title: "Legal Time Entry Descriptions: Examples and Best Practices" slug: legal-time-entry-descriptions-examples meta_description: "Vague time entry descriptions get invoices rejected. Here are 20 practical examples of strong legal time entries—plus the rules that keep them out of the e-billing rejection queue." target_keyword: legal time entry descriptions category: problem tags:

legal time entry descriptions
time entry examples for lawyers
legal timekeeping
e-billing compliance
outside counsel guidelines
automatic time tracking for lawyers

Legal Time Entry Descriptions: Examples and Best Practices

A vague time entry description does not just annoy a client — it triggers an automatic rejection in most e-billing portals, creates a dispute that can take weeks to resolve, and often results in a write-down even when the underlying work was solid. The description is where the invoice lives or dies.

This guide explains what makes a legal time entry description defensible, shows 20 practical examples across common practice areas, and covers the mistakes most commonly flagged by outside-counsel guidelines (OCG) reviewers and e-billing systems.

Why the description matters more than most attorneys assume

The two elements of a time entry — the time increment and the description — are treated very differently by e-billing audits. Time increments are checked mechanically: does the entry conform to the client's billing unit (usually 0.1-hour or 0.25-hour increments)? That check is binary.

Descriptions are reviewed by a human reviewer or an AI-powered e-billing system that looks for patterns. It checks whether the work described is permitted under the client's OCG, whether the language suggests block billing, whether the task code matches the description, and whether the entry is substantive enough to justify the time.

Firms that lose more billable hours to write-downs and rejections than their peers almost always have a description quality problem, not a volume problem.

What makes a strong legal time entry description

Describe the action, not just the subject

The most common mistake is writing a noun phrase when the entry needs a verb phrase.

Weak: Correspondence re settlement.

Strong: Drafted response to opposing counsel's settlement demand letter; outlined three areas where proposed terms conflict with prior mediation agreement and proposed alternative payment schedule.

Both entries may represent the same 0.5 hours. The second one tells the e-billing reviewer — and the client — exactly what was done and why it took the time it did.

Be specific enough to pass an OCG review

Most outside-counsel guidelines prohibit vague descriptors. Common banned terms include "legal research," "conference," "correspondence," and "telephone call" when used without additional context. The entry does not need to reveal privileged content, but it needs to say more than the task code already says.

If the task code is A103 (Research) and the description also reads "legal research," that is redundant and will often be flagged. A103 paired with "Researched circuit split on fraudulent transfer clawback timing under 11 U.S.C. § 548 in preparation for motion reply" passes the same audit cleanly.

Match the billing increment

An entry for 0.1 hours with a three-paragraph description raises a credibility flag. An entry for 3.0 hours with "draft brief" raises a different one. The description and the time should feel proportionate.

Avoid block billing

Block billing — combining multiple tasks in a single entry with a single time value — is prohibited by most OCG. Each discrete task should be its own entry, or the block should be broken out with approximate sub-times noted.

Blocked: Reviewed documents, drafted motion, attended call with client. 4.5 hours.

Broken out:

Reviewed 47-page document production for relevance to breach of warranty claims. 1.5 hours.
Drafted motion to compel production of category 3 documents; incorporated cite to client's prior discovery responses. 2.0 hours.
Telephone conference with client to discuss discovery strategy and timing for depositions. 1.0 hours.

20 practical legal time entry description examples

Litigation

Reviewed plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; identified three contested fact issues for response; outlined argument structure for opposition brief.

Drafted and revised interrogatory responses for counts 2–4; coordinated with client on factual accuracy of response to interrogatory 7 regarding contract execution date.

Prepared witness for deposition: reviewed prior testimony, identified anticipated areas of examination, discussed document handling procedures.

Attended pre-trial conference before Judge [name]; argued motion in limine re admissibility of prior-incidents evidence; conference adjourned with ruling deferred.

Analyzed opposing expert report on damages calculation; prepared memorandum identifying methodological weaknesses and recommended counter-expert strategy.

