I’m going to write about something that many attorneys whose clients require them to submit their legal bills through e-billing programs already know. E-billing rules engines supposedly programmed to automatically spot and take deductions in legal invoices for violations of a company’s billing guidelines often do not work as advertised.
And when I say e-billing rules engines do not often work “as advertised,” I am talking about how e-billing companies promote the use of their rules engines. As one e-billing company puts it on their website, “[Name of rules engine] automatically reviews, validates, flags, and adjusts line-item invoice charges to comply with billing guidelines.”
Wow! No human involvement needed. Just push a few buttons and sit back and reap the savings. Sounds incredible doesn’t it? Continue reading
While most all of my blog posts have been directed to the corporate world and to lawyers, I thought it about time to write something for those individuals who have incurred large legal bills. For, in addition to doing fee bill reviews for corporations and governmental entities, I also do fee bill reviews for individuals.
Legal fees that individuals incur are usually much more modest than those incurred by large corporations. Nevertheless, I have reviewed legal bills for individuals who have incurred in excess of $1 Million in legal fees for probate and estate matters, real property disputes, business deals gone bad and yes, even for divorces. Continue reading
Once upon a time (or about 25 years ago), insurers began to use electronic bill review software to audit their attorneys’ compliance with their billing guidelines. In addition, many insurers established dedicated legal bill review units or used outside legal bill review vendors to audit legal bills.
As audited legal bills started coming back with deductions for numerous violation of insurer litigation and billing guidelines, a positive thing occurred. Attorneys actually began to read their clients’ billing guidelines. And what they found was numerous variations of essentially the same billing rules as well as many vaguely defined guidelines and rules. Continue reading
The CLM recently released its third in a series of litigation managements surveys the organization has done over the years. In the 2019 survey, some 80 litigation management executives were surveyed on a variety of litigation related topics. The comments to various questions in the survey revealed a number of interesting findings and concerns.
One of the top concerns expressed by survey participants was a “lack of strategic focus” on the part of outside counsel. Unfortunately, the CLM survey did not define what was meant by it use of the term “strategic focus.” To me, the term means simply an upfront focus on what needs to be done to achieve a favorable result sooner rather than later. Continue reading
In my previous post, I noted that overbilling for research is regarded as one of the most “egregious” forms of overbilling by law firms.
In this post, I will cover what research can be billed to a client as well as who should do the research. Finally, I will provide a list of things that should be included in a company’s billing guidelines or a negotiated fee agreement on the subject of research. Continue reading
“One of the most egregious forms of overbilling in many law firms is the almost infinite amount of time that is expended upon research into even the most minute legal issues.” William G. Ross, The Honest Hour, (Carolina Academic Press) at p. 113.
Have you ever assigned a matter to a lawyer based upon the lawyer’s claimed expertise in the law involved in the matter and then gotten a big bill for research into the same law in which the lawyer had claimed an expertise? If you have, you are not alone.
Overbilling for research is one of the most common issues I come across in legal bill audits. And it seems to be the larger the law firm, the greater the likelihood there is for overbilling for research. But overbilling for research can occur in any size law firm. Continue reading