Point two five

For the longest time only quantum physicists observing special relativity, and judges (see, e.g., Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §473) could enlarge time.  Not to be left out of the fun, lawyers invented the “minimum billing increment”, i.e. the smallest unit of billable time to be charged for a work task. Boilerplate engagement letters with white shoe (and laughably not-so-white-shoe) firms tend, these days, to peg the minimum increment at one quarter of an hour.  We say boilerplate because we have never had a firm refuse to reduce this increment to the more reasonable (albeit just as arbitrary) one tenth of an hour.

The minimum increment makes hitting your billable hours “target” a piece of cake.   For example, here are some actual “tasks” and their corresponding “billing-speak” time entries on on the invoice:

Read 3-line email I was cc:’d on for Client A.

Review correspondence regarding revised communications protocol: 0.25 hrs

Leave voice mail for Client B saying “I’m returning your call.”

Prepare for and participate in telephone conference to client: 0.25 hrs

Reply to Client C’s email asking to re-send my email from yesterday.

Review correspondence from client regarding advice concerning matter X; review recommendations and prepare correspondence to client: 0.25 hrs

Tell paralegal to get back to work on depo summary for Client D.

Conference with legal assistant regarding analysis and completion deposition summary for Smith v. Jones: 0.25 hrs

Tell colleague that you need to talk to her about Client A’s email.

Conference with M. Poppins re: client’s request to analyze legal issues in development of third party liability theories: 0.25 hrs

Correct misspelled name of Client E in letter and hand back to secretary.

Review and revise correspondence to client concerning reverse triangular merger restrictions in connection with Project Q: 0.25 hrs

Now, assuming all of this really consumed only 20 minutes of actual working time, 90 minutes of billable time creates some nice leverage, no?  In an age of computer accuracy to the one quintillionth of a second, we think there’s an opportunity for a bit more truth in billing.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Point two five

  1. Walt Sanford

    This probably happens more than you think. I think its probably fraud to bill like this. My partners feel this is offset by the “free” advice we give. I don’t agree. Nice job pointing this out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s