Block Billing vs Itemised Billing: Why Australian Lawyers Should Never Block Bill

April 2026 · 9 min read

Block billing is the practice of combining multiple separate tasks into a single time entry with one aggregate time allocation — and it is the single fastest way to lose money in an Australian costs assessment. A block entry like "Research, drafting correspondence, telephone attendance on client, and review of documents — 4.2 hours" makes it impossible for a costs assessor to determine whether the research took 30 minutes or 3 hours, whether the phone call was 5 minutes or 45 minutes, or whether each individual task was performed in a reasonable time. The assessor's response is predictable: reduce the entire entry, often by 30-50%.

According to the Law Society of NSW, block billing is one of the most common reasons for costs assessment reductions. The College of Law identifies block billing as a practice that conflicts with the transparency requirements of the Legal Profession Uniform Law and the Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules. Despite this, many Australian lawyers continue to block bill — not because they want to obscure their work, but because manually itemising every task feels like it takes more time than the work itself.

AI billing tools eliminate this problem entirely. By generating separate entries for each distinct activity — from a meeting recording, an email chain, or a document — the AI does the itemisation work automatically. The lawyer gets detailed, assessment-proof entries without spending extra time writing them.

What Block Billing Looks Like

Block billing combines multiple discrete tasks into one entry. Here is a typical block entry that an Australian lawyer might create at the end of the day:

"Attending to file including telephone conference with client, review of expert report, email to counsel, and preparation of chronology — 3.6 hours"

This entry describes four separate tasks but allocates a single block of 3.6 hours across all of them. A costs assessor reading this entry cannot determine how much time was spent on the phone call (was it 6 minutes or 60 minutes?), how long the expert report review took (10 pages or 100 pages?), whether the email to counsel was a one-line confirmation or a detailed brief, or whether 3.6 hours is reasonable for the combined work.

The same work, properly itemised, looks like this:

"Telephone attendance upon client and obtaining instructions regarding expert evidence, including discussion of Dr Chen's methodology and timeline of symptoms — 0.4 hours"

"Perusing and attending to expert report of Dr Chen dated 15 March 2026, noting inconsistencies in paragraphs 14-17 regarding onset of symptoms — 1.4 hours"

"Preparing and forwarding email to counsel briefing on expert report findings and proposing supplementary questions for cross-examination — 0.6 hours"

"Preparing chronology of medical treatment based on expert report and hospital records — 1.2 hours"

The total time is identical (3.6 hours), but each entry is independently defensible. A costs assessor can evaluate whether 1.4 hours is reasonable for reviewing an expert report, whether 0.4 hours is reasonable for a phone conference, and whether 0.6 hours is reasonable for an email to counsel. The specificity protects every unit of billed time.

Why Costs Assessors Punish Block Billing

Costs assessors are required to determine whether each item in a bill represents "fair and reasonable" costs under the Legal Profession Uniform Law. This assessment is performed at the individual entry level — the assessor evaluates each line item against the criteria of necessity, time reasonableness, and appropriate seniority.

Block billing defeats this process. When four tasks are lumped into one entry, the assessor has two options: allow the full amount (which they cannot justify because they cannot verify the reasonableness of each component) or reduce the entry (which is the conservative and default approach). Assessors almost always choose reduction.

The typical reduction methodology for block entries is to estimate the reasonable time for the most identifiable task in the block, then discount the remainder because it cannot be verified. In practice, this means a block entry claiming 3.6 hours might be assessed at 2.0-2.5 hours — a reduction of 30-45% — even if the lawyer actually spent 3.6 hours doing legitimate, necessary work. The lawyer loses revenue not because the work was unnecessary, but because the billing format made it impossible to prove.

The Ethical Dimension

The Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules (ASCR) impose obligations that interact directly with billing practices.

Rule 12.1: A law practice must charge costs that are no more than fair and reasonable. Block billing makes it difficult for the firm itself to verify that costs are fair and reasonable, because the block format obscures the time spent on individual tasks.

Rule 12.2: Costs must be disclosed to the client in a manner that allows the client to make an informed decision. A block-billed invoice provides less information than an itemised invoice, reducing the client's ability to assess whether the costs are reasonable.

Costs disclosure obligations: Under the LPUL, lawyers must provide clients with sufficient information about the basis of their costs. If the firm's billing practice makes it impossible to explain how time was allocated across tasks, the firm is at risk of a costs disclosure complaint.

