[This is another post in a series of blog posts discussing how specific ABA Model Prof. Conduct Rules (RPC) impacts how lawyers can and cannot bill their fees and costs.]
In all prior posts, I pointed out that violations of the RPC with regard to billing can have consequences for the billing lawyer ranging from a reprimand to disbarment. See, e.g., In re Disciplinary Proceeding against Vanderbeek, 101P.3d 88 (Wash. 2004)(disbarment for bill padding); In the Matter of Jerome Berg, 3 State Bar Ct. Rptr. 725 (Rev. Dept. 1997) (attorney disbarment for unethical billing).
In this blog post, I wanted to note that RPC violations can also have consequences for supervising attorneys including managing partners, “innocent” partners, and even subordinate attorneys. In my prior on an attorney who billed fake hours, I reported on the case of People v. Mary Jaclyn Cook, 17 PDJ 051(Colo. August 10, 2017). Cook was suspended from the practice of law for, inter alia, preparing to bill time she did not work. Continue reading
In my last blog post on how the ABA Model Rules of Prof. Conduct (RPC) affect how lawyers can bill for their fees and costs, I noted that RPC 1.5 mandates that fees and costs be “reasonable.” I also noted my belief that all different factors courts use to determine reasonableness can be put into three categories.
Those three categories are:
- 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. Continue reading
[Editor’s note: this is another in a series of blog posts discussing how specific ABA Model Rules of Prof. Conduct (RPC) that all lawyers must follow impacts how lawyers can and cannot bill clients.]
If you read my first blog piece in this series, you will recall that I noted ABA Ethics Committee Formal Opn. 93-379 (1993) on Billing for Professional Fees, Costs, Disbursements, and Other Expenses stated that several RPC affect how lawyers ethically can bill for their services. The Opinion specifically mentions RPC 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 3.2, and 7.1 but notes that other Rules may also be implicated. So far, I have covered each of these RPC (and others) but for RPC 1.5 Fees.
As the name of the rule indicates, RPC 1.5 is all about fees. RPC 1.5 is broken down in three parts. RPC 1.5(a) provides that a lawyer’s fees and expenses must not be “unreasonable,” RPC 1.5(b) is about a lawyer’s duty to communicate to the client the “scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses,” and RPC 1.5(c) addresses “contingent fee” situations.
I have already covered the duty of communication about fees in my post on RPC 1.4 on “communications.” And as contingent fees are not applicable in fee billing situations, I will devote this post to discussing just RPC 1.5(a).
The term used in RPC 1.5(a) that a lawyer’s fee and expenses not be “unreasonable” has been generally flipped in fee billing cases by courts which always discuss a lawyer’s fee and expenses in terms of whether or not they were “reasonable” rather than unreasonable.
Part RPC 1.5(a) lists 8 factors “to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee.” They are: Continue reading
In my last post on this subject, I discussed the need to come to an upfront agreement with the attorney handling your case on the appropriate level and mix of any additional attorney staff that might be needed to handle your case. Notwithstanding the need to agree on the attorneys who might be regularly working on your case, I also stated that the attorney in charge of the case should have some flexibility to assign certain one-off tasks to other lower billing attorneys as the need arises.
I left off my last blog piece with the question of how do you determine if the additional attorney staff is warranted if the attorney handling your case says that more attorney staff is needed to work on your case? My response to that question is that adding any additional additional attorney staff beyond that initially agreed upon should only be for one of four reasons. Here are those reasons: Continue reading
One of the most common complaints I get from individuals who submit gigantic legal bills for me to review is about the number of attorneys who billed to work on their case.
The most recent variant of this complaint came from a couple who hired an attorney whom they had determined had the requisite knowledge and experience to handle their case. But as it turned out, the attorney promptly handed over most of the work in the case to other attorneys in his office. And as the case drug on (and on), more and more attorneys wound up working on their case.
The couple thought that they were being overcharged because too many attorneys were working on their case. They had put this question to the attorney they had initially hired, but did not feel that had gotten a satisfactory response. And because of this issue as well as other billing issues, they turned to me. Continue reading
[Editor’s note: this is another in a series of blog posts discussing how specific ABA Model Prof. Conduct Rules (RPC) that all lawyers must follow impacts how lawyers can and cannot bill clients.]
If you read my first blog piece in this series, you will recall that I noted ABA Ethics Committee Formal Opn. 93-379 (1993) on Billing for Professional Fees, Costs, Disbursements, and Other Expenses stated that several Rules of Professional Conduct affect how lawyers ethically can bill for their services. The Opinion specifically mentions RPC 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 3.2, and 7.1 but notes that other Rules may also be implicated. Continue reading
Recently, I made a stab at getting caught up on my reading. Included in my pile of reading material from the past several months was the Fall 2017 newsletter from the Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company of Kentucky (LMICK). As a proud, long time member of the Kentucky Bar Association, I am on LMICK’s mailing list.
The reason I had put the LMICK newsletter aside to read when I had time was that I noted that several pages were devoted to legal billing issues. Coming at it from a “risk management” prospective, the newsletter admonished attorneys to engage in “good billing practices” and “avoid common billing mistakes.”
Here are some of what LMICK listed as “billing mistakes” along with their side comments: Continue reading