The client code was once a routine part of law firm life: Attorneys entered one before making certain telephone calls, using a photocopier or conducting legal research. The code allowed the firm to track an expense and potentially add it to a client’s bill.

Now, many firms are treating those small costs as ordinary overhead instead. Changes in technology, the administrative burden of tracking minor charges and competition for clients have made separate billing for some routine expenses less attractive.

Telephone calls illustrate the shift. Long-distance calls once represented a meaningful expense, making it understandable that firms sought reimbursement. Today, flat-rate service plans, mobile phones and internet-based calling have reduced the need to account for individual calls. Many firms absorb the cost rather than list it on an invoice.

Photocopying has followed a similar path. Firms historically used client codes to track pages and sometimes charged a set rate for each one—a practice that could produce sizable bills in document-heavy cases. Paper, toner and equipment maintenance still cost money, but electronic discovery, court filings and correspondence have reduced reliance on physical copies.

Routine copying is increasingly treated as a cost of doing business, though extraordinary printing or copying expenses may still warrant a separate charge.

Legal research billing has changed as well. Some firms once tracked work on services such as Westlaw and Lexis by client matter, with individual searches potentially generating charges passed on to clients. That could leave a client paying both for an attorney’s research time and for use of the research tool.

Many firms now have flat-fee arrangements with providers, while others use less expensive platforms or free resources. Some no longer charge separately for routine research, even though access to legal materials remains a firm expense.

The economics of tracking small items also matter. Billing systems, staff time, corrections and responses to client questions can consume resources out of proportion to the sums recovered. Disputes over a few dollars can also strain a relationship in which the client is already paying substantial legal fees.

Not all client-related expenses have disappeared from invoices. Filing fees, deposition transcripts, travel and other substantial out-of-pocket costs directly tied to a case remain distinct from routine overhead. For everyday costs such as calls and ordinary copies, however, many firms have concluded that absorbing the expense is simpler—and better for client relationships—than accounting for every small charge.