Former Kirkland, Chicago Boutique Lawyer Confesses to Years of Overbilling
The overbilling could cost Neal Gerber & Eisenberg about $150,000, which the firm has offered to refund clients.
January 17, 2019 at 02:18 PM
4 minute read
A former lawyer at Kirkland & Ellis and Chicago firm Neal Gerber & Eisenberg admitted to a years-long practice of overbilling clients while he worked at both firms, according to a lawyer discipline complaint in Illinois made public Thursday.
Christopher Anderson admitted in August 2018 to overbilling, according to the complaint, and an ensuing Neal Gerber investigation determined that the conduct had impacted more than 100 clients. The firm offered to refund the clients a total of more than $150,000, which equaled 20 percent of the time Anderson had billed, the complaint said.
A Kirkland spokeswoman said the firm is “preparing refunds or credits for all potentially impacted time.”
Despite Neal Gerber's refund, its managing partner, Scott Fisher, said an investigation the firm commenced following Anderson's confession found there was no “data indicating any unreasonable bill, any discernible pattern of time inflation nor any material overcharging.”
“The investigation further found that, had our firm been subjected to an outside audit of its billing records, Mr. Anderson's time would not have drawn attention,” Fisher said in an email.
Fisher said the incident was isolated to Anderson. “Our response has been guided by our commitment to transparency and to making this right by our clients. That is why we offered to refund a portion of the amount paid for Mr. Anderson's time,” Fisher said in an email.
Anderson had worked as an associate at the midsize firm from 2015 to 2018, when he made partner as a technology transactions and IP-focused lawyer, according to his resume on professional networking website LinkedIn. He self-reported the overbilling in August and then was fired by the firm.
“This is just an attempt by me to make my life right,” Anderson said in a brief interview. “It's not been easy for me along the way, but I feel like I've done the right thing.”
The complaint said Kirkland was unaware of Anderson's overbilling while he worked at the firm from 2011 through 2015 as an associate. The firm similarly offered refunds to clients affected by his billing practices, although the complaint does not specify the number of clients impacted or the amount of money he overcharged.
“We recently learned that a former associate during the 2011-2015 timeframe may have rounded up his billable hours to certain clients,” a Kirkland spokeswoman said in a statement. “We take these situations very seriously and are in the process of preparing refunds or credits for all potentially impacted time that was billed to any client.”
Anderson, who had a billing rate of $450 in 2018, was motivated to overbill his clients, the complaint said, because of “what he perceived to be the firms' billing expectations.” On days where he felt he had not recorded enough billable time, he would increase the time he said he spent doing actual work, the complaint said. For instance, he would bill half an hour for work that actually took 18 minutes, the complaint said.
So far, no official discipline has been imposed on Anderson. The filing of a complaint is the beginning of an Illinois disciplinary process that ultimately results in a recommendation to the state's Supreme Court, which issues suspensions or revokes law licenses.
While discipline for overbilling clients can vary widely from case-to-case and state-to-state, a former Faegre Baker Daniels associate received a nine-month suspension from the practice of law in 2017 when she admitted to overbilling clients by about $40,000 in an attempt to hit the firm's yearly billing goals following her wedding.
Big Law associates often cite uncertain expectations and lack of transparency around billing goals and requirements in The American Lawyer's annual associate satisfaction survey.
“Please be more transparent with the partnership [track] and the hours we bill,” one associate requested in an anonymous survey. “For instance, I made my bonus last year by hitting above the 1,950-hour mark but was not provided a breakdown of the hours per matter so that I could understand all inputs.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Further Investment in Power' Will Drive Big Law Business—But What About Clean Energy Projects?
6 minute readLegal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
4 minute readAs Profits Rise, Law Firms Likely to Make More AI Investments in 2025
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250