Better Bill GPT: Comparing Large Language Models against Legal Invoice Reviewers
Fuente:
arXiv
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866909563726331904 |
|---|---|
| author | Whitehouse, Nick Lincoln, Nicole Yiu, Stephanie Catterson, Lizzie Perera, Rivindu |
| author_facet | Whitehouse, Nick Lincoln, Nicole Yiu, Stephanie Catterson, Lizzie Perera, Rivindu |
| contents | Legal invoice review is a costly, inconsistent, and time-consuming process, traditionally performed by Legal Operations, Lawyers or Billing Specialists who scrutinise billing compliance line by line. This study presents the first empirical comparison of Large Language Models (LLMs) against human invoice reviewers - Early-Career Lawyers, Experienced Lawyers, and Legal Operations Professionals-assessing their accuracy, speed, and cost-effectiveness. Benchmarking state-of-the-art LLMs against a ground truth set by expert legal professionals, our empirically substantiated findings reveal that LLMs decisively outperform humans across every metric. In invoice approval decisions, LLMs achieve up to 92% accuracy, surpassing the 72% ceiling set by experienced lawyers. On a granular level, LLMs dominate line-item classification, with top models reaching F-scores of 81%, compared to just 43% for the best-performing human group. Speed comparisons are even more striking - while lawyers take 194 to 316 seconds per invoice, LLMs are capable of completing reviews in as fast as 3.6 seconds. And cost? AI slashes review expenses by 99.97%, reducing invoice processing costs from an average of $4.27 per invoice for human invoice reviewers to mere cents. These results highlight the evolving role of AI in legal spend management. As law firms and corporate legal departments struggle with inefficiencies, this study signals a seismic shift: The era of LLM-powered legal spend management is not on the horizon, it has arrived. The challenge ahead is not whether AI can perform as well as human reviewers, but how legal teams will strategically incorporate it, balancing automation with human discretion. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2504_02881 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Better Bill GPT: Comparing Large Language Models against Legal Invoice Reviewers Whitehouse, Nick Lincoln, Nicole Yiu, Stephanie Catterson, Lizzie Perera, Rivindu Computation and Language Legal invoice review is a costly, inconsistent, and time-consuming process, traditionally performed by Legal Operations, Lawyers or Billing Specialists who scrutinise billing compliance line by line. This study presents the first empirical comparison of Large Language Models (LLMs) against human invoice reviewers - Early-Career Lawyers, Experienced Lawyers, and Legal Operations Professionals-assessing their accuracy, speed, and cost-effectiveness. Benchmarking state-of-the-art LLMs against a ground truth set by expert legal professionals, our empirically substantiated findings reveal that LLMs decisively outperform humans across every metric. In invoice approval decisions, LLMs achieve up to 92% accuracy, surpassing the 72% ceiling set by experienced lawyers. On a granular level, LLMs dominate line-item classification, with top models reaching F-scores of 81%, compared to just 43% for the best-performing human group. Speed comparisons are even more striking - while lawyers take 194 to 316 seconds per invoice, LLMs are capable of completing reviews in as fast as 3.6 seconds. And cost? AI slashes review expenses by 99.97%, reducing invoice processing costs from an average of $4.27 per invoice for human invoice reviewers to mere cents. These results highlight the evolving role of AI in legal spend management. As law firms and corporate legal departments struggle with inefficiencies, this study signals a seismic shift: The era of LLM-powered legal spend management is not on the horizon, it has arrived. The challenge ahead is not whether AI can perform as well as human reviewers, but how legal teams will strategically incorporate it, balancing automation with human discretion. |
| title | Better Bill GPT: Comparing Large Language Models against Legal Invoice Reviewers |
| topic | Computation and Language |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.02881 |