ClaimHour

Blog · Published June 1, 2026 · 15-minute read

Corporate attorney time tracking: M&A transaction-day compression, board meeting prep cycles, and GC retainer calibration

Corporate practice has a time-tracking failure profile that is structurally different from litigation. Litigation work organizes into long, recognizable billing events — a deposition, a brief, a hearing — each long enough to survive reconstruction from calendar memory. Corporate work is different: deal-closing days run 12–14 hours of fragmented sub-45-minute segments, and the months between closings are filled with advisory calls and diligence emails that are individually too short to log but collectively represent 40–50% of the week's real billable work. Three failure modes drive the gap: transaction-day compression (a 14-hour M&A closing day gets billed as 8–9 hours because the surrounding activity is invisible to reconstruction); the invisible board meeting prep cycle (a 2-hour meeting hides 10 hours of preparation work that never appears on any calendar entry); and GC retainer underpricing (monthly retainers are priced on competitive feel, not actual consumed-hour data, with the result that the highest-demand clients are systematically subsidized and mispriced renewals compound year over year). This post covers each failure mode in depth, the email-compose undercount that amplifies the transaction-day gap, the multi-matter GC call attribution problem, and the arithmetic for a mixed corporate practice. At the end: three diagnostics you can run in 30 minutes against existing case history to estimate your own gap.

TL;DR

ClaimHour captures document-edit sessions on deal documents, call metadata from every counterparty and client call, email-compose time, and calendar events — passively, no timer, no audio, no document contents. For corporate solos, this means a contemporaneous record of the full 14-hour transaction day (not the 9-hour reconstruction), the full 10-hour board prep cycle (not the 2-hour meeting entry), and six months of actual hours data that turns the GC retainer renewal from a negotiation by feel into a business discussion grounded in numbers both parties can see. $29–$59/mo. No practice management system required. Join the waitlist.

The M&A transaction-day anatomy: what 14 hours actually contains

A complex M&A or commercial real-estate closing is not a single event. It is 15–25 discrete work segments distributed across 12–16 hours, most of them shorter than 45 minutes, none of them appearing on a calendar timer as a named "billable task." Reconstruction from the closing-day calendar produces a time sheet that captures the two or three longest visible events — the closing call, the main document-review session — and loses the surrounding activity that makes up 30–40% of the real work.

A closing day for a $4 million commercial real-estate transaction with three buyers, a lender, and a title company looks like this:

Total billable time: approximately 12.2 hours (excluding the 55-minute dead time). What reconstruction from calendar memory captures: the closing call (90 minutes), the main document review (75 minutes), the purchase agreement edits (28 minutes if remembered, more often estimated as 30 minutes as part of a merged "morning preparation" entry), and a "closing administration" block of 1.5–2 hours covering the payoff letter, officer certificates, and post-closing work. Reconstruction total: 7.5–9 hours. The gap: 3.2–4.7 hours per closing, consisting almost entirely of the counterparty calls, client escalation calls, email-compose time, and the escrow instruction edits that are individually too short to remember individually and collectively too fragmented to capture as a block.

At $450/hr for a corporate solo working a deal of this type, the closing-day undercount is $1,440–$2,115 per closing. For a 12-deal/year practice — a sustainable volume for a solo specializing in mid-market M&A and commercial real estate — the annual closing-day compression loss is $17,280–$25,380. This is the first failure mode, and it affects every transactional practice regardless of practice area or deal size. The dollar impact scales with rate: at $600/hr, the same 12-deal practice loses $23,040–$33,840 per year from closing-day compression alone.

The mechanism is not attorney negligence — it is the structure of closing-day work. An attorney managing a closing cannot stop to log a 12-minute client escalation call while the lender is waiting on the wire confirmation. The logging happens at end of day, by reconstruction from memory, and memory is not granular enough to recover the 15 individual sub-30-minute segments that make up 35% of the day's real work. Passive call metadata capture and document-edit session tracking are the only mechanisms that recover this category of work without requiring the attorney to manage a timer during the wire transfer.

The email-compose dimension of transaction-day compression

Transaction-day email volume is high and systematically undercounted. A complex closing day generates 25–50 sent emails — wire confirmations, closing checklist responses to all parties, position emails on last-minute markup disputes, post-closing delivery notices. Each substantive email is 6–15 minutes of compose time: reading the incoming thread, deciding on position or action, drafting the response, reviewing for accuracy and tone. At 35 emails × 9 minutes average, that is 5.25 hours of compose time distributed across the closing day that is invisible to reconstruction because no individual email feels like a billing event.

