Link

Law firms do not track time because recording sits outside the workflow, not because lawyers lack discipline. A timesheet filled in from memory at the end of the day is both incomplete and wrong. Time gets recorded when the entry can be made at the moment and in the place the work is done; it does not get recorded when it requires switching to a separate application. The fix is not a more disciplined person but recording built into the matter itself, a purpose the team understands, and three metrics that show whether it is working.

In most firms time tracking lives at one of two extremes. Either it is not done at all and billing rests on estimates, or it is required but not actually filled in, and nobody talks about the gap. The second is more damaging, because decisions are made on data that does not exist. The argument below applies whether the firm bills by the hour, by fixed fee or on retainer; the stakes differ, the mechanics do not.

Why it fails: four real reasons

Asking the team to be more disciplined fixes none of the four. Each has a structural cause and a structural remedy.

The most common misconception: "We work on fixed fees, so we do not need time records." A fixed fee does not mean time has no value; it means the firm carries the risk of a matter running long instead of the client. Without knowing how long each type of work takes, a fixed fee cannot be set correctly. The biggest benefit of time records outside billing is putting pricing on data.

Three benefits even for fixed-fee firms

In markets where hourly billing is the norm, the case for recording is straightforward: an hour not recorded is an hour not billed, and the gap between hours worked and hours invoiced is a direct loss. In markets where fixed fees and retainers dominate, the case is less visible but no weaker. The three benefits below apply to both models and matter most to the second.

• Pricing. A fixed fee quoted without knowing how many hours a typical matter of that type takes is an estimate, and estimates drift in the client's favour. Two years of records turn the fee schedule from a guess into a figure. For hourly firms the same data shows which matter types are consistently under-recorded.
• Capacity planning. Whether the firm can take on a new matter depends on how much time the existing ones consume. Without records the answer is a feeling; with them it is a number.
• Work distribution. The same type of matter taking three hours with one lawyer and eight with another points to a training need or a hidden complexity in the file. Both are worth knowing, and neither is visible without records.

How to record: three rules

The three rules below decide whether recording survives contact with a busy week. None of them concerns willpower.

1. The entry is made inside the matter

Time must be recorded without leaving the matter being worked on. Every step that requires opening a separate application, searching for a matter number or logging in again raises the chance that the entry is never made. The right place for the entry is next to the document, the email or the calendar item it describes.

2. Few categories

Nobody forced to choose between twenty activity types chooses correctly. Six to eight categories are enough for most firms: meetings, research, drafting, hearings, correspondence, follow-up. If a category is used less than once a month, merge it into another.

3. The entry is made the same day

Records reconstructed from memory are systematically low; people remember elapsed time as shorter than it was. Timesheets completed at the end of the day fall clearly below the real figure, and timesheets completed at the end of the week fall further still. Same-day entry is the minimum; entry at the end of each piece of work is the goal.

Practical threshold: If an entry takes longer than thirty seconds, the habit is abandoned within about three weeks. This is a threshold about friction, not about discipline.

How to explain it to the team

Time tracking presented as a monitoring tool meets resistance, and the data degrades: hours are rounded up to look busy or rounded down to look efficient, and either way the figures stop meaning anything. The framing below produces higher compliance and cleaner data.

• State the purpose at the outset: pricing and capacity, not performance measurement.
• No person-by-person comparisons, at least for the first six months. Compare matter types, not people.
• Share the data. Data nobody looks at stops being collected. A one-page monthly summary is enough.
• Do not penalise missing entries; ask why they are missing. The reason is usually friction, and friction is the firm's problem to fix.

Three metrics worth watching

Three figures are enough to know whether recording is working and what it is telling you. More than that and the summary stops being read.

The gate metric: If recorded hours as a share of hours worked is low, the other two metrics are misleading. Make sure recording is happening first; only then make decisions on the data. For a fixed-fee firm the third metric reads differently: it shows how much recorded time the fee absorbed rather than how much was invoiced, which is exactly the figure the next fee schedule needs.

Checklist

• Make sure an entry can be made without leaving the matter.
• Keep the number of categories under eight.
• Time an entry; if it takes more than thirty seconds, remove a step.
• Tell the team the purpose is pricing and capacity, and put it in writing.
• Decide who prepares the one-page monthly summary and when it goes out.
• Commit to no person-by-person comparisons for the first six months.
• Track recorded hours as a share of hours worked from the first month.
• Review average hours per matter type before the next fee schedule is set.

Frequently asked questions

Why do law firms fail to track time?

The main reason is not a lack of discipline but that recording sits outside the workflow. A system that requires opening a separate application, searching for a matter number and logging in again does not get used. The other reasons are a purpose nobody has explained, data nobody looks at, and the fear of being measured.

Does a fixed-fee or retainer firm need time records?

Yes. A fixed fee does not mean time is free; it means the firm, not the client, carries the risk of a matter running long. Without knowing how many hours each type of matter actually takes, a fixed fee is a guess. Beyond billing, time records put pricing on data, make capacity planning possible and show differences in how work is distributed.

How should time be recorded so that it actually gets done?

Three rules: the entry must be made without leaving the matter being worked on, the number of categories should not exceed six to eight, and the entry must be made the same day. Records reconstructed from memory are systematically low because people remember elapsed time as shorter than it was. If an entry takes longer than thirty seconds, the habit is abandoned within about three weeks.

How should time tracking be introduced to the team?

When presented as a monitoring tool it meets resistance and the data degrades. State at the outset that the purpose is pricing and capacity planning, avoid person-by-person comparisons for at least the first six months, share the collected data as a one-page monthly summary, and ask why an entry is missing rather than penalising it.

Which time tracking metrics should a law firm watch?

Three are enough: average hours per matter type (quarterly, shows whether pricing is right), recorded hours as a share of hours worked (monthly, shows whether recording is happening) and billed hours as a share of recorded hours (monthly, shows billing and collection discipline). If the second metric is low, the other two are misleading.

How many time entry categories should a law firm use?

Six to eight categories are enough for most firms: meetings, research, drafting, hearings, correspondence and follow-up, for example. Nobody forced to choose between twenty activity types chooses correctly; too many categories make recording slower and the data less consistent.