Aparti Brings Family Law Billing and AI to TexasBarCLE

Aparti's Anna Naidis and Igor Sheremet presented LegalTech for Family Law Beyond Drafting: AI, Automation, & Billable Hours, a live TexasBarCLE webcast, on September 29, 2026. The program explored where family law billing workflows lose time and revenue, what automation can help address, and how professional responsibility applies when lawyers use AI. TexasBarCLE's listing scheduled the webcast from 12:30 to 2:00 p.m. Central and listed 1.5 hours of MCLE credit.

The appearance followed their September 10 program with the Bar Association of San Francisco, bringing the conversation to a Texas audience. Anna and Igor participated as volunteer faculty and are not attorneys.

Where Billable Work Becomes Collected Revenue

Clio's 2025 Legal Trends benchmarks provide a starting point: an average eight-hour workday translates into approximately 2.4 hours of collected work. Clio reports a 38% utilization rate, an 88% realization rate, and a 93% collection rate. These measure the share of the day spent on billable work, the share of that work invoiced, and the share of invoiced work paid.

Those are broad law-firm benchmarks, not results specific to Texas or family law. They nevertheless make an operational distinction useful to this discussion: work can fall out of the billing process before a client ever receives an invoice.

Clio also reports a median total lockup of 93 days. That represents the equivalent days of revenue tied up in unbilled work and unpaid invoices; it is not a measurement of how long each invoice takes to get paid.

Five Billing Workflows Worth Examining

The presentation framework organized the billing process into five places where a firm can look for missed work, delays, or unclear responsibilities:

• Time capture. A short call or follow-up task gets completed but never recorded. As an illustration, one unrecorded six-minute call per day at $400 per hour represents $10,000 of billable time across 250 working days, before any billing adjustments or collection losses.
• Billing narratives. A time entry exists, but the description does not explain the work. A phrase such as "attention to case matters" gives a client little basis for understanding the charge.
• Invoicing cadence. Completed work waits for review or an invoice waits to be sent. A consistent schedule helps make those delays visible, while review remains necessary to catch errors.
• Retainers and replenishment. A balance falls as a matter continues. Tracking balances and flagging matters that need attention can help a firm address funding questions earlier.
• Collections. An invoice arrives, but follow-up is inconsistent. Reminders and payment processes need clear ownership and careful attention to what the client is being told.

Family law adds a particular challenge to that framework: the work can change during a matter. Consider a flat fee for an uncontested divorce that later involves a contested issue and a business valuation. The example raises a practical question about scope: when the work changes, what prompts the firm to review the fee arrangement and discuss next steps with the client?

What Texas Ethics Opinion 705 Says About AI and Fees

Texas Ethics Opinion 705, issued in February 2025, addresses lawyers' use of generative AI. Its fees discussion draws a clear boundary: lawyers billing by the hour may not charge for time saved by AI. Depending on the fee agreement, actual time spent using the tool, refining its output, and checking the work may be billable.

The opinion also addresses technological competence, confidentiality, and verification. Lawyers using generative AI need to understand the technology and its risks, protect client information, and check the work it produces. The responsibility for the resulting work remains with the lawyer.

Trust-account duties require separate attention. Texas Rule 1.15 addresses safeguarding client funds, keeping records, and handling disputed funds. For a firm reviewing its software, a useful operational question is what the system can do to client money automatically and where a lawyer reviews and authorizes the action.

Three Practical Checks for a Firm's Billing Process

The presentation framework offers a manageable starting point for examining a firm's own workflows:

1. Look at the delay before billing. Select five closed matters and compare the last work-entry date with the invoice date. Use the sample to identify questions for a closer review of the billing process.
2. Read Opinion 705. Its fees discussion provides a specific reference for evaluating hourly billing when generative AI is involved.
3. Map the approval steps. For each system that sends a payment message or handles client money, identify what happens automatically, who checks it, and how exceptions reach the responsible lawyer.

Why This Conversation Matters to Aparti

For Aparti, the connection extends from billing to the preparation and review of support calculations. Both workflows depend on financial information that a professional needs to understand and explain. When income changes, a document is updated, or an assumption is revised, the person reviewing the work needs to see what changed and how it affects the result.

That is the perspective Aparti brings to these conversations: technology should make the inputs and review process easier to follow, while keeping professional judgment visible.

Aparti thanks TexasBarCLE for the opportunity to contribute to the discussion with family law professionals in Texas.

Explore Aparti or read about the team's earlier program with the Bar Association of San Francisco.

Aparti and the State Bar of Texas are not affiliated. Neither TexasBarCLE nor the State Bar of Texas endorses any product or service. Aparti is a technology company, not a law firm. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.