Bankruptcy Codes
The ABA bankruptcy codes (B100 through B400), organized for fee application practice, with guidance on how coding quality shapes fee review by the US Trustee, fee examiners, and creditors.
UTBMS bankruptcy codes align with fee application practice in bankruptcy courts, where professional fees face examination by the US Trustee, fee examiners, and creditors.
These codes serve a purpose the other sets do not: for counsel in a restructuring, coding quality shapes how cleanly fee applications survive review. The set organizes into administration, operations, and claims-and-plan groups that track the shape of a restructuring engagement. Every code is searchable alongside all sets at the UTBMS code database.
Because bankruptcy fees are reviewed in a public, adversarial process, clean coding is both a compliance safeguard and the kind of spend discipline a legal spend management program brings to any category: it makes the bill legible to the people who scrutinize it.
What are bankruptcy codes used for?
Bankruptcy codes classify restructuring work into the phases a fee application must account for, from case administration through operations, claims, and plan work. The structure mirrors how courts and fee examiners read a bill, which is why coding accuracy affects outcomes and not just analytics.
The recurring review signals are about proportion and lumping. Administration that grows out of proportion to the estate, and time swept into broad categories rather than coded to specific work, are exactly the patterns a fee examiner flags.
What does each bankruptcy code cover?
B110: Case AdministrationABA
General case administration, coordination, and matters not covered by a more specific code.
When to use this code: Use for genuine case administration. In practice this functions as the bankruptcy catch-all, so restraint here is the mark of careful coding.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: B110 carrying a large share of case fees, which fee examiners and the US Trustee read the same way a client reads catch-all concentration anywhere: as coding that limits scrutiny.
What invoice review checks: Track B110 as a percentage of fees by professional. In examined cases, low catch-all usage is also self-interested for the firm, since it supports the fee application.
B120: Asset Analysis and RecoveryABA
Identifying, analyzing, and recovering estate assets.
When to use this code: Use for asset identification and recovery work.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Overlap with B180 avoidance analysis and with litigation coding when recovery becomes contested, which splits one workstream across categories.
What invoice review checks: Read B120 with B180 and any adversary proceeding fees for the full recovery-effort cost against the value actually recovered.
B130: Asset DispositionABA
Sales and other dispositions of estate assets, including sale motions and auction processes.
When to use this code: Use for asset sale work, including 363 sale processes.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Sale process fees relative to asset value on smaller dispositions, where process cost can approach the recovery.
What invoice review checks: Fees per disposition against proceeds is the natural benchmark, and the code isolates it cleanly.
B140: Relief from Stay/Adequate Protection ProceedingsABA
Stay relief motions and adequate protection litigation.
When to use this code: Use for stay-related contested matters.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Routine stay relief responses billed at contested-matter depth when the outcome follows established patterns.
What invoice review checks: Stay relief motions are docketed and largely formulaic in volume cases. Cost per motion benchmarks quickly.
B150: Meetings of and Communications with CreditorsABA
Creditor meetings, committee communication, and 341 meeting work.
When to use this code: Use for creditor-facing communication and meetings.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Multiple professionals attending creditor and committee meetings beyond the roles the meeting requires, the multi-attendee pattern in its bankruptcy form.
What invoice review checks: Meeting attendance against a staffing expectation, with meeting dates verifiable from the case calendar.
B160: Fee/Employment ApplicationsABA
Preparing retention applications and fee applications.
When to use this code: Use for the firm's own retention and fee application work. Courts generally permit reasonable time here, with expectations about proportionality.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Fee application preparation consuming a share of fees beyond what courts in the district typically regard as proportionate.
What invoice review checks: B160 as a percentage of total fees is a published, benchmarkable figure in examined cases, which gives the review an external standard most invoice line items never have.
B170: Fee/Employment ObjectionsABA
Litigating objections to retention or fees, the firm's own or others'.
When to use this code: Use for objection-related contested work.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Defense of the firm's own fees billed to the estate where the court's practice limits it.
What invoice review checks: District practice on fee-defense compensability is the governing reference, and it varies, so the check is jurisdictional.
B180: Avoidance Action AnalysisABA
Analyzing preference and fraudulent transfer exposure and recovery potential.
When to use this code: Use for avoidance analysis before actions are filed; filed actions typically move to litigation coding.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Analysis cost on claims whose size cannot support it, since avoidance work is only as valuable as the net recovery it enables.
What invoice review checks: Analysis fees against the claim pool being analyzed. The economics question is visible when the code is used consistently.
B185: Assumption/Rejection of Leases and ContractsABA
Analyzing and litigating assumption and rejection of executory contracts and leases.
When to use this code: Use for 365 work on the contract and lease portfolio.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Per-contract analysis billed uniformly across a portfolio where most contracts follow a small number of patterns.
What invoice review checks: Cost per contract decision, with portfolio triage as the expected approach on volume caseloads.
B190: Other Contested MattersABA
Contested matters not covered by a more specific code.
When to use this code: Use for miscellaneous contested matters, excluding adversary proceedings running under litigation codes.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Material contested-matter fees pooling here rather than under specific codes, which limits what the fee data can show.
What invoice review checks: Narrative-level read on material entries, and the same catch-all hygiene tracking applied everywhere else.
B195: Non-Working TravelABA
Travel time not spent working on the matter.
When to use this code: Use for non-working travel, which most guidelines and many courts compensate at a reduced rate.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Travel billed at full rates where the applicable guideline or district practice specifies a reduction, and working travel claimed without work product visible in adjacent entries.
What invoice review checks: The rate reduction is mechanical once the code is applied honestly, which is exactly why the code exists. Full-rate travel under other codes is the pattern automated rules should catch.
B210: Business OperationsABA
Advising on the debtor's ongoing business operations during the case.
