Money that has already gone
Most of what a finance team tracks is either owed or planned. A disbursement is neither. It is cash the firm has already handed over — a court fee paid to meet a deadline, an expert's invoice settled so the report arrives, a search ordered at four on a Friday — on the understanding that the client will carry it.
That understanding is worth exactly as much as the record behind it. If the cost was captured against the matter, it appears on the bill and comes back. If it was not, it stays where it landed: in the firm's own overheads, quietly, as a discount nobody decided to give.
Nothing about this is difficult in principle. The difficulty is entirely in the volume and the format — a few hundred small documents a month, arriving from a dozen directions, in every shape a document can take, and each one needing to be read by a person before it is anything a system can use.
This page is about that mechanical layer: what the record has to contain, where the losses actually happen, and how to build it from the documents you already receive rather than by asking fee earners to type more.
What this is not
Worth stating before anything else, because this is an area where a tool overstepping its role causes real problems rather than mild disappointment.
We do not hold or move client money
No funds, no accounts, no transfers, no part in any client account. Handling client money is a regulated activity with rules attached, and this is not that.
We are not a practice management system
We do not raise bills, run a matter ledger, or record time. We read cost documents into rows; your practice system remains the place a matter lives.
We do not advise on what you may recharge
What is properly a disbursement, what must be disclosed and what your regulator expects vary by profession and jurisdiction. That is a question for your compliance lead, not a document reader.
We do not decide the VAT treatment
Net, VAT and gross come out as separate fields precisely so your accountant can apply whichever treatment is correct. Choosing it for you would be guessing with someone else's liability.
What is left after those four is still the part that consumes the hours: turning several hundred cost documents a month into rows that can be filtered, allocated and billed.
What counts as one, and what does not
The dividing line is not the size of the cost or how annoying it was. It is whether the money was spent for a client or spent to run the firm.
| Typically recharged | Typically absorbed | Argued about |
|---|---|---|
| Court and filing fees | Office rent and rates | Travel to a client meeting |
| Search and registry fees | Software subscriptions | Couriers on urgent work |
| Expert and counsel fees | Professional indemnity cover | Printing a large bundle |
| Specialist reports | Staff training | Out-of-hours work costs |
| Official copies and certificates | General stationery | Long-distance calls |
| Third-party services bought in | Marketing | Subsistence on a site visit |
The right-hand column is where the money and the friction both are. Those costs are recoverable in some engagements and not in others, and the answer usually sits in the engagement letter rather than in anyone's memory. Where a firm has never decided its own position, each fee earner decides individually, which means the same cost is recharged on one matter and absorbed on the next.
That is not a documents problem and no tool fixes it. What a tool can do is make sure the cost is visible at the point the decision is made, rather than discovered afterwards when the bill has already gone.
Where they leak
Disbursements are rarely lost through a decision. They are lost through six ordinary mechanisms, none of which anyone would defend if asked about them directly.
Nobody sent the receipt. The cost was paid on a personal card and the paperwork stayed in a coat pocket until it stopped mattering.
It arrived after the bill. The supplier invoiced three weeks late, the matter was already billed, and re-billing for £74 felt worse than absorbing it.
It was recorded against the wrong matter, so one client is overcharged and another is under-billed — and both errors survive because they cancel out in the total.
It was never attributed at all and sits in a general overhead code, where it is nobody's to chase.
It was captured but not evidenced, so when the client queried it there was no document to produce and it was written off rather than argued.
It was too small to bother with — thirty times a month, which is the point.
Notice that only the first two are about the cost being late or absent. The other four are about a record that exists and cannot be used, which is a different problem and a more solvable one.
It is also worth being blunt about the arithmetic. A firm billing steadily and losing a handful of small disbursements a week is not losing a rounding error over a year — it is losing an amount that would be noticed instantly if it appeared as a single line on a management report, and is invisible precisely because it never does.
Read a month of cost documents
Upload invoices, receipts, fee notes — PDFs, scans or photographs — and see what comes back. Free tier, no registration. Use real documents rather than a tidy sample: the crumpled ones are the whole test.
