AI cost is now a matter-level line item, not overhead.
Tokto attributes every prompt, completion, and model dollar to a matter, an attorney, a partner, a client, and a billable rate, so the firm bills AI like it bills time and the CFO can defend AI spend at partnership.
The managing partner walks into your office. AI vendor invoices grew 6x in two quarters. No partner can tie a dollar to a matter or a recovered hour. The biggest client just demanded the AI cost breakdown on their last invoice.
What you get with Tokto
- Every prompt and model dollar tied to a matter, an attorney, a partner, a client, and a billable rate.
- A single attribution layer that the CFO, the GC, the managing partner, and the client billing committee can defend.
- Smart routing to the cheapest capable model for research versus drafting versus contract review. Teams report 30 to 50 percent cost reduction.
- Budgets by partner, practice group, or matter, with real-time alerts before invoice.
How it works
Tokto sits at the financial control plane of AI in the firm. Every co-pilot prompt, every research query, every contract analysis carries a matter number, an attorney, a partner, a client, and a model. The CFO knows what AI cost the M&A practice last quarter, what it cost the bet-the-firm matter, and what it cost the partner who never bills back.
When a client refuses to pay AI cost they did not approve, when a partner asks for an associate-equivalent hour calculation on AI work product, when the malpractice carrier asks how AI cost maps to AI risk, the answer is one report against the system of record. The CFO defends AI spend the way time is defended at partnership.
What goes wrong without it
- AI invoices grow exponentially. No partner can tie a dollar to a matter. The CFO cannot answer at partnership.
- A client refuses to pay AI cost on a matter and asks for the engagement letter language. The CFO has no detail to negotiate from.
- The malpractice carrier asks for AI usage by practice group at renewal. The CFO produces a spreadsheet, not a record. The premium adjustment is punitive.
- An associate runs a partner-grade model for routine research. The firm subsidizes the difference with no visibility.
In Johnson v. Dunn, No. 2:21-cv-1701 (N.D. Ala., July 23, 2025), a large law firm submitted a motion built on hallucinated AI-generated citations. The court disqualified the offending attorneys from representing the client for the remainder of the case — a sharper sanction than the $5,000 fine in Mata v. Avianca (2023). By mid-2025 over 200 such matters had been recorded globally in a single year.
See how Tokto makes enterprise AI visible, governed, and accountable for Finance in Legal.
Book a demo