A recent Law.com story by Amanda O’Brien, “’Seriously Inflated’ Duane Morris Bill Highlights Risk When Big Law and Public Clients Lack Alignment”, reports that, as Duane Morris faces scrutiny over publicly obtained emails alleging that the firm delivered “seriously inflated” bills to a suburban Philadelphia school district following its investigation into allegations of rampant bullying against LGBTQ+ students, the dustup underlines how law firms’ work on behalf of public-sector clients demands a heightened level of communication.

The firm landed in the spotlight in the aftermath of a 151-page internal investigation report for the Central Bucks School District put together in April 2023 by a team led by partners Bill McSwain, the former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and Michael Rinaldi.  The report ultimately refuted allegations made by the American Civil Liberties Union in 2022 claiming that the school district created a hostile environment for queer students.

The investigation leading to the report took approximately six months, with the district bringing on McSwain and the firm in November 2022.  The bills referenced in the memo span from November 2022 to the end of October 2023, and outside reporting by The Philadelphia Inquirer indicates the bills, totaling around $1.1 million, were paid in December 2023. 

“One could spend countless hours picking apart this bill,” the email, authored by Edward Diasio, a partner at Montgomery County-based Wisler Pearlstine, said.  “The bottom line, from my standpoint, is that it is seriously inflated, and should be reduced considerably.”

Among the issues highlighted in the email were complaints of inefficient time management, vague time entries for hundreds of thousands of dollars of work, and an excessive number of attorneys engaged in repetitive tasks.   “The issue is that the Engagement Letter indicated two attorneys would lead the matter, and rely on help (where appropriate) at lower hourly rates,” the email raids.  “This was a good strategy in theory, but it was poorly implemented by Duane Morris.  The District should have benefitted from the efficiencies such a structure should have generated…”

“What happened, though, was that an army of attorneys was brought in and any efficiencies that could have been achieved were dramatically outweighed by the inefficiencies associated with managing such a large team and all of the internal communication and coordination that come along with that,” the memo’s introduction concludes.

Keeping the Client in Mind

According to several consultants, establishing client expectations around billing practices is a weak point, even a “lost opportunity,” for law firms. At the center of the issue, consultants said, is keeping in mind the client’s expertise when it comes to litigation or other legal matters.

“With corporate clients, often the client is an in-house lawyer. With public sector clients, you’re frequently dealing with people who aren’t lawyers,” Mantra Partner founder and CEO Marci Taylor explained.  “It’s more of an incentive to be as descriptive as possible about the nature and complexity of the task.  You’re writing knowing that there’s a high likelihood that your invoices will be made public.”

Law firm consultant Tim Corcoran also acknowledged that billing isn’t a one-size-fits all practice.  “There is quite a bit of forethought that goes into billing strategies because different circumstances call for different approaches,” Corcoran observed, contrasting in-house lawyer clients to government and public sector clients, and these also to third-party bill reviewers used by many corporate clients. 

Corcoran and consultant Stephen Ruben indicated that billing strategies and professional responsibilities change slightly according to the type of client.   “Normally if you’re dealing with a large corporation or corporations that have a lot of legal matters, they’re [used to] dealing with legal matters over time and have a greater ability to manage the relationship … they know what to ask for, they know what to expect,” Ruben explained.  “The firm has a different obligation when a law firm is dealing with people who are less experienced and sophisticated in dealing with lawyers and litigation.  Litigation is messy by nature.  One would think that when you are dealing with people who are not as experienced in litigation, you have a greater obligation to take them through the process step by step.”

And as for third-party billing reviewers, Corcoran noted that some firms take into account that reviewers might shave off some of the bill.  “It’s like the shopping trick.  Some firms will bill accordingly knowing that clients who put them through this review process will shave off some eventually,” Corcoran said.  “They may also take the exact opposite approach by only billing for the specific things enumerated … in the outside counsel guidelines, because they don’t want to risk the relationship knowing anything outside of that scope will have to be justified or defended.”

