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 by George Woolston, “NJ Firm Keeps Victory In Retainer Fee Billing Challenge,” reports that the New Jersey state appeals court has backed Arbus Maybruch & Goode LLC's win in an ex-client's suit alleging it failed to disclose the incremental billing structure of its retainer fee, reasoning in a published decision that the firm's bimonthly invoices showed the terms were spelled out.  A three-judge panel affirmed a Monmouth County trial judge's decision to award summary judgment to the firm on breach of contract claims against Daniel Cohen and his company Cohen Capital Management over $142,000 in unpaid attorney fees and costs.

Cohen challenged the lower court's decision, claiming that the New Jersey firm's fee and retainer agreements were illegal and unethical under the state's rules of professional conduct for attorneys, according to the opinion. Cohen argued that attorneys are required to include language defining what unit of incremental billing the attorneys planned to use in retainer agreements, despite hourly rates and initial deposits being otherwise clearly defined.  The firm had been billing Cohen in increments of one-tenth of an hour, according to the opinion.

In its review of two retainer agreements between the firm and Cohen and the relevant rules and case law, the panel found "no rule as rigorous as the one defendants urge us to adopt" and reached the same conclusion as the trial court — the firm's legal fees were reasonably presented and agreed to by the parties.

"The fees awarded here were based upon a reasonable hourly rate, as determined by the trial judge, who made detailed findings regarding the type of matter involved, the rates charged by other New Jersey attorneys possessing similar experience in like matters, and regional considerations regarding the amount billed," Judge Maritza Berdote Byrne wrote for the panel.  The panel also found Cohen's argument that he was not aware of the firm's incremental billing was not supported by the record in the case.

"Further, based upon the parties' course of dealing, where defendants availed themselves of AMG's legal services for more than two years without objecting to any invoices or raising the incremental billing issue, defendants' claim suggests an improper motive," Judge Berdote Byrne wrote.

Arbus Maybruch & Goode represented Cohen and his company for more than two years, starting in 2018, in a negligent construction suit as well as in a separate lawsuit against Cohen by a law firm seeking unpaid attorney fees, according to the appellate opinion.  In July 2020, the firm ended its representation of Cohen and a month later filed its breach of contract suit over the unpaid attorney fees.  According to the opinion, the first time Cohen argued that the agreements did not permit billing on an "incremental" basis was in its answer to the lawsuit, filed in Oct. 2020.

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 class counsel's "bloated and unreasonable" $8.3 million fee request in litigation over allegedly misleading advertising claims about its Joint Juice, citing block billing, overstaffing, lavish hotel stays and fringe expenses for "boba and coffee runs dating back to 2013."  In a 33-page opposition, Premier Nutrition's attorney Steven E. Swaney of Venable LLP accused class counsel, except for Iredale & Yoo, of presenting to the court "a bloated and unreasonable application asking this court to award $8,274,516" in combined fees, expenses and costs.

Premier argued the lodestar calculation of the two other class counsel firms, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon and Lynch Carpenter "betray a lack of 'billing judgment,'" as they propose a fee award that doesn't approximate what a paying client is willing to approve.  Their lodestar calculation is "massively overstated" since it includes time spent for other related Joint Juice class actions, Premier argued, pointing out the plaintiffs only prevailed in one of 11 related cases but are now submitting a fee bid as if they prevailed on all of them.

Excluding Eugene Iredale and Grace June of Iredale & Yoo, Premier complained that Blood Hurst and Lynch Carpenter's billing records are riddled with inefficiencies, including "top-heavy administration of work," block billing, billing in quarter-hour increments, overstaffing, nontravel work billing and other things.  Examples include Blood Hurst lawyers billing 24 or more hours per day and submitting several duplicative entries on a single day, staffing six lawyers on the trial, "two of whom sat passively in the gallery of the courtroom" and charging $575 per hour for a contract attorney, Craig Straub, doing document review, the opposition states.

"As explained in the declaration of Premier's fee expert Steven Tasher, a 40% across-the-board percentage reduction to BHO's and Lynch Carpenter's lodestar is warranted to account for these inefficiencies," Premier said.  "The total lodestar for class counsel should be reduced to $2,406,809.  This constitutes approximately 29% of the judgment amount, which aligns with the Ninth Circuit's 25% benchmark for reasonable fees."

