What A Lawyer Must Do To Increase Hourly Billing Rates Or Modify A Fee Agreement

Invariably, when a legal matter has continued for some time, there is an increase hourly billing rates over what was disclosed in the original Fee agreement. Sometimes, though, there are more substantive changes or modifications to the original Fee Agreement.

In this segment from my book, The Art Of Hiring The Right Lawyer & Negotiating A Fee Agreement That Will Save On Legal Costs, I discuss what lawyers must do to be able to increase their hourly billing rates or make any substantive change to the original Fee Agreement.

__________________________________________________________________

Subsequent Modifications to the Fee Agreement

While discussing modifications to a proposed fee agreement, it is important to also discuss those modifications that are made to a fee agreement during the course of a representation.

Some modifications to an attorney fee agreement may be needed during the course of the representation because the objective (that is, the scope) of the representation has changed. Or perhaps costs have become a major concern and a less costly approach is needed. Or the modification could be for some other minor reasons related to something specifically stated in the agreement, such as the names of the attorneys involved in the matter. But whatever the reason for the modification, if it relates to an issue discussed in this book, a reference back to that issue as discussed should be made prior to agreeing to the modification.

Although some modifications to a fee agreement may be necessary, I have observed that most modifications made during the course of the representation occur for the attorney’s own benefit and usually because the attorney is trying to increase his compensation. For example, the attorney may want to convert an hourly fee agreement into a contingency fee agreement because the lawyer thinks he will be able to earn a larger fee that way. Or the change may involve increasing the percentage amount of a contingency fee. But for whatever reason, if an attorney is in any way seeking to modify the fee agreement for his benefit, the attorney needs to get the client’s permission to the modification.[1] That is, it cannot be a unilateral change. And to get the client’s permission to make a modification of a fee agreement enforceable to increase compensation, the lawyer must follow a strict process set out in RPC 1.8, which governs “business transactions” with a client.[2]  

One of the things that RPC 1.8 requires a lawyer to do is to advise the client in writing “of the desirability of seeking . . . the advice of independent legal counsel.”[3] Also, the lawyer must get the client’s “informed consent” to the proposed business transaction (that is, to the modification of the fee agreement to the lawyer’s benefit).[4] Getting “informed consent” from a client is an involved process that I will discuss in detail in Chapter 10. For now, I will simply say that getting a client’s informed consent is a big deal that attorneys do not at all like to go through.

Of course, it might be said that regular hourly fee increases that typically occur on an annual basis during the course of a representation are modifications to the original fee agreement to an attorney’s benefit. But, such increases are exempt from the application of RPC 1.8 so long as any increase is “reasonable,” and the client was notified prior to the increase taking effect.[5]

To address the issue of notification of fee rate increases, there is usually a sentence buried in the original attorney fee agreement notifying the client to the effect that “we may raise our hourly billing rates from time to time.” And some lawyers believe this language, along with the client’s signature at the bottom of the fee agreement, means that the client has given the lawyer blanket approval to increase hourly billing rates whenever the lawyer wants to do so without first notifying the client of the increase.

However, just informing the client that the lawyer may increase his hourly billing rates at some time in the future is not at all the same thing as notifying the client prior to actually raising the hourly billing rates or changing them from what was originally agreed on in the attorney fee agreement.

In my experience, though, despite whatever language there is or is not in a fee agreement about increasing hourly rates during the course of the representation, most lawyers do give clients notice and get their permission prior to implementing any rate increases. So, most of the time, this is not going to be an issue. But just to ensure that this does not become an issue, in Chapter 6 I included some recommended language to address this when discussing hourly billing rates.


[1] See ABA Annotated Model Rules of Professional Conduct (7th ed. 2011), Comments to RPC 1.5 at p. 80, Modification of Agreements (“Modification of a fee agreement to a lawyer’s benefit during a representation is generally impermissible as well as unenforceable.”).

[2] See ABA Annotated Model Rules of Professional Conduct (9th ed. 2019), Comments to RPC 1.8 at p. 170, Changing Fee Agreements (“Although Rule 1.8(a) does not apply to ordinary client–lawyer fee agreements, it has been applied to efforts to modify an agreement during the course of the representation.”) citing, inter alia, In re Curry, 16 So. 3d 1139 (La. 2009)(inserting more favorable terms into original agreement violated rule) and Restatement Third of the Law Governing Lawyers, §18(1)(a) (2000) (client may avoid modification unless lawyer shows modification fair and reasonable to client).

