Employing Healthy Billing Practices
Lawyers often complain about the business side of running a law practice, particularly when it comes to issuing invoices and collecting fees. Some…
July 31, 2018 at 01:12 PM
6 minute read
Lawyers often complain about the business side of running a law practice, particularly when it comes to issuing invoices and collecting fees. Some attorneys find conversations with clients about fees to be uncomfortable, and prefer to ignore the issue altogether. However, auditing one's billing practices and developing a routine can help boost an attorney's financial viability, support an attorney's ethical and professional duties, and avoid unnecessary or uncomfortable conversations with a client down the road.
Regular billing not only helps a practice run, but may be required by the rules of ethics. Indeed, Rule 1.03 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct describes a lawyer's duty to communicate with her client. It provides that “[a] lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.” Generating and sending accurate and honest billing statements on a regular basis can be a part of complying with Rule 1.03.
When auditing one's own billing practices, here are some tips to keep in mind.
Send Bills Regularly
It can be an awkward part of practicing law to have to defend or explain an invoice to a client. However, those conversations can become more heated or even adversarial if the client is taken wholly surprise by an invoice. By issuing bills at regular intervals, an attorney may reduce the possibility that the client is surprised by the amount of or justification for the bill.
Even in a representation where the client and attorney speak regularly, or where the client reviews and approves of strategy, the client may be unhappy to receive only a single bill at the conclusion of the representation. Although the attorney might assume that the client understood and appreciated the requirements of the representation given a hands-on demeanor, such a course could result in severe sticker shock. It could even create a question regarding whether the work performed was really necessary (particularly if the matter has meandered onto a different path or where the final result was less than ideal).
Less severe, although quite common, are representations during which the attorney sends out billing invoices erratically over long periods of time. From the client's perspective, this irregularity creates a sense of unpredictability, which can cause the client to view the attorney as sloppy or disorganized overall. A client may suspect that a lawyer who is irregular in billing may not be paying sufficient attention to the details of the representation. Whether invoices are issued monthly or quarterly or at some other interval, a regular system may aid the attorney-client relationship.
Sending bills frequently and regularly is often beneficial to both lawyer and client. The most obvious benefit to the lawyer and law practice is financial because they are more likely to be paid on time.
Record Time Regularly
Some attorneys fall into the bad habit of trying to re-create their time entries weeks or even months after the fact. They may assume that when they are busy with billable matters, administrative matters like time entry can wait. However, trying to recreate accurate time entries long after the billable tasks were completed can be an arduous process.
In addition, trying to recreate time entries can result in inaccurate bills. At one end, an attorney trying to remember what she spent her time on weeks ago may overlook small but important tasks and fail to bill for them, resulting in under-billing. Or worse, an attorney may err the other direction and over-estimate how much time she spent on a project.
While traditionalists often prefer paper timekeeping logs, some attorneys and law firms are turning to matter-management software to record and track billable time. These electronic resources include built-in timers, which help attorneys document their time to the tenth of the hour, the ability to store and auto-populate frequently used descriptors, tasks, matters, and clients, and readily available information regarding billing data, trends, and invoices. Such services may be of great use to procrastinating timekeepers.
Many law practices require their attorneys to enter their time on a regular basis, be it weekly, monthly, or even daily. Some law firms even penalize attorneys financially for failure to comply with the internally-set deadline.
Describe Time Effectively
Bills are one method of communicating with clients about the work being performed on a matter. In some situations, a client may not fully appreciate the important work that its lawyer is doing, even where the client has discussed or approved of a strategy in advance. Vague billing entries add little clarity to the scope of work performed. Instead, they can lead to misunderstandings or significant problems that compound over time. As a result, if billing entries are not sufficiently descriptive or helpful, clients may question whether the sum of legal fees is worth the services that were rendered—and for good reason.
By contrast, detailed billing entries serve beneficial purposes for both client and lawyer. Not only do they convey in clear terms all of the work that was performed, but they can reflect client consent for a host of tasks, remind the client of a particular course of action, minimize or help resolve billing disputes should they arise, and serve as a defense to a malpractice claim. Indeed, they often serve as records of how a matter unfolded and can be of great assistance if there is later a dispute over what the representation entailed.
Shari L. Klevens is a partner at Dentons and serves on the firm's US Board of Directors. She represents and advises lawyers and insurers on complex claims and is co-chair of Dentons' global insurance sector team. Alanna Clair is a partner at Dentons and focuses on professional liability defense. Shari and Alanna are co-authors of “The Lawyer's Handbook: Ethics Compliance and Claim Avoidance.”
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
© 2025 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'Virtue Begets Virtue': Tips for Practicing Law (and Living) Ethically
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
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