Premier balked at class counsel's suggestion for the court to apply a multiplier to pump their fee award if their lodestar is reduced, and also took issue with their "extravagant expenses" that it said warrants an across-the-board cut in their claimed charges.

"Class counsel also seek reimbursement from Premier for every sundry or fringe expense they encountered over this decade-long litigation, including boba and coffee runs dating back to 2013," the opposition states. "Class counsel even tries to bill Premier for hundreds of dollars in laundry expenses incurred during trial — even though they apparently traveled back home to San Diego that same day."

The opposition references defense's expert, Tasher, who reviewed the billing entries and opined the class counsel's requests costs also reveal "a 'spare no expense' approach" to the case along with double billing and "phantom charges."  "In my opinion, while the dollar value for many of these items may seem small, they reflect a big attitude of no cost being too great to throw onto the bill and eat, drink and be merry on someone else's dime," Tasher wrote.  "No paying client would tolerate class counsel's lifestyle expenses or lavishness."

Premier said that Blood Hurst and Lynch Carpenter's proposed lodestar figure was grossly inflated and warrants dramatic cuts across the board, arguing that the firms can't include time spent on class representative depositions in other related actions in their calculation.  Blood Hurst's proposed lodestar also includes nearly 1,000 hours for trial prep spent in Mullins, which Premier said should be removed since the Mullins trial never occurred.  It's inappropriate for Blood Hurst to get 100% of the fees for work common to the related cases based on the successful outcome of just one case, the opposition states.

Premier also sought a 40% cut to Blood Hurst's remaining lodestar account for several deficiencies in their billing practices, noting that  the firm's Timothy Blood and Thomas Joseph O'Reardon billed for work done in 2013 at their current hourly rate, which is significantly higher.

While Blood, partner Paula Brown and Straub billed 1,000 hours for trial prep, Blood was the only one who had an active role at trial, and O'Reardon and Straub "sat passively in the gallery," Premier alleged.  Premier also accused Straub and O'Reardon of billing extra hours after trial each day and erroneously adding entries that exceed 24 hours a day "or are obvious duplicates," totaling $62,207.50.

Premier also attacked Lynch Carpenter's fee bid of $392,392.50, arguing the billed work was entirely spent on Mullins.  The fee should be apportioned among the related cases and then cut by 40% due to excessive time and top-heavy administration work, Premier said.  That should leave Lynch Carpenter with $20,842.77.  "As an initial matter, in what can only be described as a shocking act of chutzpah, Mr. Carpenter — who has not worked on these cases since 2020 — includes in his fee petition 13.7 hours to fly to San Francisco to observe one day of trial on May 25, 2022," the opposition states.

Nor should class counsel recover fees and deposition costs for experts that weren't used in the Montera suit, Premier said.  Furthermore, several charges from the two firms weren't only lavish and extravagant, but also "purely wasteful," Tasher said.

"Each of these issues is exacerbated by the level of staffing," Tasher wrote. "Had the trial been staffed with attorneys Iredale, Jun and Blood, (the three attorneys who actually appeared on the record to try the case), the expenses would also have been much more modest.  However, given the excessive staffing (and related trial expenses) of attorneys [Todd] Carpenter, O'Reardon and Straub, the costs grew exponentially, considering the additional flights, Uber/taxi charges, meals/alcohol, and snacks brought about by these three additional timekeepers (essentially double the trial team.)"

A recent article by Jacqueline Vinaccia of Vanst Law LLP in San Diego “What is a Legal Fee Audit?,” reports on legal fee audits.  This article was posted with permission.  The article reads:

Attorneys usually bill clients by the hour, in six minute increments (because those six minutes equal one tenth of an hour: 0.1).  Those hours are multiplied by the attorney’s hourly rate to determine the attorney’s fee.  There is another aspect of attorney billing that is not as well known, but equally important — legal fee auditing.  During an audit, a legal fee auditor reviews billing records to determine if hourly billing errors or inefficiencies occurred, and deducts unreasonable or unnecessary fees and costs.

