Activity Codes
The ABA activity codes (A101 through A111), how a timekeeper spent time, with guidance on when each applies and the 2013 LOC revision that added vendor codes.
UTBMS activity codes describe how a timekeeper spent time, independent of the matter phase.
Activity codes pair with task codes on each line item, so a single entry tells the reviewer both what stage the work belongs to and what kind of work it was. The original ABA set is eleven codes; the 2013 LOC revision kept those eleven and added seventeen more, chiefly to give eDiscovery vendors billable activity codes for the first time. Every code is searchable alongside all sets at the UTBMS code database.
Activity coding is the second axis of every time entry, and clean two-axis data is what lets a legal spend management program ask precise questions: how much partner time went to communication, how research concentrates by timekeeper level, and where staffing does not match the task.
What are activity codes used for?
Activity codes answer what kind of work a line represents: planning, research, drafting, reviewing, communicating, or appearing. Paired with the task code that sets the phase, they let a reviewer read staffing and effort patterns rather than just totals.
The most useful signals are about who did what. Research concentrated at senior levels, communication time that climbs faster than the matter, and preparation hours that aggregate across timekeepers before an event are all visible only when activity coding is applied consistently.
What does each activity code cover?
A101: Plan and prepare forABA (1997)
Time spent getting ready for a defined upcoming event or work product, such as preparing for a deposition, hearing, or negotiation session.
When to use this code: Use when the preparation ties to a specific, identifiable event. The narrative should name the event being prepared for.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Entries where the narrative describes the activity but not the event, such as 'prepare for hearing' without further detail. Preparation hours also tend to accumulate across multiple timekeepers in the days before major events, so aggregate prep time can grow faster than the event itself would suggest.
What invoice review checks: Review A101 entries for a named event or deliverable in the narrative, and compare total preparation hours across timekeepers to the scope and length of the event. Guidelines often set expectations here, which gives the review a factual anchor.
A102: ResearchABA (1997)
Legal research on statutes, case law, regulations, or other authority relevant to the matter.
When to use this code: Use for genuine legal research. The narrative should identify the issue researched, not just the activity.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Research billed at senior timekeeper rates when the task is typically staffed at the associate level, research on the same legal question appearing across multiple matters for the same client, and research entries combined with other activities in a single block.
What invoice review checks: Check timekeeper level against the task, since most guidelines address staffing expectations for research. Across a portfolio, portfolio-level analytics can surface repeated research on identical issues, which is a useful conversation to have at a firm review.
A103: Draft/reviseABA (1997)
Creating or revising documents, from pleadings and contracts to correspondence and memoranda.
When to use this code: Use for original drafting and substantive revision. This is legitimately the highest-volume activity code on most invoices.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Drafting time on documents that follow established firm templates, such as standard complaints or routine agreements, where the hours reflect original drafting rather than adaptation. Also sequential revision entries on the same document by several timekeepers.
What invoice review checks: For document types the firm produces routinely, benchmark drafting hours against comparable prior matters. Multiple A103 entries on one document by different timekeepers is worth a narrative-level read to understand how the work was staffed.
A104: Review/analyzeABA (1997)
Reading and analyzing documents, filings, correspondence, or other material in the matter.
When to use this code: Use for substantive review that produces analysis or informs next steps. Narratives should state what was reviewed and why.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: General entries such as 'review file' or 'review correspondence' without a stated purpose, review of a timekeeper's own prior work, and layered review where material is examined by several timekeepers in sequence.
What invoice review checks: A104 concentration is one of the most informative metrics in spend analytics. Track it as a percentage of total fees by firm and compare against your panel median; a firm that runs consistently higher has a staffing model worth understanding, and the data makes that a fact-based discussion.
A105: Communicate (in firm)ABA (1997)
Internal conferences, emails, and discussions among timekeepers at the billing firm.
When to use this code: Use for internal coordination that genuinely advances the matter. Most billing guidelines restrict or cap this code, so usage expectations are usually documented.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: The same internal conference appearing on multiple timekeepers' entries with matching dates and durations. Guidelines commonly provide for one biller per internal conference, so multi-attendee entries are a frequent adjustment area. Internal discussion time can also reflect the development of junior timekeepers, which guidelines typically treat as a firm investment.
What invoice review checks: Match A105 entries across timekeepers by date and duration. This is one of the most reliable automated rules in eBilling because the pattern is objective and the guideline language is usually explicit.
A106: Communicate (with client)ABA (1997)
Calls, emails, and meetings with the client, including status reporting.
When to use this code: Use for substantive client communication. Many guidelines make routine status updates non-billable, so the narrative matters.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: High counts of minimum-increment entries, such as 0.1 and 0.2 hour line items for brief emails, spread across multiple timekeepers. Individually small, these entries compound meaningfully over the life of a matter. Status reports coded here also warrant a guideline check, since many clients designate them non-billable.
What invoice review checks: Sort A106 by entry duration and review the distribution at the minimum increments. The pattern is quantifiable, which keeps the resulting conversation with the firm grounded in data rather than judgment.
A107: Communicate (other outside counsel)ABA (1997)
Communication with other law firms on the matter, such as co-counsel, local counsel, or opposing counsel.
When to use this code: Use for coordination with other firms involved in the matter. Legitimate and often necessary in multi-firm litigation.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: In multi-firm matters, the same call or conference can appear on both firms' invoices, which means the coordination is paid on both sides. Coordination volume also tends to scale with the number of firms involved, so it deserves attention on heavily staffed matters.
What invoice review checks: Where multiple panel firms bill the same matter, reconcile A107 entries across invoices. Paired entries for the same interaction are addressable under most guidelines, and cross-invoice analytics make them straightforward to identify.
A108: Communicate (other external)ABA (1997)
Communication with external parties other than the client and other counsel, such as retained experts, consultants, and witnesses.
When to use this code: Use for substantive coordination with experts and consultants. Expect it to concentrate around expert discovery and report deadlines.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Extended coordination time with an expert who is separately invoicing for the same interactions, which results in both sides of one conversation appearing in your total matter cost.
What invoice review checks: Cross-reference A108 volume against the expert's own invoices when both flow through your eBilling system. The comparison shows the full cost of the expert relationship, which matter budgeting benefits from either way.
A109: Appear for/attendABA (1997)
Attendance at hearings, depositions, trials, mediations, and other proceedings or events.
When to use this code: Use for actual attendance at proceedings and events. Duration should track the event itself.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Travel time included within appearance entries, which matters because most guidelines compensate travel at a reduced rate or not at all. Also attendance by multiple timekeepers at proceedings where guidelines contemplate one, typically requiring advance approval for additional attendees.
What invoice review checks: Compare billed A109 duration to the proceeding length, which is often verifiable from transcripts or dockets, and check multi-timekeeper attendance against your pre-approval requirements. Both checks are factual and rarely contested when the data is presented.
A110: Manage data/filesABA (1997)
Organizing, indexing, and maintaining matter files and data.
When to use this code: Use sparingly. Data management requiring legal judgment, such as organizing a production set, can qualify. Routine file maintenance is generally treated as firm overhead.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Administrative tasks such as file organization, calendaring, and document assembly appearing at timekeeper rates. Nearly all billing guidelines classify this work as overhead regardless of who performs it, so entries here often reflect a coding choice rather than a billing entitlement.
What invoice review checks: A110 at attorney rates is typically adjusted under standard guideline language. At paralegal rates, the narrative determines the outcome: work that is clerical in nature falls under overhead provisions in most guidelines.
A111: OtherABA (1997)
Activities that genuinely fit no other code.
When to use this code: Near-zero expected usage on a carefully coded invoice. Almost everything a timekeeper does on a matter fits one of the ten codes above.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Elevated A111 usage, which usually indicates coding applied quickly rather than carefully. Coding quality and narrative quality tend to move together, so this code doubles as a hygiene indicator.
What invoice review checks: Track A111 as a percentage of line items by firm. Beyond trace usage, it is worth raising at a firm review, because inconsistent coding limits what your spend analytics can tell you across the whole portfolio.
What changed in the LOC revised codes?
2013 LOC Revised Activity Codes (2013). The 2013 revision keeps the eleven ABA activity codes (with sharper names: A105 becomes Communicate (within legal team), A107 becomes Communicate (opponents/other outside counsel), and A110 narrows to matter closing and post-closing documentation work) and adds seventeen codes. The additions do two things: split communication further (A113 witnesses, A114 experts), and give eDiscovery vendors billable activity codes for the first time (A117 through A128 cover forensic collection, culling, processing, review, QA, search, privilege log work, production, exhibits, project management, and collection closing). A112 adopts the DRI billable travel time code, and A115 and A116 add medical record management and training. The driver: clients began mandating eBilling for all legal vendors, not just law firms, and the original eleven codes could not describe vendor work.