This is not unique to closing day. A two-week due diligence phase generates 80–120 sent emails — title review questions, document-request responses, position emails on disclosure schedule exceptions, lender inquiry responses. At 100 emails × 7 minutes average, that is 11.7 hours of compose time. Reconstruction from memory of a two-week diligence period captures "diligence emails" as a 2–3 hour category entry. The gap — 8–9 hours of compose time per diligence phase — is structurally invisible without per-email compose-time capture. For a 12-deal practice with a two-week diligence phase per deal: 96–108 hours of annual email-compose time that is not making it onto invoices, worth $43,200–$48,600 at $450/hr. The email undercount is frequently the most surprising line item for corporate solos when they first review their ClaimHour digest — larger than the closing-day gap because it recurs across every phase of every deal, not just on the closing day itself.

The multi-matter GC call attribution problem

General-counsel clients — emerging-growth companies, family businesses, nonprofit organizations with active deal and governance needs — call their outside GC several times per week about whatever is current. A GC relationship with a family-owned manufacturing business generates three to five calls per week: the owner wants to discuss a vendor contract dispute (open matter), ask about a new employee classification question (separate open matter), and update the attorney on a real-estate lease negotiation the attorney is not directly handling but for which they want a quick read (potentially a new matter). The call covers all three topics in a single 35-minute conversation.

At billing time, the attorney's instinct is to attribute the full 35 minutes to the loudest topic — in this case, the vendor contract dispute, because that was the most substantive part of the conversation. The result is that the vendor contract matter is billed 35 minutes when the conversation contributed only 15 minutes of billable work to it; the employee classification matter is billed zero minutes when it consumed 12 minutes of attorney attention; and the lease question is billed zero when it consumed 8 minutes. Over a 12-month GC engagement generating three calls per week, this attribution pattern systematically over-bills the "lead matter" and under-bills the secondary matters by 30–40%. The client is not harmed — the total time billed does not exceed the actual total call time — but the attorney is leaving money on the secondary matters and creating a billing narrative that does not match the client's recollection of what the calls were about.

The billing narrative mismatch is the greater risk. When the vendor-contract matter closes and the client reviews the bill, they see 35 minutes attributed to a call that they remember spending 15 minutes on the vendor matter and 20 minutes on employee and lease questions. That discrepancy — accurate in total, inaccurate in attribution — is the most common source of billing disputes in GC relationships. ClaimHour captures the call as one duration event from call metadata. In the evening digest, you split the 35 minutes across three matter codes by time allocation: 15 minutes to vendor contract, 12 minutes to employee classification, 8 minutes to lease advisory. Three separate time entries, each attributable to its own matter, made at review time rather than mid-call. The allocation is the attorney's judgment; the discipline of making it consistently is what distinguishes contemporaneous multi-matter records from reconstruction narratives.

The invisible board meeting prep cycle

For GC engagements that include board representation — attending board meetings, drafting resolutions and consents, maintaining the corporate records book, advising on director duties — the board meeting prep cycle is the largest single source of untracked time in corporate practice. The board meeting itself is two to four hours on a quarterly calendar, visible and attributable. The surrounding preparation cycle is 8–14 hours of fragmented work in the five days before the meeting that does not appear on any calendar entry.

A typical quarterly board-meeting prep cycle for an emerging-growth company with five directors, an active CEO, and ongoing M&A discussions on the agenda looks like this:

Total preparation and post-meeting cycle: 8–14 hours per board meeting. What appears on the attorney's invoice against "board meeting Q2" without passive capture: 2–4 hours (the meeting itself and perhaps a "preparation" entry based on whatever calendar entries are visible). The undercount: 4–10 hours per board meeting.

A four-board-per-year GC client — quarterly meetings — generates 16–40 hours of invisible preparation and post-meeting work annually. At $400/hr: $6,400–$16,000 of annual board-related billing that is not making it onto invoices for a single board-representation GC client. For a corporate solo serving three GC clients with quarterly board responsibilities, the board-prep gap is $19,200–$48,000 per year — entirely attributable to the structural invisibility of fragmented preparation work behind the single calendar event that anchors the client's perception of what the attorney did.

