aaron8.
  1. Home
  2. Industries
  3. Professional services

Bill the thinking, not the typing.

Engagement letters assembled by hand, intake details typed three times, the same precedent edited in Word since 2019. Practices sell judgement by the hour and spend a startling share of those hours on transcription. The typing automates; the judgement stays yours, and nothing goes out without a professional's approval.

Make the case Use the live demo Other industries

Live proof

Use it. Right here.

The same time entries priced hourly and fixed-fee, with the write-off exposed. Add a revision round and see where fixed fees quietly die.

live demoMatter time to invoice

This working build runs in your browser and needs scripts enabled. Everything on the page describes what it does; turn them on to use it.

Time captured once, priced two ways, invoiced with narrative lines a client will pay. The flag fires at 80% so the conversation happens before the write-off.

The work

Where the hours go, and come back.

Intake without the treble entry

A client fills one decent form; the practice system, the engagement letter, the conflict check list and the file all populate from it. Works alongside what you run, whether that is Xero Practice Manager and Karbon on the accounting side or Smokeball, Actionstep or Clio on the legal side.

Documents assembled from the file

Engagement letters, standard advices, report shells and schedules generated from matter and job data instead of last month's copy with the wrong client name still in paragraph four. The precedent library becomes templates with rules, not Word files with scars.

The practice systems, joined up

Practice management, document storage, e-signing and Xero kept in agreement, per CRM & automation, so a matter's status is a fact, not an inbox search. Time capture included, because unbilled WIP is the quietest leak in any practice.

AI drafting with a professional in the loop

First drafts, summaries and file note tidying from your own documents and data, per AI development, always reviewed, never auto-filed and never auto-sent. Your indemnity insurer and I agree on this design.

Built for scrutiny

Your regulator reads the file. So do I.

I spent years turning legislation into decision rules that accountable public servants could audit, at Services Australia, and writing for auditors is half my trade. Systems for practices get built the same way: client data stays in your tenancy, every automated step leaves a record, and no machine signs anything.

The background

Fair questions

Before you ask.

Confidentiality is non-negotiable for us.
Agreed, and it is architectural, not contractual: your data stays in your accounts and your tenancy, access is least-required, and AI features are configured so client material is not used to train anyone's models. You get that in writing, in the scope.
We are drowning in low-value work but wary of AI.
Wary is correct. Start where wrong answers are cheap and reviewable: internal drafts, summaries, data tidying. Nothing client-facing goes out unreviewed, and the time saved is measured, not asserted.
Which practice management system should we move to?
Possibly none; migrations are expensive and the grass is mostly the same shade. I audit what you have against what you actually do, and recommend the cheapest change that fixes the real problem, which is often plumbing, not platform.