[3] See RPC 1.8(a)(2).

[4] See RPC 1.8(a)(3).

[5] See ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility Opinion 11-458 (2011) Changing Fee Arrangements during Representation at p. 3 (“[T]he client’s acceptance of a modified fee arrangement may be inferred from the circumstances. For example, many lawyers who bill for their services on an hourly basis routinely increase their “normal” or “regular” hourly billing rates incrementally from time to time.” citing Severson & Werson v. Bolinger, 235 Cal. App. 3d 1569, 1570 (1991) (law firm cannot raise its “regular hourly rates” without first notifying client)).

Happy New Year and Beware of Surprises in 4th Quarter Bills

It’s been said with good justification that “a lawyer’s pen gets heavier during the fourth quarter.”

Invariably, as the year nears an end, lawyers (and paralegals) scramble to find things to do in their files in order to make their firm’s hourly billing “targets” (i.e., goals) for the year. 

You see a lot depends upon meeting law firm billing targets including firm bonuses and partners’ shares of the profits.  It sometimes may also mean whether or not you will have a job for the next year.  Thus, it is no wonder that I have found that more make work projects and task padding also occur during the final two months of a year that at any other time in the year.

But apart from concerns about the task padding that goes on in the fourth quarter, there is another concern: time padding.  Time padding can also occur when lawyers and paralegals add time to legitimate tasks to try to make yearly billing goals.

Apart from the deliberate instances of time padding, time padding can also occur in other ways.  Inadvertent time padding can occur when lawyers go back through all their files toward the end of the year looking to see if they recorded their time (or enough time) for tasks that might have been completed months ago.  When lawyers and paralegals do this, it is called “reconstructing” their time. And as many courts and experienced legal bill auditors alike know, when lawyers and paralegals do try to reconstruct their time, they invariably rely upon a faulty memory.  This, in turn, invariably causes them to record more time rather than less time.

The other thing you may note in 4th quarter legal bills is the presence of some billers who have not previously billed in the file who are also scrambling to get in as many billable hours as they can before year’s end.  They have literally gone around the office begging others for work to do as they too need to meet the firm’s minimum billing requirements or to qualify for a bonus (or to keep their jobs).

In the parlance of bill reviewing, these drop-in billers are called “transient billers.” They are attorneys and paralegals who mysteriously drop into a case, do a little work, and then mysteriously drop out of the case.  If you do see evidence of transient billers in a bill during the 4th quarter (or at any time for that matter), you should determine the exact reason.  If the presence of additional staff cannot be justified or is done for the convenience of the firm, the billing partner should be asked to write down any additional charges applicable to using the new biller.  You should also insist that they discontinue assigning new billers to your files absent some true emergency situation or by your request.

Hopefully, you will not have any surprises in your attorney’s 4th quarter legal bills. But if you do and you do not timely address them with your attorney, then you can expect even more legal bill surprises during the course of the year.

On Using “Outsourced” Legal Staff

The following is an excerpt from my book, Red Flags In Legal Bills: What Signals Are Attorneys Sending?

Related to the issue of “transient billers” who are likely employees of the firm, there is the issue of the use of temporary or contract workers from outside the firm. If it is suspected that an outside temporary or contract attorney or paralegal is billing in a matter, an immediate red flag should go up.

One of the reasons for the red flag is that when it comes to using temporary employees, such as those that might be obtained through an employment agency, the ethics of the legal profession allow the lawyer a choice. That choice is that the lawyer can bill the payment to the agency to the client either as a “cost” or as “fees.”

The difference between billing a contract worker to the client as a cost or as a fee can be significant. For example, if the lawyer bills the payment as a “cost,” then the lawyer can charge the client no more than the direct cost of the third-party services.” [1] Thus, if the lawyer is charged $25 an hour for a temp paralegal, then the lawyer can bill the client $25 an hour if the third-party services of the paralegal are billed as a cost.