Upload a document
Drop your documents here
or browse to upload
Free: 10 pages / month · Upgrade for more
Files encrypted in transit · auto-deleted after processing · GDPR compliant
What the record actually needs
| Field | Why it has to be there |
|---|---|
| Supplier | The name on the bill has to match the name on the evidence |
| Date paid, and date incurred | They differ often enough to matter at a period end |
| Description as written | Your own summary is not what the client will be shown |
| Net, VAT and gross | Which one is recharged depends on treatment you do not choose here |
| Matter reference | The only field that turns a cost into a recoverable cost |
| Recoverable or not, and why | One line, written once, that survives a query a year later |
| Who incurred it | Because the query goes to a person, not to a code |
| Source file and page | Turns the row back into the document a client asked to see |
Six of those eight come off the document itself and can be read. Two — the matter and the recoverable decision — cannot, because the supplier has no idea which of your matters their invoice belongs to and no opinion on whether your client should pay for it.
That split is the whole design. The reading is mechanical and can be taken away entirely; the judgement is yours and is left alone. A tool that guessed at the matter reference would be producing confident allocations that somebody then has to check one by one, which is more work than allocating them in the first place.
How it works
1 · Upload the documents
Invoices, receipts, fee notes and card statements. PDF, scan or photograph, up to 100 files in a pass.
2 · Read by meaning
No per-supplier templates. A court fee note you have never seen works on the first document.
3 · Fields come out
Supplier, dates, description, net, VAT by rate, gross, and the line detail where a document has lines.
4 · Arithmetic checked
Lines against the total, VAT against the rate. A misread digit shows up as a sum that does not agree.
5 · Export
Excel, CSV, JSON or XML, with the source file and page on every row.
6 · You allocate and decide
Matter reference and recoverability are added by you — the two things a document cannot tell anyone.
Step four earns its place on small documents more than on large ones. A hundred-pound expert fee read as a thousand is obvious; a £47.60 courier read as £4.76 is not, and it is exactly the size of document nobody re-reads.
A document in, a checked row out
A real run against the live product: a document uploaded, read, checked against its own arithmetic, and opened as a spreadsheet at the end.
Upload to finished spreadsheet in under a minute, unedited.
Every figure checked against the document's own totals before anything is exported.
The real .xlsx is opened at the end — data, not a picture of data.
Recorded on a sample document from a fictional supplier — no client data appears in this video.
Six places a disbursement arrives from
| Where it comes from | What it looks like | How it goes missing |
|---|---|---|
| Supplier invoice by email | A PDF, sometimes with the matter in the subject line | Sits in one person's inbox |
| Online portal | Downloaded receipt, generated after payment | Nobody logs in until it is needed |
| Firm card | A statement line, no document at all | The receipt was never requested |
| Personal card, reclaimed later | A photograph of a till receipt | Never submitted, or submitted after billing |
| Counsel or expert fee note | A formal document, often on paper | Arrives weeks after the work |
| Bulk supplier statement | One document covering many matters | Allocated as a single line, or not at all |
The last row is the one that quietly loses the most. A monthly statement from a search provider covering forty matters gets posted as one figure to a general code, and forty recoverable costs stop being recoverable in that moment — not because anyone decided, but because the document was treated as one thing.
Read as line items rather than as a total, the same document is forty rows, each with its own reference, ready to be allocated. That is the single highest-value change most firms can make to their disbursement recovery, and it costs nothing but reading the document properly.
The VAT question, and why we do not answer it
Disbursements have an awkward relationship with VAT, and it is one of the few areas where a confident wrong answer is genuinely expensive.
Broadly — and this is context, not advice — some costs paid on a client's behalf are passed on outside the scope of your own VAT, while others are treated as part of your own supply and carry your VAT. Which is which depends on facts about the arrangement rather than on the type of cost, and firms in the same profession reach different conclusions on the same item.
What follows from that is a design decision rather than an opinion: net, VAT and gross are always kept as three separate fields, and where a document carries more than one rate, each rate keeps its own pair. Whichever treatment your accountant applies, the figures it needs are already there and no document has to be reopened.
