Blog › ICP guides
Digital accessibility consultant on retainer: tracking ongoing WCAG advisory and demonstrating ADA compliance value between formal audits and remediation sprints
July 17, 2026 · ~14 min read
The formal WCAG audit and the remediation sprint are the visible events in a digital accessibility engagement. When a product team reviews its compliance posture, when a general counsel prepares for a potential ADA Title III inquiry, when a CPO presents the accessibility roadmap to the board — those are the artifacts on the table: the WCAG 2.1 AA audit report from last quarter, the remediation sprint that addressed the 47 critical violations, the audit re-test that confirmed the critical findings were resolved. What none of those artifacts shows is the continuous advisory work between those formal milestones, or whether that ongoing program governance is what kept the audit finding count from growing between cycles.
The automated scan review that caught a newly introduced keyboard-trap on the modal component before it reached production — because the developer who implemented the new dialog pattern was unaware that WCAG 2.1 Success Criterion 2.1.2 requires that keyboard focus can always be moved away from a component using standard keys — prevented a P1 accessibility violation from being deployed to 80,000 monthly users and then discovered during the next audit cycle with a six-month remediation lag. The developer advisory session that prevented a heading hierarchy violation across twelve product pages — because the front-end lead was about to use an H3 as a visual styling element for a marketing callout rather than as a structural document marker, which would have broken the screen reader navigation logic for any user navigating by heading — was twelve pages of correct heading structure rather than twelve pages of WCAG 1.3.1 failures. The user testing session that revealed the live chat widget was completely inaccessible to JAWS users three months before the quarterly audit would have found it — because the widget vendor had shipped a JavaScript update that removed the accessible name from the iframe containing the chat interface — provided three months of additional remediation time that the audit-discovery path would not have. The component library governance review that confirmed the updated date-picker component met WCAG 2.1 AA standards before it was deployed to all fourteen product entry flows saved the remediation cost of fixing a non-conformant date picker across fourteen contexts rather than one.
Digital accessibility consultants on monthly retainer do their most consequential work in the continuous stretches between the visible audit milestones: the weekly scan reviews that catch new violations before they compound into a remediation backlog larger than the sprint capacity can address, the developer advisory sessions that shift violation prevention upstream into the engineering workflow rather than downstream into the remediation cycle, the user testing coordination that reveals real assistive technology barriers that automated tools cannot detect, the component library governance that ensures the design system’s accessibility conformance is validated before components are deployed at scale. All of that advisory is invisible to the product manager, engineering lead, and legal team without a work log that connects the ongoing advisory to the accessibility compliance function it governs.
Digital accessibility consultant versus compliance consultant versus UX designer: the primary distinctions
Three advisory roles are routinely conflated when product organizations discuss accessibility: the digital accessibility consultant, the compliance consultant, and the UX designer. Each governs a distinct scope. Conflating them produces advisory engagements either scoped too broadly for the product team’s actual technical accessibility needs or staffed with generalists who cannot deliver the engineering-level advisory that WCAG conformance requires.
A compliance consultant — or fractional Chief Compliance Officer — governs the enterprise compliance program across the full set of applicable regulatory requirements: financial regulations, environmental standards, privacy requirements, employment law, industry-specific regulatory frameworks, and the operational policies that govern the organization’s adherence to those obligations. A compliance consultant manages the regulatory inventory, the compliance monitoring infrastructure, the audit and examination cycle, and the risk management framework that keeps the organization compliant with its full regulatory portfolio. Accessibility compliance under ADA Title III, Section 508, and EN 301 549 is one component of what a compliance program governs. The compliance consultant understands that accessibility compliance is a legal obligation and can ensure it appears in the compliance risk register. What the compliance consultant does not have is the front-end engineering knowledge required to evaluate whether an ARIA role implementation is syntactically correct, determine whether a keyboard focus order violation is at the AA or AAA conformance level, advise a developer on the specific HTML structure required to implement a combobox that works correctly in both JAWS 2024 and NVDA with Firefox, or distinguish a genuine axe-core violation from a false positive produced by a decorative image that already has aria-hidden set. The technical advisory that keeps a digital product’s WCAG conformance current between formal audits requires a specialist in digital accessibility, not a generalist compliance program manager.