The board-prep cycle is a clean example of a general principle in corporate time-tracking: the calendar entry is the least-complete representation of the work. The meeting, the deposition, the closing call — each of these is the culmination of preparation work that is 2–6 times longer than the event itself. Litigation solos experience the same dynamic with hearings and depositions, but the preparation is usually long enough and concentrated enough to be captured as a single "hearing prep" block. Board meeting preparation is fragmented across five days in 20–40-minute sessions that are individually below the threshold of "worth logging immediately" and collectively below the threshold of "I can reconstruct this from memory in two weeks."

GC retainer calibration: the six-month data reveal

Most solo GC practitioners price their monthly retainers using one of three methods: competitive benchmarking ("similar clients in my market pay $4,000–$6,000/month"), relationship intuition ("this client is high-touch, I should charge more than the simple one"), or what the client will accept at the initial engagement conversation. None of these methods use actual consumed-hour data, because actual consumed-hour data does not exist without a capture system. The result is a systematic pattern of mispricings that persists and compounds over every renewal cycle.

After six months of passive capture, the picture changes. You can calculate, for each GC client, the monthly average hours consumed, the effective hourly rate the current retainer produces, and the month-to-month variance (some clients are predictably steady; others spike by 3× during M&A seasons or governance crises). That data reorganizes the client portfolio in a way that competitive benchmarking cannot: it identifies which clients are profitable and which are subsidized, with enough specificity to have a data-backed renewal conversation.

A worked example: five-client GC practice at $400/hr

Consider a solo GC practitioner with five retainer clients at an aggregate $38,000/month ($456,000/year) in retainer revenue. The attorney prices each retainer based on relationship knowledge and market feel. After six months of passive capture, the actual picture:

Without capture data, the attorney experiences Client B and Client D as the "high-touch relationships" that generate more work than expected — a felt judgment, not a measured one. The capture data converts that felt judgment into a number: Client B and Client D are consuming $74,400/year of attorney labor in excess of their retainer payments. The renewal conversation changes: instead of "I'd like to increase your retainer a bit given the volume," the attorney brings the six-month average hours and the effective rate calculation. "We have averaged 21 hours per month on your matters over the past six months. At my $400/hr rate, that is $8,400 per month of services against a $5,000 retainer. To continue at the current scope, the retainer needs to come up to $7,500–$8,000, or we define a reduced scope that fits the current retainer price." That conversation, anchored in data both parties can audit, produces a different outcome than the same conversation anchored in felt workload.

For the practice as a whole: bringing Client B and Client D to break-even pricing adds $74,400/year to annual revenue — not by doing more work, but by correctly pricing work already being done. We cover the underlying realization-rate arithmetic in the realization-rate gap post, and the engagement-letter language that supports a true-up mechanism in the retainer structure in the engagement-letter scope-of-work language post.

Securities and venture counsel: the ambient-relationship billing problem

Securities-focused corporate solos — representing founders through seed and Series A financings, advising emerging-growth companies on Reg D offerings, serving as outside GC for pre-IPO companies — face all of the above failure modes plus one additional one: the ambient advisory relationship that runs between financings is the most difficult category of work to capture without passive infrastructure.

A startup-counsel engagement looks like two distinct phases. The first is the pre-close sprint: the three to five days immediately before a financing close when deal documents are finalized, investor questions are answered, and everything from the term sheet to the signature pages is being revised simultaneously. This phase is structurally identical to an M&A closing day, repeated across three to five consecutive days. The same compression failure mode applies: 12–15 hours of dense, fragmented work per day produces 7–9 hours of billing on reconstruction. The same passive capture mechanism — document-edit sessions, call metadata, email-compose time — recovers the full record.

The second phase is the ambient inter-close consulting period: the 8–10 months between financings when the founder calls with questions about employment decisions, IP assignments, board consent packages, state regulatory filings, and general governance hygiene. A typical pre-Series-A company generates three to five calls per week with its outside counsel across a 40-week inter-close period. Each call is 10–20 minutes. Each email response is 6–12 minutes of compose time. Each is billable — and each is individually below the threshold of "I will remember this at end-of-month billing."

The arithmetic: 40 weeks × 4 calls/week × 14 minutes average = 373 minutes of weekly call time = 248 hours per year. Reconstruction from memory captures approximately 40% of this — calls the attorney remembers because they were unusual, complex, or long — and misses the other 60%: the routine governance answers, the quick employment classification reads, the co-founder equity vesting questions. At $450/hr and a 60% miss rate: 149 hours of untracked advisory call time per client per year = $67,050 of uncaptured ambient advisory revenue per startup-founder GC client annually. A solo with three such clients — a realistic client count for a founder-focused corporate practice — has $201,000 of ambient advisory call time per year that is going untracked. Even at a more conservative 40% miss rate, that is $134,000 of untracked advisory time per year.

These numbers are higher than the M&A closing-day gap because the volume is higher: 40 weeks of three-to-five calls per week across three clients is more total call time than 12 M&A closings, and the individual call brevity makes reconstruction more complete failure than compression. The securities attorney time-tracking guide covers this failure mode in the context of SEC enforcement defense, FINRA arbitration, and Reg D offering periods where the ambient advisory problem takes different forms but the same infrastructure resolves it.

The arithmetic: dollar case for a mixed corporate practice

A mixed corporate solo practice — 12 M&A and commercial real-estate transactions per year, three GC clients with quarterly board responsibilities, quarterly securities advisory work for two founder clients — faces a total annual capture gap from the three failure modes plus the email-compose undercount. Working through the components:

Transaction-day closing compression: $17,000–$25,000/year

12 closings per year × 3.2–4.7-hour undercount per closing × $450/hr = $17,280–$25,380. This estimate assumes a standard M&A closing with two to three counterparties. Complex multi-party closings with a lender, title company, and multiple buyer representatives expand the undercount to 5–6 hours per closing at the same rate: $27,000–$32,400/year for a practice that regularly handles such transactions.

Email-compose undercount across deal phases: $39,000–$49,000/year

12 deals × 90-hour email-compose gap per deal at 40% capture × $450/hr. The per-deal gap (8–9 hours in diligence + 4–5 hours in negotiation) is an undercount for deals with extended due diligence periods; for shorter commercial transactions, the gap is 5–7 hours. Using 8 hours per deal as a conservative midpoint: 12 deals × 8 hours × $450/hr = $43,200/year. This is typically the largest single component of the corporate capture gap because it recurs across every deal phase, not just on the closing day.

Board meeting prep undercount: $19,000–$29,000/year

Three GC clients × four quarterly board meetings × 8-hour prep undercount per board meeting × $400/hr = $38,400/year at the 8-hour estimate. More conservatively, using a 4-hour average undercount to account for the variation between complex and routine board quarters: three clients × four boards × 4 hours × $400/hr = $19,200/year. The range $19,000–$38,000 reflects whether the practice includes clients in active M&A discussions (longer board prep) or routine operations (shorter).

GC retainer mispricing: $30,000–$75,000/year recoverable at first renewal

This is not a time-tracking gap per se — it is a pricing gap that capture data reveals and enables correcting. In a five-client GC practice at the billing rates used in the worked example above, two clients were subsidized by $40,800 and $33,600/year respectively — a combined $74,400 annual shortfall. Capturing hours does not automatically correct the mispricing; the renewal conversation does. But without hours data, the conversation cannot happen on a factual basis. Conservatively, a solo whose capture data reveals two mispriced clients and corrects one at the first available renewal recovers $30,000–$40,000 in the first year of the pricing correction.

Total: $105,000–$177,000 annual revenue gap

The three capture-gap components (closing compression + email undercount + board prep) total $75,000–$102,000 per year from work already being performed but not captured. The retainer-pricing component adds another $30,000–$75,000 at the first renewal cycle where capture data enables a data-backed conversation. Together: $105,000–$177,000 of annual revenue that a corporate solo with passive capture infrastructure recovers from work they are already doing. The foundational arithmetic on the hourly-billing capture gap — applicable across all practice areas — is in why solo lawyers leak $30,000 a year; the corporate version of that gap runs at 3–5× the baseline because corporate rates are higher and the email-compose category is larger than in most other practice areas. The corporate attorney time-tracking buyer's guide covers the product-specific mechanics for each capture category.

Three diagnostics for estimating your corporate capture gap

A corporate solo can estimate their own gap from existing case history in approximately 30 minutes using three measurements. Each diagnostic produces a number that scales to the practice's annual deal volume, client count, and billing rate.

