Timekeeping Renewal Checklist for Law Firms

Before the Notice Window

Review every amendment alongside the master agreement. A later amendment, order form, or side letter may change the original notice period, pricing structure, or renewal terms. Reconcile the full contract history before confirming the deadline.

Confirm who owns the contract today. The original signatory may have changed roles or left the firm. Check the agreement against the current organizational structure and assign a backup approver with authority to send notice.

Work backward from the notice deadline and assign an owner to each stage:

Adjust this timeline to the notice period in the firm’s agreement. Firms considering a replacement should begin early enough to complete security review, integration testing, data migration, and a representative pilot before the renewal decision is due.

Licensing Checklist

The vendor’s licensing structure determines whether reducing seats will produce meaningful savings.

• Is the firm billed by active timekeeper, licensed user, practice group, or its full attorney population?

• Which product tier does the firm have?

• Which features, integrations, and support services are included in that tier?

• Can unused seats be removed, reassigned, or credited during the term?

• Does the agreement set minimum seat commitments?

• Does the agreement limit annual fee increases?

• Did the most recent increase include a corresponding change in functionality or service?

Usage Checklist

• Active users compared with licensed users

• Entries submitted per timekeeper each week

• The percentage of generated entries that timekeepers approve and release

• The number of entries requiring matter, narrative, duration, or billing-code corrections

• Usage by entry method, including automated capture, timers, manual entry, mobile, and voice

• Seats assigned to former or inactive employees

• Adoption by office, practice group, and role

Usage by entry method provides important context. Low adoption of the AI timekeeping platform alongside strong use of the billing system’s native timers or manual-entry tools may indicate that the product’s capture method does not fit the firm’s workflow. Low activity across every available method points to a broader adoption, training, or accountability issue.

Measure how generated entries move through the full billing workflow. A high volume of captured activity creates limited value if entries require substantial correction, remain unreleased, or are later reduced during pre-bill review.

Data Checklist

The agreement should define the firm’s right to export its time-entry data, including the available format, fields, delivery timeline, and migration support.

Confirm:

• Which export formats are available

• Whether historical entries, activity records, matter codes, and billing codes are included

• Whether user corrections and matter-assignment history can be exported

• Whether firm, client, and matter billing rules can be exported

• Whether the exported data can be imported directly into a replacement system

• How long export rights continue after termination

• Whether the vendor will provide documentation describing the exported fields

• Whether migration support is included or billed separately

• When the vendor will delete the firm’s data after termination

Include any required data cleaning, mapping, or manual reconstruction in the projected cost of switching. The firm should also determine whether historical data is necessary for the replacement platform to assign matters accurately, apply billing requirements, or preserve reporting continuity.

The Alternatives to Price Against

AI timekeeping options for law firms include PointOne, Intapp Time, Aderant iTimekeep, Laurel, Billables.ai, Ajax, and BigHand SmartTime.

These platforms vary in how they capture work, assign clients and matters, generate narratives, enforce billing requirements, and connect with practice management and billing systems. Firms should confirm compatibility with their specific technology stack rather than assuming that every platform supports the same integrations or workflows.

PointOne works with billing and practice management systems including Aderant Expert, Elite 3E, SurePoint, Clio, and QuickBooks, allowing firms to retain their existing financial infrastructure. It captures activity across email, documents, calls, calendars, and web applications, then drafts entries using the firm’s billing requirements. PointOne Rules applies firm, client, and matter guidelines as entries are written and again during pre-bill review, providing a benchmark for the time and corrections required between capture and billing.

The evaluation should focus on:

• How does the product integrate and exchange data with the firm’s billing or practice management system?

• Does it capture work across the applications, devices, and environments attorneys use?

• How much of each timekeeper’s work can it capture?

• How accurately does it assign clients and matters?

• How much review and correction does each entry require before billing?

• How will the firm’s existing billing guidelines transfer into the platform?

• What security, data-retention, and administrative controls are available?

• What implementation, training, and ongoing support does the vendor provide?