| Code | Name | Maps to | Revision note |
|---|---|---|---|
A105 | Communicate (within legal team) | A105 | Renamed from Communicate (in firm); now includes co-team parties |
A107 | Communicate (opponents/other outside counsel) | A107 | Renamed; opposing counsel made explicit |
A110 | Manage Data/Files/Documentation | A110 | Usage narrowed substantially from the original file-management scope |
A112 | Billable Travel Time | DRI A112 | Adopted from the DRI code set |
A113 | Communicate (witnesses) | new | New |
A114 | Communicate (experts) | new | New; the ABA original folded experts into A108 |
A115 | Medical Record and Medical Bill Management | new | New |
A116 | Training | new | New |
A117 | Special Handling Copying/Scanning/Imaging (Internal) | new | New |
A118 | Collection-Forensic | new | New; eDiscovery |
A119 | Culling and Filtering | new | New; eDiscovery |
A120 | Processing | new | New; eDiscovery |
A121 | Review and Analysis | new | New; eDiscovery |
A122 | Quality Assurance and Control | new | New; eDiscovery |
A123 | Search Creation and Execution | new | New; eDiscovery |
A124 | Privilege Review Culling and Log Creation | new | New; eDiscovery |
A125 | Document Production Creation and Preparation | new | New; eDiscovery |
A126 | Evidence/Exhibit Creation and Preparation | new | New; eDiscovery |
A127 | Project Management | new | New; eDiscovery |
A128 | Collection Closing Activities | new | New; eDiscovery |
For invoice review, the 2013 activity codes matter most on vendor invoices: they make vendor eDiscovery services codeable at the activity level, which pairs with the L600 task codes and X300-series expenses to complete the three-dimensional view of discovery cost. On law firm invoices, watch the A110 narrowing; time coded A110 under the old definition may not qualify under the revised one.
How should legal departments use activity codes in invoice review?
Activity review is mostly a staffing and effort read. Compare timekeeper level against the activity, since guidelines usually set expectations for who should perform research and routine review, and watch communication and preparation codes that tend to accumulate across a team faster than the underlying event would suggest.
Those reads only scale if the eBilling platform captures activity codes on every line and lets you slice by timekeeper level and code, which is where legal technology implementation matters: staffing-ratio checks and code-level effort analytics belong in the system, applied to every invoice automatically.
How do Activity Codes support legal spend management?
Activity Codes only deliver value inside a program that enforces them. Our legal spend management and enterprise legal management hubs cover how coded invoices become spend control, and our guides to what to put in outside counsel billing guidelines, spend analytics versus reporting, and how legal eBilling works go deeper on the review programs, guidelines, and eBilling rules that put UTBMS coding to work.
Bottom Line
Activity codes turn a bill from a list of totals into a description of who did what kind of work. Paired with task codes, they make staffing analysis, effort benchmarking, and the newer world of vendor eDiscovery billing legible. The 2013 revision matters most on vendor invoices, where it made discovery services codeable at the activity level for the first time.
Consistent activity coding is what lets invoice review see staffing and effort, not just dollars.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between activity codes and task codes?
Activity codes (the A-series) describe the kind of work a timekeeper did, such as research or drafting. Task codes describe the phase of the matter the work belongs to. Each time entry carries both, which is what lets a reviewer see both what kind of work was done and where in the matter it sits.
What did the 2013 LOC revision change?
It kept the eleven original ABA activity codes, sharpened a few names, and added seventeen codes. The most significant additions gave eDiscovery vendors billable activity codes for the first time, covering collection, processing, review, and production, because clients had begun mandating eBilling for all legal vendors, not just law firms.
Why do activity codes pair with task codes?
A task code alone tells you the phase but not the kind of work; an activity code alone tells you the kind of work but not where it belongs. Used together on each line, they give a two-axis view that supports staffing analysis and effort benchmarking that neither axis could provide on its own.
How should activity codes be used in invoice review?
Read them as a staffing and effort signal: compare timekeeper level against the activity, and watch communication and preparation codes that accumulate across a team. Each code below lists the patterns reviewers commonly see and what invoice review checks, so the test is concrete for every activity.
How do UTBMS codes relate to outside counsel billing guidelines and legal spend management?
UTBMS codes are the shared vocabulary that outside counsel billing guidelines and a legal spend management program depend on. Guidelines define what each code should and should not contain, the eBilling system enforces those rules, and consistent coding is what makes spend analytics and cross-firm benchmarking possible. Without agreed codes, guidelines cannot be enforced and spend data cannot be compared.
About this reference
UTBMS code sets are standards published by their respective bodies, including the ABA, the LEDES Oversight Committee, UTBMS.com, the CBA, DRI, the Judiciaries of England and Wales, and the Yerra Global KM Expert Group. All copyrights and trademarks are the property of their respective owners; Swiftwater & Company is not affiliated with or endorsed by any of them.
Code identifiers follow the published standards, while all descriptions and annotations are original Swiftwater commentary, developed with human expertise, proprietary consulting knowledge, and AI assistance.
This is general reference material, not legal advice. Standards are revised over time, so confirm the current version with the originating body before implementing.
Next Step
Ready to talk to a legal operations practitioner who has actually done it?
Start with the free CURRENT Assessment to benchmark your spend program, or use legaltechcalculator.com to build the cost case for the eBilling rules that enforce these codes.
Book a Discovery CallNo commitment and no pitch deck, just a direct conversation with a legal operations practitioner.