Does anyone know if the Nevada Bar has opined, either tacitly or explicitly, on the legitimacy of value-based billing? (i.e., billing for the time it took to draft a template motion for a prior client). I know some attorneys/offices in town that do this, but have never seen a firm answer from the Bar myself.
A good question..and if not, why not?
A brilliant brief that you perfected over time, can only be billed for the time it takes to copy and paste it? A contract for a client from a template which is infused with your years of experience and specialized knowledge?
While if you laboriously copied by hand a junk legal document, you are allowed to bill for all 8 hours that it took?
11:26–Short answer is that the Bar generally doesn't seem to care, providing the attorney in fact have itemized billing that they can present in case of a dispute.
The attorney who runs into trouble is the one who cannot produce itemized billing in the event of a dispute. If there is no written fee agreement, or even if there is a written fee agreement, if no subsequent billing invoices are produced, that is where one runs into problems.
So, if by way of example, someone appears to have done $10,000., or even $20,000. worth of work, but was only paid $5,000., but has no itemized billing, that attorney is likely to get sanctioned and disciplined by the Bar–even if it appears the client got a great bang for their buck.
By contrast, if someone performs what seems like about $5,000. worth of work, but charges $20,000., they will rarely encounter any problems or bar discipline, providing that there is itemized billing.
If there is itemized billing, very rarely does Bar counsel, and/or a fee dispute committee, get concerned with the undertaking of determining whether any line entries appear to be excessive for the work listed.
But in cases where the client got four hundred dollars worth of work for each hundred dollars paid, but the attorney lacks itemized billing, well no good deed goes unpunished and that attorney will encounter bar problems–and not just a loss before the Fee Dispute, but probably problems from the Discipline Committee as well.
The Bar seldom will analyze the relative value of the work performed in the absence of billing. One either has itemized billing or they do not.
So, this issue rarely has anything to do with whether a lawyer charged too much for an itemized task. It is almost always simply a matter of determining if that task was in fact itemized through a billing statement. And if there is itemized billing, most of the time the attorneys don't encounter problems.
3:15, I tend to agree with that in general, but there are exceptions.
Yes, agreed, the Bar(or an associated committee) will not say you charged 8 hours for this reply brief, but it should have only taken you 4 to 6 hours.
But if they see an attorney billing for matters which were not directly authorized by the fee agreement or which seem otherwise problematic(such as not only charging for the attorney's work, but also charging for paralegals and others to essentially perform that same duplicative work) that may attract their attention.
Also, charging multiple hours for "discussing case with associate attorney in office" is problematic as are large charges for vague matters such as "additional research" or " additional file relief."
But with those observations offered, as well as a few others that I assume some other posters will mention, I generally agree that the Bar will not determine that such project should not have taken Attorney A six hours, but should only have taken four hours.
But if one charges .8 hours for "reviewing certificate of mailing"(in pre-electronic filing days) or 1.4 hours for "received and reviewed phone message from opposing counsel and responded by leaving message for them to call me back" that will be risky.
4:48-it sure does but you see entries like that on some billings. I suspect that 3:26 exaggerated the matter in order to make a point and/or add some levity, as I hope no one charged an hour an a half to return a phone call and leave a message.
But you do see entries about discussing the case with another attorney in the office, or large charges for file review, etc.
And, as the other poster(3:15) states, you do see billing not just for the lawyer's time spent, but for support staff, and sometimes it appears that the client is being charged for the same work being performed by two or more staff members.
The state bars should get out of the micromanaging fees business. It's the 21st century, for Pete's sake. Let the market decide, and I say this knowing first-hand that there are spiffy attorney who make a lot of money selling shit and shineola while decent ones resolve cases for pennies on the dollar by comparison. So be it. The not-so-secret insight here is: only participants to the transaction can value the service at the time it is rendered. No Monday morning quarterbacking. (Anyone else shit themselves watching the Chiefs?)
Shiny pants who blows a case is worth $100k to the consumer, so be it. A better attorney in a Nordstrom Rack suit wins the case for $20k, so be it.
