Duane Morris Legal Bill Called ‘Seriously Inflated’
March 7, 2024
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.”