Drafted appellate brief section addressing standard of review and abuse-of-discretion argument on evidentiary ruling.

Transactional / corporate

Reviewed and marked up asset purchase agreement, sections 5–9 (representations and warranties); flagged 12 items for negotiation and prepared comment memo.

Negotiated earn-out provisions with buyer's counsel via telephone; resolved two open issues; updated deal term sheet to reflect agreed positions.

Conducted UCC lien search and reviewed results; identified two prior liens requiring payoff and release before closing; communicated findings to client.

Drafted board consent resolution authorizing Series B financing; revised for two rounds of comments from client and co-counsel.

Reviewed IP assignment agreement for gaps in work-made-for-hire coverage; drafted three alternative provisions for client review.

Client counseling and correspondence

Telephone conference with client regarding regulatory inquiry from state AG; outlined response strategy and identified documents to preserve; followed up with written summary of recommended next steps.

Researched and advised on non-compete enforceability under [state] law following recent appellate decision; drafted memo summarizing practical implications for client's employment contracts.

Reviewed client's proposed vendor contract and identified indemnification clause as inconsistent with client's standard risk profile; drafted redline with alternative language.

Responded to client's questions regarding status of pending trademark application and timeline for examination; reviewed USPTO correspondence and summarized next steps.

Document review and research

First-level review of 312 documents from custodian A production set for responsiveness to request categories 1, 3, and 7; coded 89 as responsive, 14 as privileged.

Researched treatment of material adverse change clauses in Delaware courts post-COVID; reviewed 11 cases; drafted research memo for supervising partner.

Reviewed regulatory filings for three comparable transactions to benchmark deal structure; summarized findings in deal analysis memo.

Shepardized 14 cases cited in opposition's summary judgment brief; identified two cases with negative subsequent history requiring responsive argument.

Drafted privilege log for 34 documents withheld from production; ensured entries satisfy state-court disclosure standard for privilege log completeness.

Common description mistakes that cause e-billing rejections

Vague task descriptors

Terms like "legal research," "correspondence," "telephone call," "review documents," and "conference" standing alone are flagged by most e-billing systems because they do not describe the work — they only name it. Add subject matter, specific outcome, or the relevant document or party.

Non-permitted task codes

Some clients prohibit billing for administrative tasks (file management, conflict checks, billing review) or cap certain activities (travel, clerical). The description should not inadvertently disclose a non-billable task — and the time should not be entered at all if the activity falls outside the permitted scope. See the full guide to OCG compliance and e-billing rejections for a breakdown by rejection category.

Inconsistent descriptions across entries

When two attorneys both describe the same call as "telephone conference with client re case strategy" and the billing system sees identical entries on the same day from different timekeepers, it will often flag potential double-billing. Descriptions should be specific enough to make clear each timekeeper's distinct contribution.

How automatic time capture removes the description problem

The challenge with writing good descriptions is not that attorneys do not know what good looks like — it is that most descriptions are written hours or days after the work happened, from memory. Memory degrades fast: research on billing reconstruction consistently shows that attorneys recovering time at end of day underestimate the duration and detail of their work.

Timentry captures the activity as it happens — emails sent and received, meetings attended, documents drafted — and uses AI to cluster that fragmented activity into draft narrative time entries. The draft includes specific subject matter (drawn from email subjects, document names, and calendar entries) and proposed matter attribution, so the attorney reviews and adjusts rather than writing from scratch. Because the draft is built from contemporaneous signals, it includes the specific language that makes descriptions defensible: the counterparty name, the document type, the issue addressed.

The compliance layer checks each entry against the client's OCG rules before submission — flagging vague descriptors, block billing, or prohibited task code combinations before they reach the e-billing portal. You catch the rejection risk at the desk, not in the client's billing dispute queue two months later.

Good descriptions are the difference between invoices that pay and invoices that sit in dispute. The mechanics are learnable — and the writing burden can largely be automated.

See how Timentry captures and drafts time entries for law firms → Start a free trial