The College of Law's 2025 guidance on AI-era billing specifically addresses the interaction between AI tools and billing ethics. Using AI to generate detailed, itemised entries is consistent with ethical obligations because it produces bills that are transparent, verifiable, and defensible. Block billing, by contrast, creates ethical risk because it reduces transparency.

Why Lawyers Still Block Bill

If block billing is so clearly disfavoured, why do lawyers still do it? The answer is almost always time pressure.

Creating four separate entries for the work described above takes 4-5 minutes of manual typing. Creating one block entry takes 30 seconds. When a lawyer has 15-20 discrete tasks to bill at the end of the day, the difference between itemised and block billing is 60-90 minutes of additional billing administration. Many lawyers, particularly those under pressure to meet billable hour targets, choose the faster option.

This is a false economy. The time "saved" by block billing is offset by the revenue lost when block entries are reduced in costs assessments, when clients query vague invoices and negotiate reductions, when the firm writes off entries that cannot be defended, and when detailed file review is needed to reconstruct what was done months after the work was completed.

How AI Eliminates the Block Billing Problem

AI billing tools solve the block billing problem at its root. Instead of the lawyer manually writing entries (and choosing between slow itemisation and fast block billing), the AI generates itemised entries automatically from the raw materials of the lawyer's work.

Meeting recordings → itemised entries. A 45-minute client meeting might involve 5 distinct topics. The AI identifies each topic, allocates time based on the recording, and produces 5 separate entries — each with a specific description, matter reference, and time allocation in 6-minute units.

Email chains → itemised entries. A thread of 8 emails might contain 3 distinct billable activities (providing advice, reviewing a document attachment, and giving instructions to counsel). The AI separates these into 3 individual entries.

Document review → itemised entries. Reviewing a 50-page contract might involve identifying 4 key risk areas. The AI produces entries that reference the specific clauses reviewed, rather than a generic "review of contract" entry.

The result is that every entry is individually defensible, every entry has a specific description that a costs assessor can evaluate, and the lawyer spends zero additional time on the itemisation process. The AI does in 90 seconds what would take the lawyer 60-90 minutes to do manually — and produces better entries in the process.

Practical Steps to Stop Block Billing

Record time contemporaneously. Enter time as you complete each task, not at the end of the day. End-of-day batch entry is the primary driver of block billing because by 5pm, the lawyer cannot remember the individual tasks clearly enough to itemise them.

Use voice notes for small tasks. A 15-second voice note after a phone call ("4-minute call with opposing counsel confirming discovery deadline extension to 28 April") captures the detail you need for an itemised entry. AI billing tools convert these voice notes into formatted entries automatically.

One task, one entry. Make this a firm-wide rule. If you did two things, create two entries. If you did five things, create five entries. Never combine tasks into a single time allocation.

Use AI for meetings and emails. Upload meeting recordings and email chains to an AI billing tool. The AI automatically separates the content into individual billable activities, eliminating the temptation to block bill.

Review bills before sending. Before any invoice goes to a client, review it for block entries. If any entry contains multiple verbs ("research, draft, review, attend"), split it into separate entries.

What is block billing in Australian legal practice?

Block billing is combining multiple tasks into a single time entry with one aggregate time allocation. For example, "Research, drafting, and client conference — 4.2 hours" is a block entry. It prevents costs assessors and clients from determining how much time was spent on each individual task, making it impossible to evaluate whether the time claimed for each task was reasonable. Block billing is the most common reason for costs assessment reductions in Australia.

Is block billing allowed in Australia?

Block billing is not explicitly prohibited by legislation, but it is strongly disfavoured by costs assessors and courts. In costs assessments under the Legal Profession Uniform Law, block entries are routinely reduced by 30-50% because the assessor cannot determine the reasonableness of individual tasks. The Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules require fair and reasonable costs, and block billing makes it difficult to demonstrate compliance with this standard.

How does AI billing prevent block billing?

AI billing tools generate separate entries for each distinct billable activity identified in a meeting recording, email, or document. A 45-minute client meeting that a lawyer might manually record as one block entry instead produces 4-6 individual entries, each with a specific description, topic, and time allocation in 6-minute units. The itemisation happens automatically in 90 seconds, eliminating both the temptation and the need to block bill.

Last verified: April 2026. This article is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Costs assessment practices may vary by jurisdiction. Consult your state or territory Law Society for specific guidance on billing standards.