Setting Expectations Early

Law firms often fail to set client expectations on billing, Corcoran noted.  As a result, Corcoran said, it is often on clients to take the initiative and set expectations on billing for law firms.  And while some corporate clients may have the sophistication and resources to take charge here, public sector clients—with a shorter history in turning to Big Law for complex engagements—don’t have the same knowhow.  That can be a recipe for frustrations, as the Central Bucks School District’s review demonstrates.

“Failure to set or manage client expectations … is probably the greatest missed opportunity [at law firms],” said Corcoran.  “What lawyers believe is that because they cannot predict with absolute certainty how long something will take, the outcome, and what it will cost, they view it as binary, so few will provide a budget or cashflow guidance to help a client squirrel away funds.”

“It’s up to the client then to impose restrictions or guidelines or checkpoints to say ‘you need to let us know what your work in progress is, we need to be ahead of the pace of your billing,’” Corcoran continued.  “As a former CEO myself who’s managed the law department, I cared about the total amount we’ve got to budget for this … [I’d ask to] get me in the ballpark [of how much something would cost], even on a quarterly basis.”

“Few law firms do that because clients don’t ask for it,” Corcoran added.  The risk, of course, of avoiding early billing discussions is an unhappy client when the bill comes due.  “Not giving a heads-up is zero risk unless the client is unhappy … [then] the risk is that [clients] will subject the invoices to deeper scrutiny,” Corcoran said.  “The risk is you will expect one income stream and get something less than that … [and that] repeated behaviors like that can cause clients to go elsewhere.”

“Client defections are based on dissatisfaction not with the legal work but how the client is treated by the firm almost as an afterthought,” Corcoran continued. “They’re missing out on the ability to retain the client.”  Ruben suggested that firms address billing expectations early on in the relationship with a client, noting that “in generally, a good law firm will state expectations.  That’s what the retainer agreement is about.”

“It should include terms about how [the client] is going to be billed, and there should be conversations about that,” Ruben said.  “You’re dealing with people and when people are involved in a transaction, there’s often going to be a miscalculation of expectations on either side … when you have a monthly bill, issues that need to be managed more quickly come to the attention of both parties.”

A recent Law 360 story by Beverly Bank, “’Vague’ Billing Justifies 10% Cut in Atty Fees, Judge Says”, reports that a federal magistrate judge recommended slashing an Iron Workers' benefits funds' request for attorney fees in a case over an employer's unpaid contributions, saying there are "vague" billing entries from the plaintiffs' counsel as part of a $2.2 million judgment.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman issued a report and recommendation, suggesting the district court cut a nearly $111,000 attorney fee request from Iron Workers Local No. 25's benefit funds by 10%.  The attorney fees dispute is connected with U.S. District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds' order, requiring Next Century Rebar LLC to pay more than $2.2 million in unpaid contributions with interest and liquidated damages.  The company filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit.

"Portions of the trustees' itemized hourly work are described insufficiently to prove that the work 'was performed with reasonable diligence and efficiency,'" Judge Altman said.  The judge said many of the funds' billing entries linked to an audit are "vague," necessitating a drop in proposed attorney fees from around $110,900 to roughly $99,800.  Judge Altman did not disturb the funds' request for more than $18,200 in costs.

The judge pointed to billing entries connected with an audit, saying some entries about the correspondence and emails with the auditor "provide the court with little information as to the necessity of the work."  The benefit funds requested around $110,900 in October, saying the plaintiffs' counsel spent 388.8 attorney hours in pursuing the case.

Next Century Rebar called billing entries linked to the attorney fees request "excessive, duplicative, and vague" as part of the company's Oct. 30 response. The company challenged the funds' bid for fees over review of the audit.  "Excessive review of the audit is ongoing throughout the time entries of multiple persons without any detail or reason for the excessive amount of time spent reviewing, re-reviewing, and again revisiting the audit report," Next Century Rebar said.

The company said the funds were seeking fees for clerical work that could have been undertaken by a legal clerk or assistant to the plaintiffs' attorneys.  Judge Altman found that some of Next Century Rebar's complaints about the clerical work entries were valid and warranted lower attorney fees.  "Next Century has highlighted instances where parts or all of the described work was clerical in nature and could have been handled by paralegals or other staff at much lower rates," the judge said.