Oh, but what about the poor, the stupid, the careless, and those lacking intelligence and foresight? What about them? How presumptuous it is to substitute one's judgment of value in place of another's. You can't.
The State Bar has no business inserting itself into pricing. It can – duh! – monitor whether what was contracted for was provided in general, e.g., PI schlub filing before SOL, or CD slickster showing up for the bail hearing, etc. It can also monitor truth in advertising (oh, may they one day visit justice and light upon certain colleagues who claim vast abilities…). Just don't touch pricing. That's the only way the market clears over time.
5:37-I hear what you're saying, but is there any obligation, in our supposedly hallowed profession, to help prevent unsophisticated consumers from merely being lambs brought to the slaughter?
You seem to suggest let the free market control all these matters, and let the buyer beware.
I understand that in most areas of commerce that is true, and that the only one who can protect naïve, unsophisticated people from getting ripped off is the person themselves, and most people do become more discriminating and protective of their own interests over time.
But, without sounding self-righteous and climbing up on my soap box, don't we expect more of the legal profession than we would of someone selling vacuum cleaner parts or barbecues, toilets, or a million other goods and services?
I think it depends on what you mean by value billing. If for instance, I am drafting three subpoenas for three separate cases and the first takes 25 minutes, and the second and third take 5 because I just did the first, then it isn't far that the first client has to pay five times as much because their name came up first when really, I was drafting all three at the same time. However, if a task in total takes 20 minutes because I already had one done in a past case, I only bill 20 minutes. Maybe that is a distinction without a difference, but that seems far and ethical to me.
Guest
Anonymous
January 25, 2022 8:39 pm
Anyone know who applied for the Reno BK Judgeship?
Guest
Anonymous
January 25, 2022 9:49 pm
Probably a bunch of bankruptcy attorneys applied ….
Does anyone know if the Nevada Bar has opined, either tacitly or explicitly, on the legitimacy of value-based billing? (i.e., billing for the time it took to draft a template motion for a prior client). I know some attorneys/offices in town that do this, but have never seen a firm answer from the Bar myself.
A good question..and if not, why not?
A brilliant brief that you perfected over time, can only be billed for the time it takes to copy and paste it? A contract for a client from a template which is infused with your years of experience and specialized knowledge?
While if you laboriously copied by hand a junk legal document, you are allowed to bill for all 8 hours that it took?
I think the newest partner at my firm does this. The firm closes its eyes and rewards it.
The ABA has addressed it, as discussed in the 2011 Nevada Lawyer
https://www.nvbar.org/nvlawmag-archive-957232/April_2011_Billing_Practices_0.pdf
Spoiler – it's unethical, unless you're honest with the client about it
11:26–Short answer is that the Bar generally doesn't seem to care, providing the attorney in fact have itemized billing that they can present in case of a dispute.
The attorney who runs into trouble is the one who cannot produce itemized billing in the event of a dispute. If there is no written fee agreement, or even if there is a written fee agreement, if no subsequent billing invoices are produced, that is where one runs into problems.
So, if by way of example, someone appears to have done $10,000., or even $20,000. worth of work, but was only paid $5,000., but has no itemized billing, that attorney is likely to get sanctioned and disciplined by the Bar–even if it appears the client got a great bang for their buck.
By contrast, if someone performs what seems like about $5,000. worth of work, but charges $20,000., they will rarely encounter any problems or bar discipline, providing that there is itemized billing.
If there is itemized billing, very rarely does Bar counsel, and/or a fee dispute committee, get concerned with the undertaking of determining whether any line entries appear to be excessive for the work listed.
But in cases where the client got four hundred dollars worth of work for each hundred dollars paid, but the attorney lacks itemized billing, well no good deed goes unpunished and that attorney will encounter bar problems–and not just a loss before the Fee Dispute, but probably problems from the Discipline Committee as well.
The Bar seldom will analyze the relative value of the work performed in the absence of billing. One either has itemized billing or they do not.
So, this issue rarely has anything to do with whether a lawyer charged too much for an itemized task. It is almost always simply a matter of determining if that task was in fact itemized through a billing statement. And if there is itemized billing, most of the time the attorneys don't encounter problems.