Diagnostic 1: the closing-day reconstruction audit

Pick the most recent M&A or commercial real-estate closing in your practice. Pull your sent email folder for the closing date and count the number of substantive emails sent (excluding automated notifications, routing emails forwarding signature pages, and chain-reply acknowledgments). Multiply by seven minutes average compose time. Now pull your call log for the same day and count calls shorter than 25 minutes — the counterparty calls, client escalation calls, and brief administrative calls that bookended the main events. Multiply each by its actual duration from the log.

Sum the email-compose time and the short-call time and compare it to what appears on the billing entry for that date. The gap is your closing-day compression rate per deal. Multiply by your annual deal volume and billing rate: that is the annual closing-day revenue you are leaving on the table from this failure mode alone. For most corporate solos running this audit for the first time, the per-deal gap is 3–6 hours, and the annual number produced by the multiplication is larger than expected.

Diagnostic 2: the GC effective-hourly-rate calculation

For each GC retainer client, estimate the monthly average hours consumed over the prior six months — not from time records (you may not have them), but from your best judgment of how many calls, document sessions, and email threads each client generated per month. Apply your standard hourly rate. Compare the resulting implied monthly revenue to the actual retainer. The ratio is the realization rate on that retainer.

If you cannot make even a rough estimate of the monthly hours for one or more clients — because the calls were too numerous and too short to remember — that inability is the diagnostic. You have a GC client whose consumed hours are untracked, which means you cannot know whether the retainer is profitable, and therefore cannot make a data-backed argument for repricing at renewal. The capture system is the prerequisite for the calculation; the calculation is the prerequisite for the renewal conversation.

Diagnostic 3: the board-prep hour count

Identify the last board meeting you prepared for a GC client. Count the billable hours you claimed against "board meeting preparation" on the invoice. Then reconstruct from memory what the preparation cycle actually contained: prior-minutes review, agenda calls with the CEO, consent-package review, officer-certificate updates, director email responses in the two days before the meeting, and post-meeting minute drafting. Estimate the total time for each item. Compare the reconstructed total to what you billed.

For most corporate solos, the reconstructed total is 8–14 hours and the billed total is 2–4 hours. The gap — 4–10 hours of board-prep work attributed to "board meeting: 2 hours" — is the board-prep undercount rate. Multiply by the number of boards you serve annually and your billing rate: that is the board-prep revenue you are not capturing. For a practice with three GC clients and four annual boards each: 12 boards × 7-hour average undercount × $400/hr = $33,600/year of uncaptured board-prep work.

Each of these diagnostics points to the same infrastructure gap. The block-billing problem in litigation practice — aggregating multiple distinct tasks into a single entry — is what corporate solos do involuntarily every time they reconstruct a closing day as one round-number block: "M&A closing — 9 hours." Passive capture does not require discipline at the time of the work; it requires the attribution judgment at end-of-day review, when the full chronological log of every session is available. The FAQ covers how ClaimHour handles the specific attribution patterns in multi-matter GC practices and simultaneous-deal corporate practices.

Where corporate practice fits in the broader billing-gap picture

The three corporate failure modes — transaction-day compression, invisible board prep, GC retainer underpricing — are structurally different from the failure modes in fee-shifting litigation practice (where the gap manifests as reconstruction-quality discounts on fee petitions reviewed under the Hensley lodestar standard) and in high-volume consumer practice (where the gap manifests as call-volume attribution errors across simultaneous similar-looking matters, as covered in the FDCPA practice companion post).

But the infrastructure that closes the corporate gap is the same infrastructure that closes the litigation gap: contemporaneous call metadata, document-edit duration tracking, and email-compose time — the three data streams that reconstruction from memory systematically misses, and that passive capture collects without requiring the attorney to interrupt the work to log it. A corporate solo who adopts passive capture for the transaction-day records problem gets the board-prep completeness and the GC retainer data as a byproduct — not as separate configuration tasks, but as additional output from the same capture layer.

The realization-rate gap discussed in the realization-rate post is most visible in corporate practice because the gap between what is worked and what is billed is largest there: $70,000–$140,000 per year for a mixed 12-deal/4-GC-client practice is 3–5× the baseline gap in other practice areas. The recovery is also the most tractable, because corporate work is predominantly hourly or retainer-against-hourly — the captured hours translate directly to invoiceable entries, without the fee-petition mediation that characterizes fee-shifting litigation practice. Every hour that passive capture recovers from the closing-day and board-prep gaps is an hour that goes directly onto the invoice at the standard billing rate.

