Timeslips vs Zola Suite: What I’ve Learned from Implementing Both

Paul Riley – April 12, 2025  – 6 mins read

If you’ve worked in legal IT for any length of time, you know that time tracking and billing systems are the quiet powerhouses of firm operations. They’re not ‘cool’. They don’t get the press that AI tools or courtroom tech do. But they’re where the real business happens — where time becomes revenue, and revenue becomes survival.

I’ve worked with both Timeslips and Zola Suite in production environments across different firms, and while they’re often lumped into the same category, the experience of using and maintaining them is wildly different. Here’s my take — not from a vendor deck, but from the field.

1. Timeslips: The Old Guard That Still Has a Place

Pros:

• Deep heritage in the legal space, with many firms having used it for a decade or more.
• Robust time entry options, especially for firms with complex billing structures.
• Strong reporting tools (if you’re comfortable with them), and broad third-party integrations with older practice management platforms.

Cons:

• The UI hasn’t evolved much — and training junior staff on Timeslips in 2025 still feels like stepping back into 2005.
• Limited mobility — you’ll need bolt-ons or workarounds for remote entry or cloud-first workflows.
• On-premise deployments can be rigid, and updates aren’t always painless.

Best suited for:
Firms that are deeply entrenched in legacy systems, or those with very custom billing requirements who want something tried and tested without a big learning curve — assuming your team already knows the ropes.

2. Zola Suite: Built for Today’s Legal Workflows

Pros:

• Truly cloud-native from the ground up — no patches or third-party hosting needed.
• Tightly integrated matter management, time tracking, billing, and even CRM-style features.
• Clean, modern UI that staff actually want to use — which matters more than we admit.
• Mobile functionality is strong, and real-time syncing is reliable.

Cons:

• Custom reporting still has limits unless you upgrade to higher-tier plans or export to external BI tools.
• Some firms may find it too opinionated — if you have very bespoke billing models, Zola may need workarounds.
• It’s still evolving, which means occasional changes in UX or features that can surprise users.

Best suited for:
Firms looking to consolidate tools, work in the cloud, and modernise their billing and matter workflows without patching together legacy systems.

What Tipped the Scale for Us Recently

We recently supported a mid-sized litigation team through a migration from Timeslips to Zola Suite. The drivers?

• The need for remote access without VPN gymnastics
• Consolidation of time tracking, matter management, and billing into one secure platform
• Better user engagement with modern interfaces and integrated calendaring

What stood out was how quickly the team adapted. Adoption rates were faster. Time entry improved. Billing lag decreased.

But — and this is important — we still maintain Timeslips in another business unit, where billing complexity is high and older infrastructure makes cloud migration less practical. So the decision isn’t always binary.

Final Thought: The Right Tool Is the One That Works for Your Firm

Timeslips and Zola Suite both have value — but the key difference is mindset. One was built for a traditional office model, the other for a hybrid, cloud-first world. As IT leaders, our job isn’t to chase trends — it’s to align systems with how the firm actually works.

Ask yourself:

• Are your timekeepers mobile?
• Is your infrastructure modern enough to support SaaS?
• Do your users resist or embrace change?

For us, Zola Suite is the better fit going forward — but Timeslips still has a place where legacy needs rule.

As always: review, test, pilot. And talk to your finance team early — they’ll have stronger opinions than your IT team.