How do PI attorneys feel about billing the cost of AI to the case/client?
Question / Tech Stack Advice
Post
I’ve gotten very mixed feedback about it. About half the firms I work with do it, the other half don’t. Most of the ones who don’t feel it’s unethical.
Curious how the attorneys on this page feel about it.
Top comments · 7
- 15↑u/dreamlegal_legaltechHonestly, a lot of the discomfort seems to come from treating AI like a separate premium expense instead of part of the normal operational cost of delivering legal work. Most clients care less about whether AI was used and more about whether the billing is transparent, reasonable, and actually tied to value delivered.
- 11↑u/PizzaOutrageous6584Fuck you 5 month old sales rep.
- 5↑u/FroyoConfident1367I think the billing for a service should be inclusive of everything.
- 4↑u/iceman123454576Do you bill for electricity, water, use of Outlook etc?
- 3↑u/AutonomousHoagI think this is a bad / detrimental (for both) approach. Footnote: I also include in my engagement letter a heads-up that I use AI.
- 3↑u/FluxcapacitarIn a majority of states, this is not a case expense for which you can bill a client. That’s the end of the analysis. The sales people who tell you to do that are telling you to commit unethical practices that can impact your license. Do your research on what we can and cannot bill to the client before you tell people it’s OK. The amount of sales people who tell us to do that and then have no idea what I’m talking about when I tell them how it works is mind-boggling. This is why we all hate your guts and will continue to hate your guts because you’re trying to work in a profession with a lot of rules and regulation for which you don’t even bother to Google.
- 3↑u/ThatRooferIf AI is replacing billable labor, charging the client separately for the tool starts looking questionable fast. Feels closer to office overhead than a recoverable case expense