A record that holds only the gross amount is the one that cannot answer either question, and it is the most common shape a hand-kept disbursement list takes, because gross is the number on the card statement.
Timing, and the pile of unbilled costs
A disbursement has at least three dates: when the cost was incurred, when the firm paid it, and when the document arrived. On a well-run matter they are within days of each other. On a real one they are not.
The consequence is a permanent balance of costs that have been paid and not yet billed. That balance is not a problem in itself — it is a normal feature of doing work before invoicing it — but it becomes a problem when nobody can say what is in it.
Two questions make it manageable, and both need the same underlying record. What is sitting unbilled right now, by matter? And how old is the oldest item in there? A cost that has been unbilled for six months is rarely going to be recovered; the useful moment to know that was five months ago.
Keeping both the payment date and the document date on every row is what makes that ageing possible. Keeping only one collapses two different questions into a single number that answers neither.
Evidence, for the moment it is queried
Most disbursements are never questioned. The ones that are get questioned all at once, usually by a client reviewing a bill they were not expecting, and usually months after the cost was incurred.
At that point the firm has two possible positions. Either the row on the bill leads directly to the document behind it, or somebody spends an afternoon in a folder. The second position tends to end in a write-off, not because the cost was wrong but because defending it costs more than it recovers.
This is why every row keeps the file and page it came from. It is the least glamorous field in the record and the one that decides the outcome of the only conversation that ever puts a disbursement at risk.
It is also worth keeping the description exactly as the supplier wrote it, rather than a tidied summary. “Office copy — title register” is defensible because it is what the document says; “Land Registry” is a paraphrase, and a client comparing the bill with the evidence will notice the difference before they notice anything else.
Deciding not to recharge — on purpose
Not every recoverable cost should be recovered. Waiving a small disbursement on a long relationship is a reasonable commercial choice, and firms make it constantly.
The difference worth caring about is between a waiver and a leak. A waiver is a decision someone made and can explain; a leak is the same outcome arrived at by nobody, and the firm cannot tell the two apart from its accounts because they look identical afterwards.
A record that carries a recoverable flag and a one-line reason separates them. At the end of a quarter it can answer a question that is otherwise unanswerable: how much did we choose to absorb, and how much did we simply fail to bill? Those numbers have completely different remedies, and a firm that cannot separate them usually applies the wrong one — tightening a policy when the actual problem was a receipt that never arrived.
The flag itself is covered in more detail on recoverable cost flagging.
The checks worth running each month
Card and bank statement against the cost documents. Every payment to a supplier with no document behind it is a disbursement with no evidence — and the only way to find one is to compare the two lists.
Costs with no matter reference. Whatever sits here is unbilled by definition, and the list is usually short enough to fix in twenty minutes.
The oldest unbilled item. If it is more than a couple of months old, the question is not whether to bill it but why it was not seen.
Duplicates: same supplier, same amount, dates close together. Usually a statement and its underlying invoice both captured.
Bulk statements posted as a single line. Each one is a set of allocations that never happened.
The first is the only one that finds costs you do not already have. The other four improve a record you have; that one tells you what is missing from it, which is why it is worth the half hour it takes.
Who this is for
Law firms and conveyancers. The highest volume of small third-party costs of any professional service — searches, fees, official copies — and the tightest expectation that each one can be evidenced.
Surveyors and architects. Site visits, travel, printing and specialist reports, usually across several projects a week and several people.
Accountants and consultants. Fewer costs, but often larger ones bought in on a client's behalf, where a single missed recharge is material on its own.
Agencies. Media, print, freelance and production costs bought for a client, where the recharge is the majority of the invoice rather than a line at the bottom. The project-side view of the same problem is on project cost tracking from invoices.
Where to start
Take last month's cost documents — all of them, not the tidy ones — and read them into a single table. It takes minutes and it produces the one thing most firms do not have: a complete list of what was actually spent on clients' behalf.
Then put the card statement next to it. The difference between the two is your answer to the only question that matters here, and it is usually larger than expected the first time anyone looks.
The full sequence, matter by matter and month by month, is set out in how to track disbursements on a matter, and the reporting side — what was recovered against what was spent — is on the time and expense recovery report.