 But the lawyer has the option of billing the temp paralegal as “fees,” just as he would for any other paralegal who is an employee of the law firm. Thus, the lawyer can bill the client for the temporary employees at the same hourly rates he bills for similar full-time firm employees.[2] That means that a temporary paralegal that might cost the law firm $25 an hour can be charged to the client at the firm rate of $100 an hour (or more). Similarly, temporary lawyers may cost the law firm as little as $50 an hour but be billed to the client at $200 an hour (or more).

And the ethics of the legal profession provide that it is the lawyer’s choice whether to bill temporary employees to the client as a cost or fees. As such, guess which one the lawyer will choose EVERY SINGLE TIME?!

Because of the generous way the ethics of the legal profession allow lawyers to bill for temp employees, anytime new billers are observed in a legal bill, the lawyer should be asked if the billers are temporary or contract workers. If they are temporary or contract workers, the lawyer should be asked to bill them as an expense and at the cost the law firm is actually paying the temporary workers.[3]

[1] See ABA Formal Opn. 93-379 (19930 Billing for Professional Fees, Disbursements, & Other Expenses at  p. 1 (“A lawyer may not charge a client more than her disbursements for services provided by third parties . . . except to the extent that the lawyer incurs costs additional to the direct cost of the third-party services.).

[2] See ABA Formal Op. 00-420 allows attorneys the option of choosing if they want to bill the services of temp or contract attorneys as either “fees” or “expenses.”

[3] I discuss this issue further in my book, How to Negotiate an Attorney Fee Agreement  and Save on Legal Costs.

Super Lawyers: Are They Really “Super” Lawyers?”

In shopping around for a new lawyer, you may have noticed how many lawyers proudly proclaim that they have been awarded the “Super Lawyer” designation.  As a matter of fact, with each new Super Lawyers directory I receive each year, I note that more and more lawyers are being named Super Lawyers.  So many in fact that I sometimes wonder if it might not be too many more years before just about every lawyer in the U.S. may be able to proudly claim the Super Lawyer designation.

But what does being a Super Lawyer really mean?  Are Super Lawyers really super lawyers?   Can an individual shopping for a lawyer rely upon a lawyer’s assertion that lawyer is a Super Lawyer as meaning that the lawyer is actually better than non-super lawyers?

When I was chair of my state bar association’s Legal Ethics Committee, I had an opportunity to examine this issue as a question was asked by several lawyers who believe that it violates the Rules of Professional Responsibility (the lawyer’s ethics code) for an attorney to make “self laudatory” statements such as proclaiming to be a “super” lawyer.  Here is what I found.  

First off, there are some worthy recognized “professional designations” that must be earned by merit in the practice of law, such as a Martindale-Hubbell AV rating. But, there are many other so-called “professional designations” in the legal profession that can be obtained by paying a fee or by taking a popular vote. These types of “professional designations” I believe may be more akin to a “social” or a “vanity” designation like being named a “Kentucky Colonel” or an “Admiral in the Nebraska Navy.”

In between the true professional designations and the social designations, there are some professional designations that recognize lawyer achievement of some sort other than skill in a particular field of law. But, it seems that many professional designations for lawyers fall into the “social” or “vanity” designation category which can be obtained by lawyers by either stuffing the ballot box with votes of the lawyer’s friends or by paying a fee.

The bottom line here – especially for non-lawyer clients – is that a lawyer’s advertised professional designations may look and sound impressive. But unless you want to do the research to find out if they really mean anything or not, I would not do put much weight on the lawyer’s “professional designations” as a criteria to use when selecting a lawyer.

If you are unsure of what exactly to look for when hiring a lawyer, you may want to read my book The Art Of Hiring The Right Lawyer And Negotiating A Fee Agreement That Will Save On Legal Costs. In it, I discuss the important issues that should be considered when hiring an attorney and in negotiating terms in a fee agreement. Information on ordering this book can be found at my website, https://legalbillaudit.com/available-books/

For Attorneys Only! How to Avoid Legal Bill Disputes.

As most of my posts have been for the benefit of clients of lawyers, I thought it about time to write a post for the benefit of lawyers. And since lawyers like to get paid for their services, what better topic to write about than how to significantly reduce, it not totally avoid, the chances of becoming embroiled in a dispute over your legal bill.

In my CLE seminars on ethical billing practices for attorneys, I gave 4 main tips on how to avoid disputes with clients over legal bills. These tips also mirror an attorney’s ethical obligations when it comes to dealing with clients on fee billing. Continue reading