Ethics in Billing

Admin — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 17:54:00 GMT

I spoke to a group of managing partners last week on the subject of ethics in billing, particularly as it relates to mobile technology.

Most of us know the ABA pronouncements regarding reasonableness, etc. But, did you know there is a growing body of decisions and rulings that indicate that time worked must be measured and recorded contemporaneously to meet the ethical test?

Consider the Washington State Supreme Court's decision: In re Discipline of Dann, 136 Wn.2nd 67 (1998). Barrie Althoff, WSBA Chief Disciplinary Counsel writes “The Court's opinion in Dann also makes it clear that if you bill on a time-spent basis, you must keep contemporaneous and accurate time records. It is not acceptable to attempt to reconstruct your actual time by relying on memory, on miscellaneous unorganized scraps of paper, on comparisons to the time expended by others working on the project, or by evaluating the complexity or extent of the work-product ("I usually take one-half hour to write a letter," or "This is an excellent brief, it must have taken me at least eight hours to write.") to jog your memory.

This need for accurate and contemporaneous records may be most important to lawyers who traditionally bill on a time-spent basis, but it can also be important to others. For example, lawyers who enter a contingent-fee agreement with clients may find that, for whatever reason, they do not complete the representation, yet believe they are entitled to some compensation. If they seek compensation, it will likely be on a quantum merit basis and they will likely need to be able to prove the time they actually spent on the matter. Unless they have kept accurate contemporaneous time records, they are unlikely to be able to do so.

Is Your Firm a Clan or Just a Group of Hunters?

Admin — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 17:58:12 GMT

Beth Keno, Beth@jurismidwest.com, the Juris person in Chicago, covers the Midwest area including Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin. I often point out that the Juris team works with more law firms than any specialized consulting firm. Beth is one of the Juris-best when it comes to helping a firm work smarter rather than harder to increase owner income, i.e., per-partner income. She is often disappointed by the lack of a team culture in many law firms. To illustrate the impact, she sent me the following:

"As I spend time meeting with attorneys from various law firms in the Midwest, I continue to run across the primitive belief that the best way to build a law firm is to 'eat what you kill'. In other words, you bring in only what you can work. In many ways, this plays to the posting regarding relative deprivation (see June 15, 2005). These attorneys feel this is the fairest and best way to run and build a firm. But is it? Let’s look at how successfully this thought process would have worked for the caveman.

John Caveman from the X Clan had really scored. He killed the biggest antelope on the plain. Now, John is a talented hunter, and very successful. Obviously, this is exactly what any clan needs, someone who can bring in the meat. But, John doesn’t believe in sharing. So, although he had plenty of meat from the previous three days' kill, he hoards his latest conquest. John faces a major problem. There are no freezers or storage systems to help him keep his meat fresh until he has time to eat it. And he just can’t eat it all. The meat is going to spoil. In the meantime, Clan X, who takes care of keeping the clan together, protected and functioning, is going hungry.

Now, over the past few months, John’s hunting skills have deteriorated; he has been too busy eating his kill. He has become out of shape and, more significantly, has not spent any time looking for his next big kill. The seasons are changing and John’s food source is becoming scarce. Soon, John will be hungry.

In the meantime, John’s clan has been successful in planting and bringing in new food. The clan realizes that for them to be strong and successful, they need a healthy clan. They all need to eat.

There are good reasons why every attorney is not a solo practitioner. They need the clan. Firms don’t achieve long lasting success and growth with the 'eat what you kill' growth mentality. For survivability, they need successful hunters who share with the clan. By sharing, hunters can be back on the plain, looking for the next kill sooner, bringing more food back to the clan.

The challenge for law firms is not only to find those hunters, but to reward the hunters for sharing. Firms can’t achieve growth by the eat-what-you-kill mentality. There is a limit to how much one can eat. For partners to increase their income, they need to bring work in for the clan—and be rewarded for it."

Make More Rain : marketing, ethics

Ethics in Billing

Is Your Firm a Clan or Just a Group of Hunters?