Both the law and legal ethics restrict attorneys from billing clients fees that are unreasonable or unnecessary to the advancement of the client’s legal objectives.  This can include analysis of the reasonableness of the billing rate charged by attorneys.  Legal fee audits are used by consumers of legal services, including businesses, large insurance companies, cities, public and governmental agencies, and individual clients.  Legal fee audits can be necessary when there is a dispute between an attorney and client; when the losing party in a lawsuit is required to pay all or part of the prevailing party’s legal fees in litigation; when an insurance company is required to pay a portion of legal fees, or when some issues in a lawsuit allow recovery of  attorneys’ fees and when other issues do not (an allocation of fees). 

In an audit, the auditor interviews the client, and reviews invoices sent to the client in conjunction with legal case materials to identify all fees and costs reasonable and necessary to the advancement of the client’s legal objectives, and potentially deduct those that are not.  The auditor also reviews all invoices to identify any potential accounting errors and assure that time and expenses are billed accurately.  The auditor may also be asked to determine if the rate charged by the attorney is appropriate.

The legal fee auditor can be an invaluable asset to parties in deciding whether to file or settle a lawsuit, and to the courts charged with issuing attorneys’ fee awards.  The court is unlikely to take the time to review individual invoice entries to perform a proper allocation of recoverable and non-recoverable fees leaving the parties with the court’s “best approximation” of what the allocation should be.  The fee audit provides the court and the parties with the basis for which to allocate and appropriately award reasonable and necessary fees. 

Audits are considered a litigation best practice and a risk management tool and can save clients substantial amounts of money in unnecessary fees.  It has been my experience, over the past two decades of fee auditing, that early fee auditing can identify and correct areas of concern in billing practices and avoid larger disputes in litigation later.  In many cases, I have assisted clients and counsel in reaching agreement on proper billing practices and setting litigation cost expectations. 

In other cases, I have been asked by both plaintiffs and defendants to review attorneys’ fees and costs incurred and provide the parties and the court with my expert opinion regarding the total attorneys’ fees and costs were reasonably and necessarily incurred to pursue the client's legal objectives.  While the court does not always agree with my analysis of fees and costs incurred, it is usually assisted in its decision by the presentation of the audit report and presentation of expert testimony on the issues.

Jacqueline Vinaccia is a San Diego trial attorney, litigator, and national fee auditor expert, and a partner at Vanst Law LLP.  Her practice focuses on business and real estate litigation, general tort liability, insurance litigation and coverage, construction disputes, toxic torts, and municipal litigation.  Her attorney fee analyses have been cited by the U.S. District Court for Northern California and Western Washington, several California Superior Courts, as well as various other state courts and arbitrators throughout the United States.  She has published and presented extensively on the topic of attorney fee invoicing, including presentations to the National Association of Legal Fee Association (NALFA), and is considered one of the nation’s top fee experts by NALFA.

A recent ABI Journal article by Brittany B. Falabella and Allison P. Klena, “Actual and Necessary: A Guide to Keeping Time So You Get Paid,” reports on good billing practices in large Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  This article was posted with permission.  The article reads:

Billing time is one of the most dreaded aspects of private practice in any field of law, but not because it is hard or overly time-consuming.  The extra step of recording discrete, detailed time entries is much more than an annoyance.  For bank­ruptcy practitioners employed under §§ 327, 1103 and 1051 of the Bankruptcy Code and certain credi­tors’ counsel,2 it is a step that cannot be done in a sloppy, haphazard way — at least, if the attorney wants to be paid.

In non-bankruptcy areas of practice, an attorney may have to explain generic, unclear and blocked billing to a client.  However, a bankruptcy practi­tioner’s bills are subject not only to this review, but also to that of multiple other parties, including the U.S. Trustee’s Office, debtors, committees, interest-holders and, most importantly, the court, before the practitioner will be awarded compensation under §§ 330 and/or 331.  Developing proper billing habits from the start will pay for itself — literally.