Frequently asked questions

Why does corporate practice have a worse time-tracking failure profile than litigation practice?

Litigation work organizes into recognizable long-form billing events — depositions, briefs, hearings — each long enough to survive reconstruction from calendar memory. Corporate work is different: closing days are 12–16 hours of 15–40 minute work segments, none of which feel individually "worth logging immediately," and the months between deals are ambient advisory periods (GC calls, diligence emails) where each individual event is individually forgettable. The result is a capture rate that litigation solos typically run at 75–85% and corporate solos at 50–65% — a 20-point gap that, at $400–$500/hr rates, represents $70,000–$140,000 of annual revenue per practice. The fix is passive capture of the three data streams that reconstruction from memory misses: call metadata, document-edit sessions, and email-compose time.

Can ClaimHour support a retainer true-up provision in the engagement letter?

Yes — this is one of the highest-value structural uses of corporate time-tracking data. A retainer true-up provision specifies that if monthly consumed hours exceed a defined threshold, the excess is billed at the standard hourly rate. Supporting that true-up at invoice time requires a contemporaneous time record showing which hours were consumed on which dates on which matters. ClaimHour's export — CSV, QuickBooks IIF, or LawPay — gives you that record directly. The true-up invoice is the digest plus the export, no additional reconstruction needed. The engagement-letter scope-of-work language post covers the specific language for the threshold, rollover, and audit-right clauses that make the true-up mechanism enforceable.

What happens on a closing day when I have three simultaneous M&A deals?

Each deal's documents appear in the capture log with their own file identifiers. Calls with each deal's parties are captured separately as distinct call-metadata events with counterparty identifiers and exact durations. At evening review you see the full chronological log and attribute each item to its deal matter. ClaimHour does not automatically know which document belongs to which deal — that attribution is yours at review time — but the complete log of every session makes attribution take 10 minutes rather than 90 minutes of end-of-month reconstruction. The critical advantage is completeness: every short session that reconstruction would merge into a single "closing administration" block is preserved individually, ready to be attributed to the correct deal matter.

How does ClaimHour handle board meeting attendance and the preparation cycle?

The meeting itself appears as a calendar event in the capture log — exact start and end time, attributable to the relevant client matter. The capture benefit is in the surrounding week. Prior-minutes review, agenda-drafting calls with the CEO, consent-package work, officer-certificate updates, and the director email Q-and-A in the 48 hours before the meeting are captured as individual document-edit sessions, calls, and email-compose events. The board matter appears in the monthly bill with the full 10–12 hour cycle, not just the 2-hour meeting. For a 4-board/year engagement at $400/hr, closing the 8–10 hour prep undercount recovers $12,800–$16,000 in annual board-related billing per GC client.

I bill GC clients a fixed monthly retainer with no true-up. How does ClaimHour help?

Two ways. First, pricing data: after six months of passive capture you can calculate the actual hours each GC client consumed and the effective hourly rate each retainer produces. If one client's $5,000/month retainer averaged 24 hours at your $400/hr rate, you are delivering $9,600 of services for $5,000 — a $4,600 monthly shortfall you are subsidizing out of margin. That data anchors the renewal conversation: from "what will they accept?" to "what did they cost?" Second, real-time scope management: when you see a client has consumed 85% of their implicit monthly allocation in week three, you can have the scope conversation before they have used 200% of the allocation and you are providing free legal services at the end of the month.

What does a data-backed GC retainer renewal conversation look like?

You bring two numbers: the six-month average hours consumed by that client per month, and the effective hourly rate the current retainer produces. "We have averaged 22 hours per month on your matters over the past six months. At my $400/hr standard rate, that is $8,800 per month of services against a $5,000 retainer — a $3,800 monthly shortfall. To continue the engagement at its current scope, the retainer needs to increase to $7,500–$8,000, or we define a reduced scope that fits the current price." Without hours data, that conversation is an opinion. With it, it is a business discussion both parties can audit. Most GC clients who see the hours data for the first time accept a repricing at the first renewal — because the math is transparent and the data is independently verifiable from the captured record.

Further reading

Ready to close the gap

If you are a solo corporate attorney — M&A, general counsel, securities, commercial contracts — billing hourly or on retainers-against-hourly, and the phrase "I worked harder on that deal than what I billed" has crossed your mind in the last quarter, ClaimHour was built for the gap between those two things. Join the waitlist and we will email when early access opens.

Get early access