Better Bill GPT: Comparing Large Language Models against Legal Invoice Reviewers
Clicks: 11
ID: 283298
2025
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.
Reference Key |
perera2025better
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
---|---|
Authors | Nick Whitehouse; Nicole Lincoln; Stephanie Yiu; Lizzie Catterson; Rivindu Perera |
Journal | arXiv |
Year | 2025 |
DOI | DOI not found |
URL | |
Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.