Although most new attorneys who enter an established bankruptcy practice will have standard forms for fee applications, taking the time to under­stand the law informing a court’s analysis is the first step in understanding how to effectively and proper­ly keep time for easy approval.  The first part of this article discusses the Code sections and cases that likely apply to every fee application.  The second part discusses the common pitfalls that can result in a court reducing a fee request, and easy and practi­cal tips to avoid them.  By making proper billing a habit rather than a dreaded task, the foundation will be laid to get paid in full.

The Laws of Getting Paid: Section 330 of the Bankruptcy Code

Under § 330, after notice and a hearing an attor­ney may be awarded (1) “reasonable compensa­tion for actual, necessary services rendered” and (2) “reimbursement for actual, necessary expens­es.”  On the court’s own motion or that of any party-in-interest, a court can, however, reduce the com­pensation requested.  In making the determination of whether and how much to reduce a request, the court is directed to consider the nature, the extent, and the value of such services, taking into account all rel­evant factors, including:

(A) the time spent on such services;

(B) the rates charged for such services;

(C) whether the services were neces­sary to the administration of, or ben­eficial at the time at which the service was rendered toward the completion of, a case under this title;

(D) whether the services were per­formed within a reasonable amount of time commensurate with the com­plexity, importance, and nature of the problem, issue, or task addressed;

(E) with respect to a professional per­son, whether the person is board cer­tified or otherwise has demonstrated the skill and experience in the bank­ruptcy field; and

(F) whether the compensation is rea­sonable based on the customary com­pensation charged by comparably skilled practitioners in cases other than cases under this title.6

In addition, the court “shall not allow compensation for — (i) unnecessary duplication of services; or (ii) services that were not (I) reasonably likely to benefit the debtor’s estate, or (II) necessary to the administration of the case.”

The Lodestar Method

The lodestar method is a court’s starting point for deter­mining whether fees billed were reasonable.  The “lodestar” equals a reasonable amount of time for the matter multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.  Reasonable time is the time that the court believes a billing attorney should have spent on the matter.  Then, a “reasonable hourly rate” is calculated with reference to a billing attorney’s experience and skill, as well as prevailing rates in the community for similar services provided by reasonably comparable attorneys.  The sum (i.e., the lodestar) may then be adjusted to account for the specific demands of the case, often with reference to some or all of the 12 Johnson factors.

The Johnson Factors

The Johnson factors are derived from the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express Inc., and consist of the following: (1) the time and labor expended; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions raised; (3) the skill required to properly perform the legal services rendered; (4) the attorney’s opportunity costs in pressing the instant litigation; (5) the customary fee for like work; (6) the attor­ney’s expectations at the outset of the litigation; (7) the time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the amount in controversy and the results obtained; (9) the expe­rience, reputation and ability of the attorney; (10) the unde­sirability of the case within the legal community in which the suit arose; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship between attorney and client; and (12) attorneys’ fee awards in similar cases.

However, courts have not taken a uniform approach to the Johnson factors.  Some courts view the factors as already subsumed into the lodestar method, while others apply the lodestar method and then look to the Johnson factors to decide whether the lodestar amount should be modified.  Still other courts consider the Johnson factors in conjunction with calculation of the lodestar,  Although these distinctions may matter in some cases, the one- and two-step processes will often generate essentially similar results, especially given that enhancement of the lodestar is a rare occurrence.

Biggest Pitfalls and Strategies to Avoid Them

Even with an understanding of the law, unless time records are maintained in anticipation of bankruptcy court review, a practitioner will often fall into some of the pitfalls discussed below. In many cases, a simple fix can nip errors in the bud.  This avoids the headache of reviewing and editing voluminous invoices at the end of a fee-application period or the end of a case, and, most importantly, permitting the court to allow fees in full and without objection.

Not Enough Detail/Excessive Billing

Vague time entries are virtually always a problem.  A gen­eral, shorthand description might be easy to understand for the time-keeper doing the work and making a contemporane­ous record (it goes without saying to always keep contem­poraneous time).  However, the court and other parties who analyze vague, generic time entries do not have the benefit of the billing attorney’s on-the-spot thoughts.