A UX designer shapes the usable design of digital interfaces: the information architecture, interaction patterns, visual hierarchy, user flow logic, and the design decisions that determine whether a product is intuitive and usable for the intended user population. A UX designer who follows accessible design patterns — using sufficient color contrast, designing keyboard-accessible interaction patterns, avoiding reliance on color alone to convey information — is practicing good accessible design. That is not the same as an accessibility consultant who can read the browser’s generated DOM, evaluate whether the keyboard focus order matches the visual reading order, run the interface through JAWS and NVDA simultaneously to identify screen reader discrepancies, assess whether an ARIA landmark structure allows efficient assistive technology navigation, and advise the developer on the specific change to the rendered HTML required to bring a component into WCAG 2.1 AA conformance. Accessible design and WCAG conformance advisory are complementary but distinct disciplines. A design team that follows accessible design principles produces better-designed accessibility problems; an accessibility consultant advises on whether the implementation of those designs achieves technical WCAG conformance.
A digital accessibility consultant governs WCAG 2.1/2.2 technical conformance for digital products: the keyboard navigation architecture that ensures every interactive element is reachable and operable without a mouse; the ARIA implementation that provides screen reader users with the semantic information the visual interface communicates through layout, color, and spatial relationships; the color contrast ratios that meet WCAG 1.4.3 and 1.4.11 at the AA conformance level across all text, UI components, and graphical elements; the focus management logic that ensures modal dialogs, drawer components, and dynamic content updates move focus correctly so screen reader users are not left behind when the DOM changes; the assistive technology testing protocols that validate conformance in the actual screen reader and browser combinations that users with disabilities are using; and the developer education function that shifts WCAG knowledge upstream into the engineering team rather than leaving conformance as an audit-time discovery cycle. See also: UX designer retainer advisory.
What ongoing digital accessibility consultant retainer advisory actually consists of
Continuous WCAG compliance monitoring
Automated accessibility scanning is not a quarterly audit activity — it is a continuous compliance signal that catches newly introduced violations before they accumulate into the remediation backlog that the next formal audit will quantify. An organization that runs automated scans only at audit time is discovering violations that were introduced weeks or months earlier and have since been replicated across multiple templates, components, or pages. An organization that runs automated scans weekly and reviews the results with an accessibility expert who can distinguish genuine violations from false positives, classify each violation by WCAG success criterion and conformance level, and assign remediation ownership is maintaining a live compliance picture rather than discovering a compliance gap.
The automated scan review function is not just running the tool and sending the output. It is the expert interpretation layer that makes the output actionable: distinguishing the genuine color contrast violation on the disabled state of the primary button from the false positive generated by an axe-core rule that does not account for the transparency overlay correctly; identifying that the three “image-alt” violations flagged by the scan are decorative images where the appropriate remediation is adding empty alt text, not descriptive alt text; recognizing that the ARIA role violation on the custom accordion component is a WCAG 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value failure that will prevent screen reader users from understanding the accordion’s interactive function, not just a code quality issue; and prioritizing the live remediation backlog by WCAG success criterion severity and expected user impact rather than by scan rule category.
On retainer: running automated accessibility scans (axe-core, Deque WorldSpace, IBM Equal Access Checker, or the toolchain the organization uses) on a defined cadence — weekly for products in active development, bi-weekly for stable products — and reviewing results with the expert interpretation layer that transforms scan output into a prioritized remediation backlog; maintaining the remediation backlog in the project management system the development team uses; tracking backlog velocity to project whether the current sprint capacity is sufficient to maintain a declining violation count; and reporting compliance trajectory to the product manager and legal team on a monthly cadence so they have a current picture of the product’s WCAG conformance status without waiting for the formal annual audit.
Developer implementation advisory and training
The most cost-effective accessibility investment a product organization can make is moving WCAG knowledge upstream into the engineering team’s development workflow rather than discovering violations through post-deployment audit cycles. A developer who understands how to implement a keyboard-accessible custom dropdown, how to write ARIA attributes that communicate the correct semantic state to screen readers, and how to manage focus when a modal dialog opens and closes will introduce fewer accessibility violations than one who is implementing the same patterns without that knowledge — and the violations that do not get introduced do not need to be remediated.