3:15, I tend to agree with that in general, but there are exceptions.
Yes, agreed, the Bar(or an associated committee) will not say you charged 8 hours for this reply brief, but it should have only taken you 4 to 6 hours.
But if they see an attorney billing for matters which were not directly authorized by the fee agreement or which seem otherwise problematic(such as not only charging for the attorney's work, but also charging for paralegals and others to essentially perform that same duplicative work) that may attract their attention.
Also, charging multiple hours for "discussing case with associate attorney in office" is problematic as are large charges for vague matters such as "additional research" or " additional file relief."
But with those observations offered, as well as a few others that I assume some other posters will mention, I generally agree that the Bar will not determine that such project should not have taken Attorney A six hours, but should only have taken four hours.
But if one charges .8 hours for "reviewing certificate of mailing"(in pre-electronic filing days) or 1.4 hours for "received and reviewed phone message from opposing counsel and responded by leaving message for them to call me back" that will be risky.
This sounds really unethical.
4:48-it sure does but you see entries like that on some billings. I suspect that 3:26 exaggerated the matter in order to make a point and/or add some levity, as I hope no one charged an hour an a half to return a phone call and leave a message.
But you do see entries about discussing the case with another attorney in the office, or large charges for file review, etc.
And, as the other poster(3:15) states, you do see billing not just for the lawyer's time spent, but for support staff, and sometimes it appears that the client is being charged for the same work being performed by two or more staff members.
The state bars should get out of the micromanaging fees business. It's the 21st century, for Pete's sake. Let the market decide, and I say this knowing first-hand that there are spiffy attorney who make a lot of money selling shit and shineola while decent ones resolve cases for pennies on the dollar by comparison. So be it. The not-so-secret insight here is: only participants to the transaction can value the service at the time it is rendered. No Monday morning quarterbacking. (Anyone else shit themselves watching the Chiefs?)
Shiny pants who blows a case is worth $100k to the consumer, so be it. A better attorney in a Nordstrom Rack suit wins the case for $20k, so be it.
Oh, but what about the poor, the stupid, the careless, and those lacking intelligence and foresight? What about them? How presumptuous it is to substitute one's judgment of value in place of another's. You can't.
The State Bar has no business inserting itself into pricing. It can – duh! – monitor whether what was contracted for was provided in general, e.g., PI schlub filing before SOL, or CD slickster showing up for the bail hearing, etc. It can also monitor truth in advertising (oh, may they one day visit justice and light upon certain colleagues who claim vast abilities…). Just don't touch pricing. That's the only way the market clears over time.
5:37-I hear what you're saying, but is there any obligation, in our supposedly hallowed profession, to help prevent unsophisticated consumers from merely being lambs brought to the slaughter?
You seem to suggest let the free market control all these matters, and let the buyer beware.
I understand that in most areas of commerce that is true, and that the only one who can protect naïve, unsophisticated people from getting ripped off is the person themselves, and most people do become more discriminating and protective of their own interests over time.
But, without sounding self-righteous and climbing up on my soap box, don't we expect more of the legal profession than we would of someone selling vacuum cleaner parts or barbecues, toilets, or a million other goods and services?
I think it depends on what you mean by value billing. If for instance, I am drafting three subpoenas for three separate cases and the first takes 25 minutes, and the second and third take 5 because I just did the first, then it isn't far that the first client has to pay five times as much because their name came up first when really, I was drafting all three at the same time. However, if a task in total takes 20 minutes because I already had one done in a past case, I only bill 20 minutes. Maybe that is a distinction without a difference, but that seems far and ethical to me.
Anyone know who applied for the Reno BK Judgeship?
Probably a bunch of bankruptcy attorneys applied ….
…from Reno
and beyond!
Has anyone been let go from a firm? Were you able to get another gig? How did you explain what happened? Thanks.
In this market, you should have no problem.
"It wasn't a good fit"
I was fired. My boss had such a bad reputation that I just told the interviewers what happened and they laughed.