Following The Three “R’s” of Legal Bill Review

Reviewing entries in a legal bill involves more than reviewing those entries for compliance with a company’s litigation and billing guidelines. It also involves reviewing the entries for ”reasonableness” as that term has been defined by the ABA Rules of Prof. Conduct and well settled case law.

Reviewing legal bill entries for reasonableness always involves reviewing for three things:

  • The reasonableness of the “task” performed
  • The reasonableness of the ”person” performing the task
  • The reasonableness of the ”time” spent performing the task

In my seminars on How to Review Legal Bills Like a Pro©, I often ask participants what do they look for first when they review a legal bill. Many times the answer back is they look first at the time billed for the tasks. However, that is the last thing that should be looked at when reviewing a legal bill.

To properly review a legal bill (and save time), it is important to follow a disciplined 3-step approach.

The first step in reviewing any legal bill entry is to look at the reasonableness of the “task” preformed. If the task is not appropriate or reasonable, then it is irrelevant and pointless to further examine the task to determine the reasonableness of who performed the task or the reasonableness of the time spent performing the task. For example, if the task is a “clerical” task, it makes no difference who performed the task even if an attorney performed the task. See Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974)(“The value of a service is not enhanced just because lawyer does it.”).

If it is determined that the task is reasonable or appropriate to do or bill for, then the next step in the process is to look at the person performing the task. If the person is inappropriate, then it is a waste of time to look at how much time that person spent on the task.

For example, an inexperienced associate may take longer to perform certain tasks than an experienced paralegal. This is because one of the reasons associates rates are lower is because associates often lack the experience of partners to be more efficient (i.e., quicker). But the point is that only after first determining the reasonableness of task and then the reasonableness of the person performing the task is it appropriate to review for the reasonableness of the time billed for the task.

Of course, reviewing legal bills for the reasonableness of the task and the person performing the task are relatively easy to do when compared with reviewing the time billed to perform the task. Lists of tasks that are billable or non-billable as well as lists of tasks that should be performed by a partner or an associate or a paralegal can be easily compiled for reference. But, it is not so easy to compile a list of how much time it should take to perform tasks.

But instead of spending time trying to compile a list of permissible time to perform tasks, it may be better to apply some basic “rules of thumb” to how much time is should take to perform certain tasks. For example, there are rules of thumb you can apply to determine how much time it should take for an attorney to review a single document or a banker’s box full of documents (2,500 pages). I will give you those rules of thumb as well as some others in my next post.


I have trained both file handlers as well as legal bill review units at insurers and other types of companies. If you are interested in legal bill review training that can be tailored to the needs of your staff, please contact me at 


One Response to Following The Three “R’s” of Legal Bill Review

  1. WILSON, LYDIA G. says:

    Good Morning John:
    I’m an Ebill attorney/auditor at Hanover Insurance Group. I am also the appeals attorney, I do disagree with not reviewing an entry for all three factors from the outset. If the firm appeals, and convinces the appeals auditor that perhaps the task was necessary and was performed by the correct timekeeper, then the amount of time could still be an issue. However, if the firm wasn’t on notice for all three, the auditor would have to return the reduction and would not have the option of maintaining the reduction for other one or more of the other reasons. In our Ebill unit, the firms can only appeal once. So we need to cover all potential reduction reasons in the initial review.

    Just thought I’d mention my position. I do enjoy reading your blog.

    Thank you.

    Lydia Wilson

    Lydia G. Wilson, Esq.
    Legal Bill Auditor – Ebill Unit
    The Hanover Insurance Group
    Mail Station S314
    508-855-8317 direct dial

    This email, including attachments, is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, use, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me via return e-mail and permanently delete the original and destroy all copies.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: