A table of billable hours can tell a managing partner where to start a conversation. It cannot, on its own, tell them who has room for another matter. Leave, supervision, difficult files, and work that has not yet been recorded can all change the interpretation.
Use a workload review to answer a specific operational question: what support or change in assignments would help this lawyer deliver the work ahead? The following workflow combines Clio source records with Keeney Analytics reporting and a short discussion with the person doing the work.
1. Define the review before opening a dashboard
Choose a recent, completed period and write down why you are reviewing it. A monthly check of work distribution has a different purpose from a discussion about an unusually demanding week. Keep the date range consistent throughout the review.
Ask the lawyer to bring a short account of upcoming commitments, time away, supervision responsibilities, and material work still waiting to be entered. Keep this context separate from the report so nobody mistakes recorded activity for a complete account of the working day.
Agree what decision the meeting can make. It might identify a task to delegate, a deadline that needs additional support, or a recurring administrative interruption. A clear decision makes the review more useful than a general request to increase hours.
2. Check the underlying Clio records
Clio Manage supports billable and non-billable time entries. Its time-entry documentation explains the date and duration fields and how to mark an entry as non-billable. Check that the firm's recording practices are understood before comparing people who may be recording different kinds of work. See Clio's time-entry guidance.
For a focused check, use Clio's Activities page or a matter's Activities subtab. Clio documents date-range and activity filters, together with PDF and CSV exports. Inspect a small selection of entries relevant to the question rather than treating every unusual total as an error. See how to filter and export activities.
If a source entry needs correction, handle it in Clio through the firm's normal process. Refresh the synced data in Keeney Analytics before reviewing the result. Note the refresh point so a later comparison does not silently combine two different versions of the records.
3. Move from the team view to the individual
In Keeney Analytics Lawyer Performance, review recorded activity and billable hours across timekeepers, then open the individual lawyer's detail view. The product provides work and associated financial measures for the selected period. Read the labels before comparing the figures.
Pick one observation to investigate. Perhaps recorded hours changed substantially, or the lawyer's work appears concentrated in a small number of matters. Ask which files explain the change and whether the pattern is temporary. Avoid turning a difference between colleagues into a conclusion before understanding their assignments.
Keeney Analytics explicitly states that recorded activity is not a measure of capacity utilization. Shared invoice balances also cannot be reliably assigned to individual timekeepers. Those limits matter when a workload discussion drifts into claims about who is available or personally responsible for outstanding balances.
4. Add the context that the report cannot supply
Hypothetical example: two lawyers each record 30 billable hours during the review week. One has a planned hearing the following week and substantial preparation still ahead. The other has completed a major assignment and has fewer immediate commitments. Equal historical totals do not establish equal availability for the next file.
Ask about the work ahead, not just the work already recorded. Which deadlines are fixed? Which tasks require this particular lawyer? Which could move to someone else with appropriate supervision? Is the constraint total volume, a specialist skill, or repeated interruption?
Treat non-billable work as a question about purpose and responsibility. Supervision or an assigned internal project may be necessary work. If the firm wants a different allocation, decide what should change instead of expecting the same obligations to fit around a higher billable target.
5. Prepare a consistent record of the discussion
The Keeney Analytics Reports library includes Timekeeper Productivity, covering recorded hours, billable hours, activity value, and billed effective rates. Choose the period and available report controls, then use the level of detail appropriate to the discussion.
A PDF can preserve the report brought to the meeting; a CSV can support a closer review. Keep the scope, source timestamp, and measurement notes with either export. Saved report configurations remember choices rather than freezing the data, so reopening one later is not the same as retrieving the earlier report.
Record the agreed action alongside the evidence, without adding unnecessary client details. For example: the practice lead will arrange support for a defined task by an agreed date, then check whether the immediate workload constraint has eased.
6. Follow up on the decision
At the next review, ask whether the agreed change happened and whether it helped. A reduction in hours might be consistent with successful delegation, but it could also reflect missing entries or a different matter mix. Check the explanation before declaring a result.
Keep the review focused on decisions the firm can act on. Clio provides the source activity, Keeney Analytics helps organize the review, and the lawyer supplies context about the work. Together, those inputs support a more informed assignment discussion than a ranking based on hours alone.