The judge took on arguments from Next Century that the request related to audit costs of about $13,000 was "outrageous," saying the company didn't raise evidence to back up this claim.  Judge Altman said an affidavit "from an attorney that worked closely on this case and on the review of the audit" corroborated the cost of the audit.

A recent Law 360 story by Chart Riggall, “Colo. Judge Calls Out Enviro Attys For ‘Egregious’ Billing”, reports that a Colorado federal judge chided a group of environmental attorneys who successfully sued a gold-mining company for polluting the South Platte River over their "egregious" billing practices, slashing their request for fees by nearly two-thirds.  U.S. District Judge William J. Martinez of the District of Colorado — who in a 2022 bench trial ordered the Wyoming-based High Mountain Mining Co. LLC to pay $500,000 in penalties for violations of the federal Clean Water Act — said spotty record-keeping produced a fee request the court "cannot condone."

"These issues make the court seriously doubt counsel's billing judgment," Judge Martinez wrote in an order.  The judge ultimately awarded over $295,000 in fees and $77,000 to the attorneys representing Park County residents Pamela Stone, Twyla Rusan and M. Jamie Morrow, along with a pair of nonprofit groups, the South Park Coalition Inc. and Be the Change USA.  The groups also sued James R. Murray, a managing member and part owner of High Mountain.

That fell far short of the plaintiffs' request of nearly $1 million, which Judge Martinez pinned not only on their billing records but also on their "unprecedented" request for attorney fees in two separate, earlier lawsuits that were dismissed.

Stone and the other plaintiffs had argued that those two earlier cases yielded information directly bearing on the ultimately victorious lawsuit, but Judge Martinez disagreed, saying they pointed to "no case law supporting the proposition that a court may award fees for work done in earlier, failed actions at the conclusion of a later, successful action."

Filed in 2019, the residents' lawsuit took aim at a High Mountain mine near Alma, Colorado — mere steps from a fork of the South Platte River — that was allegedly leaking pollutants into the waterway.  The source of the contamination, according to the lawsuit and expert witnesses, was a series of unlined settling ponds containing mine waste that allowed chemicals to leach into the groundwater and then the river.

Judge Martinez used the factors laid out in the U.S. Supreme Court's 2020 decision in County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund to determine whether the company was required to obtain a permit for its discharges, which plaintiffs' attorneys said was one of the first applications of the Maui precedent.  The judge relied primarily on two factors: the distance the pollution has to travel to get to the river and the time it takes to get there.

The final $500,000 judgment was based on Judge Martinez's calculations of how much the company had saved by failing to line the ponds, as he declined to award an additional $500,000 sought by the plaintiffs absent evidence of serious environmental damage.

Because the plaintiffs didn't succeed on all their claims, High Mountain argued that the case was, in effect, only 25% successful and that the fee award should be slashed accordingly.  But Judge Martinez said he wanted to avoid having to disentangle the fee requests from the prior actions and elected to split the baby by cutting the fee request by 50%.

More problematic, he continued, were a number of billing line items where the work reportedly done wasn't fully documented, or the plaintiffs' attorneys had put apparently frivolous tasks down for billing.  In one such case, an attorney billed 0.02 hours for reading court transcripts, "rather than writing off 72 seconds of work during which he could not have possibly accomplished anything for his client," Judge Martinez said. 

High Mountain had also tried to argue that opposing counsel had charged exorbitantly high rates for their work, but that argument ultimately fell short.  "The court concludes that plaintiffs' requested hourly billing rates are very much on the high end, but ultimately accepts them as reasonable for environmental law attorneys of comparable skill and experience in the Denver area," Judge Martinez said.

A recent Law 360 story by Lynn LaRowe, “Southwest Slams ‘Excessive’ Fee Bid in Religious Bias Case”, reports that Southwest Airlines has called on a Texas federal court to reduce the nearly $180,000 in fees sought by a flight attendant in connection with contempt proceedings that followed her victory in a religious bias suit against the airline, saying the requested amount is "excessive rather than reasonable."  In a brief, the airline said that while it "previously agreed to pay plaintiff's reasonable attorney's fees in connection with her contempt motion," the amount requested should be cut to about $83,000.  "However, Southwest respectfully submits that [Carter's] fee request is, in substantial part, excessive rather than reasonable," the airline said.

