FINANCE LEADERS
October 2026: Invoice management
Scoping process does not fit the bill
Inaccurate or cumbersome invoicing can cost over 10% of billable value, according to half of senior finance leaders
Variable ability to interrogate different parts of financial process in order to make the revenue-collection cycle more efficient as a whole has shone through as a key concern throughout this Briefing research. It appears that a pinch is also felt at the point of bill preparation, where almost one third (29%) indicate they wouldn't have the data to be able to say the average time it takes for a bill to be approved to send out to the client. There are echoes of insight into clients' initial onboarding journey that were previously uncovered here – one quarter said they either didn’t know, or the firm does not track, the time it takes to clear conflicts before starting work.
Among those who do feel able to estimate bill preparation periods, however, the most likely answer to hear is between two and four weeks (35%) – only one quarter believe a bill is typically ready to release within seven days of WIP close.
But there is no such dilemma when it comes to dissecting what makes it onto the bill in question. Over half (53%) of finance leaders estimate that 10% or more of billable value could easily be written down or fully off. More than four-fifths say it sits somewhere between five and 10%.
PARTNER PERSPECTIVE
The weeks between WIP and bill
Paul Foster, head of product, sa.global
Every fee earner knows that every second counts. Recording each nanosecond of billable time is a defining discipline. Giving sound, valuable advice is a given, and I’m not suggesting otherwise.
So, if capturing time is so important, why is the route from that time to the bill not managed more effectively in firms when matters don’t follow the happy path?
12%
of finance leaders have "strong" confidence in visibility and control of invoicing, seeing current billing status and write-down risk at any point
Trevor Varnes, chief operating and financial officer at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (BCLP), says: "Billing partners feel comfortable writing down 10% on proforma review to reduce anticipated client unhappiness, regardless of whether that reduction is warranted. There is enormous autonomy given to billing partners currently. Approval processes can help to reduce the behaviour over time, but it takes a concerted effort to challenge and educate partners — which it's difficult to devote the time to owing to the urgency of getting those bills out."
And the creep goes on …
Clearly, a seeping-revenue situation is gradually compounding as we rotate through the work-to-cash cycle. Previously we heard that over half (53%) of leaders felt 5-10% could already be written off because costs weren’t captured in the right way or with sufficient accuracy before work began.
There are also echoes of previous rounds’ findings in the most common reasons found for writeoffs. These are pernicious scope-creep that hasn’t been picked up during work as it should be in order to make the right billing adjustments before the fact (71%), or, where it has been, a human reluctance to have the upfront client conversation that should result (65%). These are much more likely to be identified by leaders as a leading cause of the problem than more granular information management oversights, such as missing time or unconvincing narratives to back up costs where properly recorded.
In addition, the finance department doesn’t necessarily have visibility into – far less business control over – matters that are looking most ripe for write-down. Almost two-fifths (65%) say any visibility the team does have only kicks in once the parter has made their changes (one quarter see nothing of the process until it is final or already sent). Under one fifth routinely see most at-risk matters in advance based on a live budget.
One respondent explains that “a billing project is underway” in a bid to tackle some of these challenges: “Technology and automation are key to working efficiently.”
“Capturing outside counsel guideline terms and integrating with time-entry is very difficult but crucial,” explains another.
Varnes at BCLP says: "Automated billing agents could be deployed to do some analysis and coaching in real time, intersecting a partner as they are marking up their proforma, rather than challenging them once the write-off has been submitted.
"Finance often gets involved at the end of the process, and the key is to build in more guardrails and nudges earlier. Finance can assist with that by defining policy and process, which can be enforced with the help of technology."
Join the Briefing Finance Leaders community
Get on the mailing list for our exclusive finance research, hear about dedicated roundtables for senior leaders like you making decisions about finance, and be part of the Finance Leaders community.
Experiences of rejection
What about invoices that are successfully sent only to be returned raising a discrepancy about something that has been included? Clearly this is yet another layer of inefficiency, painfully prolonging lockup and piling pressure on firm working capital. It should be an unnecessary friction to endure, and also risks at least some frustration, possibly fracture, in the client relationship if a firm's perceived to be incompetent because of ingrained poor process. Regardless of the outcome, the client ends up in a protracted transaction – not experiencing the straightforward streamlined alternative no doubt held up as what can be expected of a modern law firm.
Almost half (47%) believe up to 5% of their invoices at the very least result in a query coming back for somebody to pick up, assess and settle (under one fifth are confident it’s under 2%, and the same number believe it’s 6% or more). And again, one quarter of leaders suggest they just do not have the data to be definitive. By some distance, leaders believe the most common cause is alignment on the aforementioned matter of the correct scope of work completed (which we’ve already seen may not have been proactively managed at a much earlier point).
The bottom line? Finance leaders display somewhat more confidence overall in how invoicing is handled by their firm than is the case with their matter management, with over one in 10 saying they can see the status of a bill ‘at any point’. Not one could say as much of their visibility into the workings of matter management. A higher proportion also believe their visibility levels to be ‘reasonable’ (29%) – sufficient in the majority of cases.
A firm split, nevertheless, persists in evaluating the experience – well over half (59%) consider powers of intervention to be inconsistent at best, including the suggestion that extra manual steps may be needed to get to the bottom of a problem. One quarter must typically wait until the month end to see whether such a problem even exists.
One survey respondent concludes: “Getting focus on lockup process when trying to prioritise a firm’s spend is always a challenge, as it strengthens the balance sheet rather than the P&L. Most executive teams will be more focused on improving the metrics of income and profit per equity partner.”
PARTNER PERSPECTIVE
The weeks between WIP and bill
Paul Foster, head of product, sa.global
Every fee earner knows that every second counts. Recording each nanosecond of billable time is a defining discipline. Giving sound, valuable advice is a given, and I’m not suggesting otherwise.
So, if capturing time is so important, why is the route from that time to the bill not managed more effectively in firms when matters don’t follow the happy path?
Nearly a third (29%) of responding leaders have no idea how long it takes to get from WIP generation to a bill going out. The most common answer (35%) is between two and four weeks, and only one quarter believe a bill is typically ready within seven days.
The old chestnuts, and what they cost
Why the long space? You won’t be surprised to hear the top causes of write-downs are the old chestnuts: scope creep (71%) and reluctance to have the client conversation that should result (65%). No news there then. But why does this persist? What could be done to change behaviour here? Is it worth it?
It absolutely is. More than four-fifths of respondents estimate between 5% and 10% of billable value could be written down or written off entirely.
Even the lucky bills that escape the building are often returned in droves, full of client angst and queries. Nearly half of respondents (47%) estimate up to 5% do. The financial impact is obvious. The reputational damage less so, but just as critical: perception of incompetence at best, at worst an accusation of improper practice.
Human-led agents: your eyes and ears
How do we head this off at the pass? Everything needed is — or should be — in the data. The letter of engagement (LoE) should contain the scope, resources and rates, so any deviation from these must be intercepted at source.
In our new world, agentic power should be deployed to seek out matter budget alerts, rates that depart from the LoE, and resources or work not in the work breakdown structure, at the first sign of these surfacing in the PMS.
The firm has rules, procedures, and processes, so use them. It is extremely challenging for humans to do this task alone, so consider the concept of ‘human-led agents’.
This is AI where you are still in control, but the power of agents becomes your eyes and ears, comparing real data in real time against the policies, procedures, and processes your firm holds so dear yet often struggles to enforce until after the fact.
The policies exist, and so does the data. Reading one against the other while a matter is still live is what most firms are missing.