Developer advisory on a retainer is distinct from a one-time developer training session. The retainer advisory function is the ongoing availability to review pull requests before they are merged, answer implementation questions when developers are making the component decisions that determine whether a new interactive pattern will be accessible, advise on the specific HTML and ARIA pattern required for each new component type as it is introduced to the codebase, and provide the technical interpretation of WCAG success criteria that makes the abstract conformance requirement legible to a developer who is trying to understand whether their specific implementation satisfies it. A developer implementing a new autocomplete search field who has access to an accessibility consultant during the implementation will ask “does this ARIA implementation work with NVDA?” before the component is merged. Without that availability, the question becomes “why are screen reader users reporting they cannot use our search?” three months after the component is in production across all twelve pages that use the search pattern.
On retainer: reviewing pull requests and feature branches for accessibility issues on a defined response-time SLA (typically 24-hour review turnaround for non-critical implementations, same-day for implementations touching the primary user flows); maintaining a living implementation guide documenting the accessibility-correct pattern for each component type in the product’s component library; advising on accessible keyboard interaction patterns for new interaction models as they are introduced; reviewing third-party component and widget integrations before deployment to confirm they meet WCAG 2.1 AA standards or to document the known conformance gaps the organization is accepting; and conducting quarterly developer knowledge sessions that address the most common accessibility implementation errors observed in the most recent quarter’s code review.
User testing coordination with assistive technology users
Automated scanning tools detect approximately 30–40% of WCAG violations. The remaining 60–70% of accessibility barriers require human testing with assistive technologies to identify. A product organization that relies exclusively on automated scanning is maintaining its score on the 30–40% of issues that tools can find while leaving the majority of real barriers for actual users with disabilities to discover in production. Coordinating periodic user testing with screen reader users, keyboard-only users, switch access users, and users with cognitive disabilities is the only method that identifies the barriers in the 60–70% that automated tools cannot reach.
User testing coordination is not just recruiting participants. It is the design of the test scenario — the task flows that represent the critical user journeys for the product’s primary use cases, constructed so that the testing will reveal barriers in the workflows that matter most rather than peripheral features; the participant recruitment from disability communities and assistive technology user networks rather than from generic research panels; the facilitation methodology that allows users to work through tasks with their own assistive technology setup (their specific screen reader, their configured refresh rate, their preferred keyboard shortcuts) rather than a standardized research environment that does not reflect how they actually use the product; and the synthesis of findings into a prioritized remediation report that distinguishes between barriers that prevent task completion (P1 critical), barriers that significantly impede task completion (P2 high), and barriers that create friction but do not prevent completion (P3 medium).
On retainer: coordinating quarterly user testing sessions covering the primary user flows with at least two assistive technology modalities (typically JAWS + keyboard-only as the minimum combination, expanding to VoiceOver, NVDA, and switch access for products with broader populations); synthesizing test session findings into a prioritized remediation report with specific component-level findings and remediation recommendations; maintaining a testing cadence that covers each primary user flow at least twice per year; coordinating unmoderated remote testing for specific components when a targeted finding needs rapid validation; and briefing the product manager and UX lead on user testing findings in a format that connects accessibility barriers to user experience impact rather than WCAG success criterion references that are meaningful to the accessibility consultant but opaque to the product stakeholder.
Component library governance
Design system components are the unit of scale in modern product development. A component reviewed and confirmed conformant before deployment is accessible in every context where it is used. A component deployed non-conformant is a violation in every context. An organization with 14 product entry flows using the same date-picker component that has a keyboard navigation failure has 14 instances of a WCAG 2.1.1 violation, not one — and the remediation cost is fixing the component in 14 implementation contexts rather than once. Component library governance as a retainer function is the review process that validates conformance before deployment so the multiplier works in the right direction.
Component library governance covers the accessibility conformance review for every new component added to the design system (does the component implementation achieve WCAG 2.1 AA conformance for keyboard navigation, ARIA semantics, color contrast, and focus management?); the review of updates to existing components when the update touches the component’s interactive behavior or visual presentation (does the update to the dropdown component’s focus ring styling maintain the 3:1 contrast ratio required by WCAG 1.4.11?); the maintenance of accessibility conformance documentation for each component in the library (a conformance table documenting which WCAG 2.1 success criteria have been tested, what the test result was, and what assistive technology combinations were tested); and the advisory to the design system team on accessible component API design (what props, states, and composition patterns enable accessibility without requiring each consuming team to independently implement ARIA patterns correctly).