U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr sanctioned Southwest and in-house lawyers Kerrie Forbes, Kevin Minchey and Chris Maberry in August, saying they "didn't come close to complying with the court's order" in posting a notice of non-discrimination over religious beliefs, and that the three attorneys "were at the root of the problem."  The judge ordered them to attend training given by Alliance Defending Freedom, which advocates against abortion, and LGBTQ and similar causes.

Last month, plaintiff Charlene Carter urged the court to order Southwest to pay roughly $176,000 in attorney fees, $3,000 in expenses and $600 in other costs to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Inc., which represents her.  The airline pointed out in its brief that the court held "approximately 9 hours of hearing (approximately 3 hours of which occurred ex parte without plaintiff's participation) during which [Bobby G. Pryor] examined four members of Southwest's legal team, [Matthew B. Gilliam] made a closing argument, and [Matthew D. Hill] displayed exhibits," referring to members of Carter's legal team.

Southwest is asking Judge Starr to cut Carter's lawyers' request to be paid for "nearly 500 hours of attorney time" and reduce the total award to just over $83,000.  The airline argues that Carter's team used "block billing" for a large portion of their attorney fees, "making it impossible to assess how much time counsel spent on each specified task, and whether that time was reasonable."  Southwest also noted that the court had reduced a previous fee award request from Carter's team by 30% that included block billing.

The airline further argued that each of the three lawyers who attended the contempt hearing had more than a decade of experience, and each could have handled the matter solo.  "Mr. Pryor handled all of the witness examinations," the airline said.  "In contrast, Mr. Hill's role was limited to displaying exhibits from his computer, a task that a non-lawyer could have handled; and Mr. Gilliam's role was to make a brief closing argument at the conclusion of the contempt hearing."

Southwest also said Carter's lawyers spent a lot of time filing pretrial motions related to the contempt proceeding, which were "unnecessary and minimally successful," and that Carter's attorneys have shown "a failure to exercise billing judgment."  The brief includes a detailed chart outlining the reasons for the more than $90,000 in reductions sought by the airline to Carter's fee bid.

A recent Law 360 article by Lourdes Fuentes, “Twitter Legal Fees Suit Offers Crash Course in Billing Ethics”, reports on ethical lessons from the recent Twitter fee dispute litigation case.  This article was posted with permission.  The article reads:

Corp.'s case against law firm Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, filed over Twitter's legal bill in connection with Elon Musk's $44 billion acquisition of the company, highlights the importance of following proper billing practices, which are governed not only by contract law but also by the higher standards imposed on lawyers by the rules of professional conduct.  The claims in X Corp. v. Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, filed in early July in California's San Francisco County Superior Court, include restitution (unjust enrichment), breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of California Business and Professions Code, Section 17200.

The pleading contains a litany of facts but recounts a concise timeline. From when Wachtell was retained on June 21, 2022, to the Oct. 13 party held to celebrate the month-end closing of the deal at the original $44 billion price, only 114 days had elapsed.  In that time, Twitter received two invoices.  These invoices were included as exhibits to the complaint.  A review of the invoices reveals blank time entries, vague descriptions, irrelevant references and block billing, among other issues.  The invoices amount to close to $18 million.

To compound these perceived improprieties, the final fee statement then added an extra $72 million dollars to that tab.  This was a "success fee" that was referenced in the closing day letter agreement drafted by Wachtell and signed by Twitter's then-chief legal officer, Vijaya Gadde, allegedly hours before the closing sale of Twitter on Oct. 27.  Significantly, the success fee had not been outlined in the engagement letter.

While the validity of the claims will be decided in court, the suit spotlights vital legal billing practices and ethical considerations for attorneys and clients alike.  Even if Wachtell defeats X, the suit has put the reputation of the firm's billing practices at risk.  Moreover, the suit has put the reputation and ethics of individual attorneys at risk by disclosing the invoices at issue, tying timekeeper names to time entries.