When to use this code: Use for operational advice to the debtor in possession.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Operational advice that is ordinary-course business counseling arriving at restructuring rates because a case is pending.
What invoice review checks: Whether the work required bankruptcy expertise is a fair staffing question, and the code isolates the population where it applies.
B220: Employee Benefits/PensionsABA
Employee, benefits, and pension issues in the case.
When to use this code: Use for workforce and benefits matters, including retention and severance programs.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Overlap with ordinary employment counsel work running outside the case.
What invoice review checks: Coordination between restructuring counsel and regular employment counsel is a cost boundary worth defining at case start; the code shows whether it held.
B230: Financing/Cash CollateralABA
DIP financing and cash collateral matters.
When to use this code: Use for financing workstreams, typically front-loaded and intensive.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Financing fees on renewal and extension motions that follow the original order's pattern.
What invoice review checks: First-day financing work is inherently heavy; the benchmark applies to the follow-on motions, which should cost a fraction of the original.
B240: Tax IssuesABA
Tax matters arising in the case.
When to use this code: Use for case-related tax work.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Boundary with the company's regular tax advisors, the B220 dynamic in tax form.
What invoice review checks: Advisor-boundary definition at case start, with the code showing where the work actually landed.
B250: Real EstateABA
Real estate matters in the case.
When to use this code: Use for real-estate-specific workstreams.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Overlap with B185 on lease-heavy cases, where the same lease work could plausibly land in either code.
What invoice review checks: Pick a convention at case start and hold it, because consistency matters more than the choice for what the data can tell you.
B260: Board of Directors MattersABA
Advising the board and governance matters during the case.
When to use this code: Use for governance advice in the restructuring context.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Full-team attendance at board meetings, the recurring multi-attendee pattern at its highest rates.
What invoice review checks: Board meeting attendance against an agreed staffing expectation, with meetings documented in minutes.
B310: Claims Administration and ObjectionsABA
Claims review, reconciliation, and objection practice.
When to use this code: Use for claims work, often high-volume and pattern-driven.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Uniform per-claim cost across a pool where omnibus objections and claims agents should be driving unit cost down.
What invoice review checks: Cost per claim resolved, with the claims agent's role and omnibus procedures as the structural cost levers the data should reflect.
B320: Plan and Disclosure StatementABA
Formulating, drafting, negotiating, and confirming the plan and disclosure statement.
When to use this code: Use for plan-related work, the strategic center of a reorganization.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Plan drafting distributed across many timekeepers, and confirmation-stage surges reflecting deferred negotiation rather than confirmation complexity.
What invoice review checks: Plan-phase budgeting at case milestones, with B320 tracked against it. In examined cases this figure is public across comparable cases, which makes benchmarking unusually concrete.
B410: General Bankruptcy Advice/OpinionsABA
Analysis, advice, and opinions on potential bankruptcy issues where no case has been filed.
When to use this code: Use for pre-filing and non-case bankruptcy advisory work, such as counterparty insolvency risk analysis.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Advisory work continuing under B410 after a case is filed, when the work belongs under the case-phase codes.
What invoice review checks: The petition date is the dividing line. Coding on either side of it should follow the docket, the same convention as L460 and L510.
B420: RestructuringsABA
Analysis, consultation, and drafting for out-of-court restructurings of agreements, including financing agreements, where no bankruptcy case has been filed.
When to use this code: Use for out-of-court workout and restructuring engagements.
Patterns reviewers commonly see: Restructuring engagements that later convert to filed cases carrying their history under B420, which splits the total cost of the situation across two coding regimes.
What invoice review checks: For situations that move from workout to filing, read B420 and the case-phase codes together for the full cost of the restructuring effort.
How should legal departments use bankruptcy codes in invoice review?
Bankruptcy review has an unusual second audience: the US Trustee and fee examiners apply their own scrutiny to the same bill. That makes proactive coding discipline valuable, since a fee application that codes cleanly to specific tasks survives review more easily than one that leans on catch-all categories.
Configuring the eBilling or matter system to enforce bankruptcy coding conventions up front is where legal technology implementation pays off: getting the coding right at time of entry is far cheaper than reconstructing it under a fee examiner's questions months later.
How do Bankruptcy Codes support legal spend management?
Bankruptcy 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, the cost of poor eBilling governance, and reducing legal spend without sacrificing quality go deeper on the review programs, guidelines, and eBilling rules that put UTBMS coding to work.
Bottom Line
Bankruptcy codes are the one set where coding quality has a direct procedural consequence. Cleanly coded fee applications move through US Trustee and fee-examiner review with fewer objections, while lumped or misallocated time invites exactly the scrutiny a debtor's professionals want to avoid. Administration proportion is the recurring theme.
In bankruptcy, clean coding is not just analytics, it is how a fee application survives review.
Frequently asked questions
Why do bankruptcy codes matter more than other UTBMS sets for fee review?
Bankruptcy professional fees are examined in a public, adversarial process by the US Trustee, fee examiners, and creditors. Clean coding to specific tasks helps a fee application survive that review, so coding quality has a direct procedural consequence, not just an analytics one.
How are the bankruptcy codes organized?
They organize into administration, operations, and claims-and-plan groups that track the phases of a restructuring engagement. This structure mirrors how courts and fee examiners read a fee application.
What do fee examiners look for in coded time?
Proportion and lumping. Case administration that grows out of proportion to the size of the estate, and time swept into broad catch-all categories rather than coded to specific work, are the patterns most likely to draw an objection.
How should bankruptcy codes be used in invoice review?
Code to specific tasks at time of entry, watch administration as a share of total fees against the size of the estate, and treat catch-all volume as a flag. Each code below lists the patterns reviewers commonly see and what invoice review checks.
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.