On retainer: reviewing each design system component addition and update for WCAG 2.1 AA conformance before it is merged into the component library; maintaining the conformance documentation table for the component library; advising the design system team on accessible component API design decisions that will make it easier for consuming product teams to implement the components correctly; and participating in design system architecture reviews when the system is introducing new interaction model categories (a new data grid pattern, a new notification system, a new multi-step form pattern) where the accessibility conformance requirements differ materially from existing components and need to be defined before implementation begins.
Regulatory change management and litigation monitoring
ADA Title III litigation involving digital accessibility has increased substantially over the past decade. The DOJ’s March 2022 guidance confirming that the ADA applies to websites and mobile applications, the DOJ’s April 2024 final rule establishing WCAG 2.1 AA as the standard for state and local government digital services, and the active plaintiffs’ bar litigating website accessibility claims under ADA Title III have created a regulatory environment where the accessibility compliance posture of a digital product is a legal risk management question, not just an inclusive design question. The accessibility consultant on retainer is the function that monitors this regulatory environment and advises the product team and legal counsel on the compliance posture adjustments the evolving landscape requires.
Regulatory change management covers DOJ enforcement letter monitoring (the DOJ’s enforcement actions under ADA Title II establish the practical standard for what “accessible” means in a government enforcement context, and the accessibility patterns required in DOJ settlement agreements reflect the current regulatory expectation); ADA Title III lawsuit trend monitoring (the industries, product types, and specific interface patterns that are generating current litigation provide early signal about where the plaintiffs’ bar is testing the regulatory frontier — an accessibility consultant who tracks settlement agreements knows that CAPTCHA accessibility, PDF accessibility, and mobile application screen reader compatibility are current enforcement focal points); Section 508 and EN 301 549 standards monitoring for organizations with federal procurement exposure or European market presence; and the proactive compliance posture advisory that synthesizes regulatory monitoring into specific product-level recommendations before a complaint or enforcement inquiry makes them reactive.
On retainer: reviewing DOJ enforcement letters, Department of Education Office for Civil Rights resolution agreements, and notable ADA Title III settlement agreements on a monthly cadence; advising the general counsel and product team on regulatory developments relevant to the product’s industry and user population; monitoring WCAG standards development (WCAG 2.2 was published in October 2023; WCAG 3.0 is in active development) and advising on the timeline and scope of conformance standard transitions; and participating in legal hold and litigation support when the organization receives an ADA Title III demand letter or complaint, providing the technical accessibility assessment that outside counsel needs to evaluate the complaint’s merits and formulate a response.
Typical digital accessibility consultant retainer work volumes
Digital accessibility consultant retainer hours vary with the product’s development velocity, the current state of the remediation backlog, and the phase of the engagement. Three modes are most common.
Maintenance and monitoring — a product that has completed an initial remediation sprint and has achieved WCAG 2.1 AA conformance on its critical user flows, with an engineering team that has received accessibility training and is following accessible development practices — typically runs 8–15 hours per month. The advisory focus is the continuous scan monitoring function, targeted pull request reviews for new feature implementations, quarterly user testing coordination, and regulatory monitoring. The accessibility consultant functions as the ongoing conformance governance layer rather than the active remediation lead. Periodic spikes occur when major platform updates, third-party widget replacements, or significant UI redesigns introduce new conformance work.
Active development with high feature velocity — a product team shipping new features weekly, with a design system under active development and a development team that is still building its accessibility implementation fluency — typically runs 20–35 hours per month. The advisory scope expands to include more frequent pull request reviews, component library governance for the high rate of new component additions, more intensive developer advisory to support teams that are implementing new interaction patterns, and a higher scan review cadence to catch violations introduced at the higher feature velocity before they compound. Accessibility is a quality attribute of every feature shipped; the consultant’s retainer hours are proportional to the feature throughput.
Initial audit response and remediation program — an organization that has received its first formal WCAG audit report, an ADA Title III demand letter, or a government procurement accessibility requirement that reveals significant existing conformance gaps — typically runs 30–50 hours per month during the active remediation phase. The scope includes the full scope of remediation advisory: triaging the audit findings, prioritizing the remediation backlog by WCAG conformance level and user impact, providing detailed remediation specifications for each finding so the development team has actionable guidance, reviewing remediation implementations for conformance before they are marked resolved, and advising the legal team on the compliance trajectory and timeline in the context of the organization’s specific regulatory exposure.