Further, the answer to whether the $90 million is fair pay or windfall may not be based on the amount itself, but on whether the parties followed the rules of professional conduct governing attorney-client relationships.  By reexamining billing approaches in light of the Twitter fees case, law firms and clients can take away important lessons on proper billing practices.

The Relevant Rules

Client and lawyer can maintain a positive partnership that is founded on transparency and trust by following an ethical road map.

The claims in the complaint provide us with a good starting point.  They are based on common law tort, contract law and the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which have been similarly adopted to varying degrees in other states' jurisdictions.  These are:

    Section 6147 of the California Business and Professions Code, which addresses contingency fees;

    Rule 1.5 of both the California and New York Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibit unreasonable or unconscionable fees;[6] and

    Rule 1.8 of both the California and New York Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibit soliciting gifts from clients.

By keeping these rules — or their equivalent from your jurisdiction — top of mind, practitioners can avoid the appearance of impropriety. Though not mentioned in the complaint, I would also add ABA Rule 1.4, which deals with attorney-client communications, to this list.

8 Crucial Steps for Success Fees

Fees based on the outcome of a case, like the success fee in the Twitter case, are permissible, but they still need to be reasonable.  While the ABA rules do not specifically mention success fees, they state that a fee may be contingent on the outcome of the matter for which the service is rendered.  The rules do, however, state that:

A contingent fee agreement shall be in a writing signed by the client and shall state the method by which the fee is to be determined.  Success fees are common in transactional matters, but these are typically negotiated as part of an engagement letter.  They are structured to incentivize the law firm to achieve the best possible outcome for the client.  However, the exact nature and amount of these fees can vary and are a subject of negotiation between the parties.  As a result, it is crucial for both parties to follow these steps.

Transparency and Disclosure

All terms related to the success fee should be clearly stated in the engagement letter or contract.  This includes how the fee is calculated, when it is to be paid, and under what conditions it may be modified or waived.

Reasonableness of the Fee

All fees must be reasonable.  Look for guidance in ABA Rule 1.5 for factors that can be considered to determine reasonableness of a success fee. These can include:

    The novelty and difficulty of the case;

    The skill required to properly provide legal services;

    Comparable rates in your area for like services;

    The amount at issue and the results obtained;

    Time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances;

    The reputation, experience and ability of the lawyers performing the services; and

    Whether the fee is fixed or contingent.

Proportionality

The success fee should be proportional to the value provided by the law firm.  This could be in relation to the deal size, the complexity of the transaction or the level of risk involved.

Incentive Alignment

Make sure that the fee structure selected aligns the firm's incentives with the client's goals.  Otherwise, it could be considered a conflict of interest, among other ethical pitfalls.

Regulatory Compliance

Understand your state-specific rules or regulations that might apply.  For example, California's Section 6147 speaks to contingency fee agreements.  Research your jurisdiction's rules and regulations.  Remember, as well, that some jurisdictions may cap or ban certain types of fees.

Dispute Resolution

Include a clause specifying how any disputes over the success fee will be resolved, whether through arbitration, mediation or court proceedings.

Periodic Review

It may be prudent to include provisions for reviewing the success fee arrangement at various stages of the transaction.

Client Consent

Explicit, informed consent from the client is crucial, especially if the success fee arrangement is unconventional or complex.  It is important to note that all fees must not only be reasonable but also adequately explained to clients.  Circumventing clear documentation enables end-runs around billing safeguards in violation of ABA Rule 1.5 and violates Rule 1.4.

While a lawyer and client may renegotiate a fee agreement during an ongoing relationship, the lawyer typically carries the burden of establishing fairness of the new arrangement if it is ever challenged.  Fee agreements entered during the attorney-client relationship will get heightened scrutiny to avoid the appearance of undue influence or impropriety.

In the case of Twitter, the success fee was agreed upon allegedly hours before the closing of the deal.  Although Twitter's old board agreed to the fees, the circumstances in which this transpired could be perceived as unethical and improper because of the lateness of the agreement made by the parties to include a success fee.  Hence, in addition to challenging the fee as unreasonable, the lawsuit claims that, based on the facts leading to the closing day letter agreement, the success fee should be considered a gift, and hence a violation of ABA Rule 1.8.