Time entries should be drafted with an eye toward explaining and justifying why the work was “reasonable and necessary,” and how it benefited the estate or a constituent.  Entries such as “reviewed emails” are certainly insufficient, but even additional details, such as “conference with X con­cerning research and strategy” or “conference with X con­cerning pending matter related to debtor” might not provide enough detail for a court to determine whether the time was justified.  Vague entries can cause the court to spend time attempting to decipher the context, conduct an evidentiary hearing, or simply deny the compensation.

While courts frequently complain that counsel have engaged in excessive billing, the heart of the issue is fre­quently that the court does not understand how the amount of time billed was “reasonable and necessary.” In other words, the billing entry was not specific or detailed enough to explain to the court that the full amount of time delegated to a task benefited the estate or was necessary to the admin­istration of the case.  This issue is often remedied if detailed descriptions are crafted with an eye toward the benefit to the case as previously explained.

Vague and ambiguous entries are a common and costly mistake.  No attorney, particularly a new associate, wants their entries to be the reason that the firm’s fee application is reduced or its approval delayed.  Taking the time to carefully prepare time entries is essential, not optional.

Tip: Have an attorney or professional assistant who is not working on the case review the time entries.  If that person cannot understand the value of the time billed or the task that was completed, more detail should be included until it becomes clear.  If it becomes necessary to bill significant time to certain tasks, make sure the explanation is particularly thorough to explain the circumstances.

Block-Billing

Similar to time entries that are insufficiently detailed, time entries that are block-billed — multiple tasks com­bined in a one-time entry — do not establish for the review­er (1) how much time was spent on a particular task, or (2) whether the time spent on each task was reasonable.  For example, if an attorney records 3.0 hours total for “review of a motion for approval of DIP financing; telephone call with debtor’s counsel concerning alternative financing sought; and email to client regarding financing options for debtor’s continued operation under chapter 11 and recommendation not to object to the filed DIP financing motion,” the court has no idea whether the review of the motion took 0.6 hours (presumably reasonable) or 2.7 hours (perhaps unreason­able absent additional undescribed factors).  According to the U.S. Trustee’s guidelines, while block-billing is gener­ally not allowed, a single daily entry that combines de mini­mus tasks can be combined, provided that the entry does not exceed 0.5 hours.

A consequence of block-billing is that the court may conclude that it lacks the information to trim excessive time from a particular task among those blocked, and may choose to reduce the total time billed by a discretionary percentage.  The goal is to establish that your work was reasonable and necessary.  Do not give a court an “excuse” to question the reasonableness of your time by block-billing.

Tip: Break up time entries so that each task corresponds to the amount of time spent on that task — even if the amount of time is modest.  Making use of time-tracking software or timers and developing good habits can be quite helpful in mastering detailed task-billing.

Not Delegating to Proper Staff/Duplicative Billing

Whether certain tasks are properly completed by senior-level attorneys, lower-level attorneys or support staff is largely out of the control of an associate.  Nevertheless, there will be times when tasks that would be more suitable for a junior-lev­el attorney must be completed by a senior attorney, or where an attorney may need to complete a task that would ordinar­ily be delegated to a staff person.  Similarly, there are times when multiple attorneys must participate in the same hearing or conference, which reviewing courts often view skeptically.

In such situations, courts are more inclined to allow the “double billing” if the exigent circumstances are explained in the entry and such staffing situations are kept to a mini­mum.  When matters are not explained or apparent from the time description, the court is left to question how the time and/or rates are reasonable and necessary.

Tip: While a junior associate might not have much con­trol over the delegation of tasks, associates typically draft the fee applications, so they should keep this issue in mind when reviewing bills and flag any issues with a supervising attorney prior to filing.  A good-faith reduction for certain tasks might go a long way with the court and other parties-in-interest.  At a minimum, make sure your own time is not subject to objection or reduction.  If you find yourself bill­ing time to routine tasks, be sure the circumstances are fully explained in the entry.

Conclusion

Given the consequences of failing to record time properly, it is well worth the time to develop the habit ofrecording specific time entries that are separated by each task performed and that indicate that how the time spent was both reasonable and necessary. With such a “reason­able and necessary” standard as a guide, a professional can ensure that the court and other interested parties under­stand the value being added to the case and that the fees requested are fully warranted.