Pricing for digital accessibility consultant retainers
Digital accessibility consultant retainer rates reflect the consultant’s depth of WCAG expertise, their assistive technology testing proficiency, their developer advisory experience, and their familiarity with the regulatory framework. The range reflects the difference between a consultant with foundational WCAG knowledge and one with expert-level assistive technology testing proficiency across multiple screen readers, browsers, and operating systems combined with regulatory advisory experience.
$85–$150/hour for accessibility consultants with 3–7 years of digital accessibility experience, IAAP CPACC certification or equivalent demonstrated competency, proficiency with axe-core or comparable automated scanning tools, and hands-on testing experience with JAWS, NVDA, and VoiceOver. At this tier, the consultant can conduct manual WCAG 2.1 AA audits, provide developer implementation advisory on the most common component patterns, interpret automated scan results, and coordinate basic assistive technology user testing. Monthly retainers at this tier typically run $2,500–$6,000/month.
$125–$225/hour for senior consultants with IAAP WAS (Web Accessibility Specialist) certification, 7–12 years of digital accessibility experience, demonstrated proficiency with the full WCAG 2.1/2.2 success criterion set at both AA and AAA levels, deep assistive technology testing experience across multiple screen reader and browser combinations, and experience advising product teams through initial remediation programs and ADA Title III responses. At this tier, the consultant can lead complex remediation program management, advise on component library accessibility architecture, and provide regulatory advisory on ADA Title III exposure. Monthly retainers at this tier typically run $4,500–$10,000/month.
$175–$325/hour for principal advisors with IAAP CPACC and WAS certification, prior accessibility program leadership at a major technology company or as an expert witness in ADA Title III litigation, recognized expertise in specific technical domains (iOS/Android native accessibility, ARIA authoring practices, PDF/UA accessibility, complex data visualization accessibility), or specialized expertise in regulated industries (healthcare applications governed by Section 508, financial services products, government digital services). At this tier, the advisor provides strategic accessibility program design, litigation support and expert witness advisory, and accessibility architecture guidance for complex technical environments. Monthly retainers at this tier typically run $7,000–$18,000/month.
What digital accessibility consultant retainer advisory work is most commonly underlogged
The accessibility advisory work most absent from retainer work logs is the monitoring that confirmed the product remains conformant, the developer advisory that prevented violations from being introduced, and the reviews that confirmed existing implementations are correct. All three represent genuine accessibility program governance. None produces a visible remediation ticket without a work log entry.
1. Automated scan reviews that found no new critical violations. A weekly scan review that confirmed the product has no new WCAG AA critical violations required real expert interpretation to reach that conclusion. Distinguishing a genuine violation from a false positive, evaluating whether a newly introduced component pattern is within or outside WCAG conformance, and confirming that the violations in the existing backlog have not regressed to a higher severity all require expert judgment. The scan review that confirmed no new critical violations is not a null result — it is evidence that the continuous monitoring function is operating and that the product’s conformance status is currently known rather than assumed. Log every scan review with the tools used, the scope covered, the violations reviewed, and the conclusion.
2. Developer advisory that prevented violations from being introduced. A pull request review that caught a keyboard focus management failure in a new modal component before it was merged is the highest-value accessibility advisory work the consultant performs — it costs one review session to fix a violation at the code review stage rather than the discovery, triage, remediation, and re-test cycle required after deployment. It is also entirely invisible in any output artifact unless the work log records the review session, the specific issue identified (missing focus trap on dialog open; missing focus restoration on dialog close), the WCAG success criterion implicated (2.1.1 Keyboard; 2.4.3 Focus Order), and the remediation recommendation provided. Log every pull request review including reviews that confirmed correct implementation.
3. Component library reviews that confirmed WCAG conformance. Reviewing an updated date-picker component and confirming it achieves WCAG 2.1 AA conformance across keyboard navigation, ARIA implementation, color contrast, and screen reader behavior required the same expert review as finding a violation would have. The review that found conformance is a better outcome than the review that found a violation; it required the same work. Without a work log entry, the component is marked as “reviewed” with no evidence of what that review entailed. Log every component library review with the WCAG success criteria evaluated, the testing methodology used, the assistive technology combinations tested, and the conformance conclusion.