10 Proper Billing Practices

The controversy highlighted in the Twitter fee case provides a valuable reminder of the heightened scrutiny in attorney-client relationships due to its fiduciary nature and the rules of professional conduct.  In addition to the steps specific to success fees outlined above, it is important to keep these broader billing best practices in mind.

Engagement

Always formalize the fee arrangement in a written agreement.  This holds true whether you are dealing with an hourly rate, a contingency fee or some other type of fee structure.  Any modifications to the engagement terms or fee structure should also be put in writing.

Transparency

Clearly outline how legal fees will be calculated, any percentages that may accrue in the case of a contingency fee and any other expenses that will be deducted from the recovery.

Client Communication

Keep the client informed about any developments.

Alternative Fee Arrangements

There is nothing wrong with exploring creative billing options that can benefit both parties, but ensure they are in line with ethical guidelines and are clearly outlined in the agreement.

Data-Driven Metrics

Consider using data-driven methods to establish fees, especially for alternative fee arrangements.  This adds an element of fairness and can help align incentives between client and lawyer.  Notably, today we have the benefit of using artificial intelligence to come up with creative data-based alternative fee arrangements.

Review and Oversight

Periodically review the billing practices to ensure compliance with your client guidelines.  Train your timekeepers in proper billing practices and client-specific billing guidelines.  This training should be done annually and while onboarding new personnel.

Regulations

Understand the rules governing fees and conflicts of interest.  Train your lawyers in the rules of professional conduct.  This training should be done annually and while onboarding new personnel.

Fiduciary Duty

Always act in the best interest of the client, keeping in mind the fiduciary nature of the attorney-client relationship.

Avoid Surprises

Be proactive to avoid sticker shock.  Discuss potential scenarios and outcomes openly with the client, so they know what to expect in terms of fees.

For example, one fact alleged in the complaint is that:

[I]n the middle of the board's final October 27 meeting, former Twitter general counsel Sean Edgett sent the chart of fees that the Twitter board was meeting to approve.  Upon seeing the magnitude of the fees being presented for the board's approval, one former Twitter director immediately exclaimed in an email reply to Edgett: "O My Freaking God."

Regular Invoicing

Provide detailed invoices that outline the work done, the time spent and the costs incurred.  This not only aids transparency but will also help in resolving any disputes that may arise.  Also remember, your time entries should be treated with as much care as any work product; they should be clear, concise, descriptive and grammatically correct.

By following this ethical road map, the parties will reduce the likelihood of disputes and misunderstandings and, also, maintain a good working relationship.

Conclusion

Whether you are the client or the lawyer, beware falling asleep at the wheel when it comes to new engagements, modifications to billing and billing practices generally.  To do so may risk legal action and your reputation.

Lourdes Fuentes is a seasoned litigator, Founder & Chair of Karta Legal LLC, law firm partner and CEO.  She has a law degree from the University of Pennsylvania and is also a certified Legal Project Manager and Lean Six Sigma Black Belt.  With decades in the field, her expertise lies in optimizing legal operations and promoting ethical billing.  Lourdes founded Karta Legal to tackle these specific challenges, offering tailored solutions that include innovative technology adoption and process improvement.  Her firm caters to a diverse range of clients—from Fortune 100 companies to specialized boutique law firms—ensuring they adhere to transparent and ethical billing practices.

A recent Law 360 story by Brian Steele, “McCarter & English Client Didn’t Notice Rate Hikes, Jury Hears”, reports that a dietary supplement company founder battling McCarter & English...

Read Full Post

A recent Law 360 story by Vince Sullivan, “Pillsbury’s Fee Bid Slashed For ’Over-Lawyering’”, reports that a Delaware bankruptcy judge reduced the fees payable to Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw...

Read Full Post

A recent Law.com article by Diana C. Manning, “Mid-Year Billing Tips: The Devil Is In The Details”, reports that the art of billing is an inevitable part of any law practice, so buckle up,...

Read Full Post

A recent Law 360 by Gina Kim, “Joint Juice Maker Rips Class Attys’ ‘Overstated’ $8.3M Fee Bid,” reports that Premier Nutrition asked a California federal judge to cut $2.4 million from...

Read Full Post