Ethics Forum: Questions and Answers on Professional Responsibility
I am a young attorney and I want to really help my clients and do everything right. It seems like I spend endless hours correcting and re-correcting briefs and letters. Can I charge a client for that kind of work?
September 03, 2020 at 11:48 AM
12 minute read
'Done is better than perfect.' A lawyer cannot charge a client for corrections to briefs.
I am a young attorney and I want to really help my clients and do everything right. It seems like I spend endless hours correcting and re-correcting briefs and letters. Can I charge a client for that kind of work?
Samuel C. Stretton.
The answer is very simple. One should not charge a client for endless rewrites and numerous corrections. Under Rule 1.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the lawyer cannot charge excessive fees. Excessive fees can occur if there is billing that is unnecessary or should not be charged to a client. Obviously, everyone makes corrections, particularly on a long letter or a brief. There might be a second set of corrections. But repeated corrections and repeated rewrites on a brief are not normally justified, would usually be considered excessive, and thus not billed.
This content has been archived.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
Judge Louis C. Bechtle: An American Jurist Who Relied on Common Sense, Sound Judgment and Fairness
5 minute read
Six Ways Thought Leadership Can Support Your Law Firm’s 2025 Strategic Plan
6 minute read
Trending Stories
- 1‘Issue of First Impression’: New York Judge Clears Coinbase Appeal Amid Crypto Regulatory Clash
- 2'Ice Pop,' 'Meta Moon,' 'Blue Raspberry': Tracked Drink Flavor Searches Fail in Privacy Suit
- 3Arnold & Porter, Under New Leadership, Makes More C-Suite Changes
- 4Attorneys, Health Care Officials Face Nearly $80M RICO Suit Over Allegedly Fabricated Spreadsheet
- 5Financially Grounded: South Florida-Based Silver Airways Files for Bankruptcy
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