4. User testing sessions where no critical barriers were found. Coordinating an assistive technology user testing session and finding that screen reader users can complete the primary user flows without encountering critical barriers is a positive compliance finding. The advisory work of designing the test scenarios, recruiting participants from disability communities, facilitating or coordinating the testing sessions, observing testing to capture findings the participants do not explicitly verbalize, and synthesizing results into a conformance summary is the same regardless of whether the testing reveals critical barriers or confirms adequate conformance. Log every user testing engagement with the participant profiles, assistive technology configurations, task flows tested, and findings — including findings of adequate conformance.
5. Regulatory monitoring that concluded no immediate action required. Reviewing the most recent DOJ accessibility enforcement letters, notable ADA Title III settlement agreements from the past 30 days, and OCR resolution agreements relevant to the product’s industry, and concluding that the current product’s compliance posture does not require immediate adjustment, required real regulatory knowledge to assess. The monitoring review that finds no immediate action required is evidence that the regulatory environment is being actively watched and that the organization is not in a reactive posture when the next enforcement trend emerges. Log every regulatory monitoring review with the sources reviewed, the developments assessed, and the compliance posture conclusion.
Digital accessibility consultant retainer contract provisions that matter
Digital accessibility consultant retainer agreements need explicit provisions around several areas that standard professional services agreements do not address. The combination of product system access, legally sensitive compliance findings, and the advisory-versus-remediation boundary creates contract provisions that materially affect both the functioning of the engagement and the organization’s legal exposure.
Scope of product coverage. Define which products, platforms, and environments are within retainer scope — web application, native iOS, native Android, email templates, PDF documents, third-party embedded widgets — because each requires different testing tools, different WCAG interpretation guidelines (WCAG 2.1 for web, WCAG2ICT for non-web software, PDF/UA for PDF documents), and different assistive technology testing configurations. An accessibility retainer scoped to “the product” without platform specificity creates ambiguity about whether the native mobile apps are included, whether third-party embeds are within scope, and whether the PDF documentation library is part of the advisory engagement.
Advisory versus remediation boundary. The accessibility consultant advises on what must be fixed and how to fix it; the development team implements the fix. Define this boundary explicitly in the retainer agreement, including what constitutes advisory work (WCAG analysis, remediation specification, implementation review, developer guidance) versus remediation execution work (writing the code, making the HTML changes, updating the ARIA implementation) that would require a separate scope and fee structure. Without this boundary, scope creep occurs when the development team begins asking the consultant to write the remediation code rather than provide the remediation specification.
Legal privilege considerations. Accessibility audit findings are potentially discoverable in ADA Title III litigation. Many organizations structure accessibility advisory work under attorney-client privilege by engaging the accessibility consultant through outside counsel rather than directly. If the retainer is structured as a direct engagement, define whether audit findings and remediation recommendations are intended to be privileged communications and how the work product is handled in the event of litigation. Organizations in industries with high ADA Title III litigation frequency — retail, hospitality, financial services, healthcare — should discuss privilege structure with outside counsel before establishing the retainer structure.
Access provisioning and revocation. The accessibility consultant needs access to the product in a staging environment with the ability to install and use assistive technologies (screen readers may have licensing requirements on specific machines); access to the automated scanning toolchain; access to the component library and design system documentation; and access to the project management system where the remediation backlog is maintained. Define the access provisioning timeline, the VPN or environment access requirements, and the access revocation protocol on engagement termination. Accessibility consultants who retain knowledge of the product’s known vulnerability patterns after engagement termination create a liability risk if that knowledge is not properly handled.
Hours visibility for legal and product stakeholders. The general counsel reviewing the organization’s ADA Title III exposure and the product manager governing the accessibility roadmap both need to see the full advisory work log to understand what the monthly retainer is producing in the continuous accessibility compliance function. A retainer with opaque hours reporting creates a situation where the organization is paying for ongoing compliance governance but cannot demonstrate to counsel or to a regulator that the compliance governance function is active and operating. A public retainer dashboard that the product manager and general counsel can bookmark and review at any time — without submitting a portal login request to the consultant — provides the hours visibility that makes the retainer relationship legible to both stakeholders.
Making WCAG advisory hours visible: HourTab turns a time-tracker CSV into a public retainer-hours URL your client can bookmark — product manager, engineering lead, and general counsel each see the full work log without a portal login. See how it works →