{1}"Professionalism is an attitude." [1] This quote suggests the lawyer is not only bound to abide by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, [2] but is also bound to operate within the reasonable expectations society has imposed on attorneys. [3] Unfortunately, much of the public believes that lawyers are driven by greed through excessive billing practices [4] and there is no doubt that greed, hunger or competition has driven some lawyers into using inappropriate practices. [5] Traditionally, law firms have utilized an hourly billing practice when billing their clients. [6] Hourly billing has proven to be a windfall of profitability for law firms, [7] however, it has raised some concerns.
{2} Traditional billing systems [8] distribute risk and reward between law firms and clients in an uneven manner, providing few incentives for efficient legal solutions. [9] The sophisticated clients of today are becoming unwilling to defer complete control of their cases and legal expenses to their attorneys. [10] Clients are now demanding more efficiency; [11] but hourly billing actively discourages efficiency. [12] With the advent of advanced technology to speed up research and document production, hourly billing has become a less attractive way for clients to arrange their legal costs. [13] Attorneys seeking to secure fair value for their services increasingly demand changes in the organization and compensation of law firms. [14] As a result, many law firms are caught in a technological dilemma. [15] New technologies including personal computers and online research [16] provide heightened productivity to law firms and clients. [17]
{3} This comment advocates that the American Bar Association ("ABA") revise its stance on billing to account for technological advancements in the legal profession. Specifically, this comment argues that the ABA Opinion 93-379 is an inadequate attempt at controlling billing practices at a time when technology is shifting the way legal work is done. Part II provides a brief discussion of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and a history of hourly billing, along with a brief discussion of the positives and negatives of hourly billings. Part III discusses some of the technological advancements in the legal profession and how these advancements create an efficient attorney, an analysis of ABA Opinion 93-379, which was an attempt to control attorney billing practices, and how the Opinion penalizes attorneys for efficiency. In addition, Part III discusses some alternative forms of billing as a possible solution for the billing dilemma that attorneys face. It also offers a proposal for dealing with the technology dilemma and how to implement this proposal in the law office. Finally, Part IV concludes by admonishing the ABA to take swift action to address the problem.
{4} The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") are designed to help courts reach a "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action." [18] In accordance with the FRCP, the Model Rules of Professional Conduct provide guidance by aiding attorneys in determining reasonable fees for services. [19] The Model Rules ultimately guide attorneys to help them act ethically in their advocacy.
{5} In order to promote ethical conduct by an attorney, Model Rule 1.5(a) governs the way attorneys can bill clients. [20] This rule states that the attorney's fee must be reasonable, and it lists a number of factors determining reasonableness. [21] Furthermore, Model Rule 1.5 states that if the attorney does not represent the client on a regular basis, the attorney is required to communicate the basis or rate of the fee. [22] In a new "client-lawyer" relationship, this communication should be promptly established.[23]
B. A LAW FIRM TRADITION: HOURLY BILLING
{6} The billable hour did not become popular until the mid-1960s, when the ABA released a study which claimed that those lawyers who formulated their legal bills by recording the time spent on each client, earned more money than lawyers that did not incorporate time records into their billing. [24] The billable hour had several advantages in addition to increased revenue. [25] These advantages include: determining the most profitable areas and making adjustments accordingly by increasing fees, abandoning unprofitable services, or concentrating on profitable areas. [26]
{7} An additional factor that promotes the use of the billable hour to set legal fees occurred when courts began "setting and approving awards for attorneys fees". [27] Although easy to implement, the use of the hourly rate, however, does not encourage efficiency. [28] Through hourly billing, "law firms charge corporate clients by the hour for professional," paraprofessional, and nonprofessional services. [29] Due to recent technology, such as online research services, attorneys now have the capacity for increased efficiency and productivity. [30]
{8} Hourly billing is also advantageous for attorneys because it enables the attorney to have complete control over the billing process. The client wants some control in the process; [31] he wants to know what is about to happen, and he certainly wants to know what has happened. [32] Therefore, as technology continues to increase the lawyer's efficiency, and as the client continues to be left out of the loop as far as billing is concerned, many clients have increasingly become unsatisfied with hourly billing procedures. While hourly billing may not be the most appropriate billing method in most cases, the advantages of hourly billing that originally appealed to many clients are still pertinent today. [33]
{9} Due to the recent advancements of technology in the law office, lawyers are faced with the concern of how to properly bill clients. This section will review how technology has advanced in the law office, how this technology creates greater efficiency in the law office, and how this efficiency, coupled with current ethics billing rules, creates what is known as the technological paradox [34] or billing dilemma. This section will analyze the ABA's Formal Opinion [35] and its impact on the billing dilemma faced by attorneys today. This section will then analyze the limitations of the Opinion and explore alternatives to hourly billing as possible solutions to this dilemma. A proposal for dealing with the current billing dilemma will be presented, followed by a plan for implementing this solution in the law office.
A. TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS AND THE BILLING DILEMMA
{10} As it becomes possible to work more efficiently, technology allows lawyers to bill for more time. [36] For instance, the "DuPont network" [37] exchanges public briefs and shares information among 38 law firms. [38] The purpose behind sharing work product is to save time, which translates into saving in-house counsel money. [39] In an attempt to save money, law firms are lining up in extraordinary numbers to convert to new accounting and billing systems. [40] These law firms realize that the current pricing they use, as well as their methodology for measuring success with technology, will not achieve the favored results. [41]
{11} Other firms are using a system called Groupware. [42] Generally speaking, "groupware" allows a group of users to collaborate electronically, sharing and updating a common database while allowing for intergroup communications. [43] Law firms use groupware for a variety of functions, which includes the following: "creating 'knowledgebases' or work product libraries, sharing information with clients, sharing case or project 'notebooks' with lawyers in other offices, collecting and distributing case management information, docketing, tracking client contacts, setting up electronic meetings, and creating Web sites." [44]
{12} In the past, many firms built databases or brief banks to facilitate communication and share work product.[45] Unfortunately, many of those databases failed to be useful because they were difficult to maintain and access.[46] Groupware software was designed to solve these problems [47] because it makes such information easy to collect, share, and update. [48] Groupware has now extended onto the Internet.[49] "For law firms, the advantage of this technological breakthrough is that they can now build Web sites that are not only marketing tools but also effective means of communicating with clients." [50]
{13} File transfer protocol ("FTP") is another system being used in law firms. [51] FTP is a basic Internet software tool that allows one to transfer files across the Internet from one computer to another. [52] FTP allows attorneys in satellite offices to send documents to the main office via the Internet. [53]
{14} Another system firms have implemented that makes the firm more efficient is networking. [54] Networking is nothing more than computers sharing information. [55] In a network environment, documents can be created on one machine, saved to a common hard drive, revised on another machine, and eventually printed on a shared printer.[56] Networks allow attorneys to share resources, thus reducing the time spent on a project and increasing the amount of work completed. [57]
{15} The result of all these technological advancements in the law office is the creation of the technology paradox, or billing dilemma. [58] One of the goals of every attorney is to serve the client to the best of the attorney's ability, and today the attorney cannot service the client effectively without technology. The efficiency created by speedy online research and convenient document databases appears to disable the attorney. Therefore, to have the efficiency at ones fingertips but to be seemingly penalized for its use encourages inefficiency.
{16} In 1993, the ABA's Standing Committee on Ethics and Professionalism issued a formal opinion banning double-billing. [59] The Committee's goal was to help the legal profession adhere to its ethical obligations to its clients despite economic pressures. [60] The thought was that the opinion would force law firms to scrutinize billing methods and procedures. [61] There was very little agreement among lawyers prior to this opinion as to whether double-billing for recycled work was ethical. [62] However, double billing is only part of the larger problem of unethical billing practices that harm the legal profession. [63]
{17} Consistent with the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer must disclose the basis on which a client is to be billed. [64] The legal profession has dedicated substantial time and energy to developing ethical guidelines for the client's benefit. [65] Unfortunately, however, the public does not generally regard lawyers as particularly ethical, [66] especially with respect to billing practices.
{18} Pressure on lawyers to bill a minimum number of hours, and pressure on law firms to maintain or improve profits, contribute to some lawyers engaging in problematic billing practices. [67] One set of practices involves billing more than one client for the same hours. [68] An example of this involves a lawyer researching a topic for one client that, later, turns out to be relevant to an inquiry from a second client. [69] May the firm bill the second client the same amount for the recycled work product that it charged the first client?
{19} Formal Opinion 93-379 prohibits the lawyer from billing new clients for the same time spent in conducting the initial research or creating the initial documents in a case. [70] The Opinion, however, does provide for a few exceptions. First, the Opinion is only applicable to situations where billing arrangements are based solely or partly on hourly fees. [71] Second, a lawyer that bills on an hourly basis may renegotiate the billing arrangement to compensate for an efficient or outstanding result or because the lawyer used previous work product on the client's behalf. [72]
1. Disclosure of Fees
{20} The biggest problem with over-billing is that deceit is required in order to engage in such practices. [73] Attorneys have an affirmative duty to inform clients about work and billing practices. [74] At the outset, the lawyer should disclose the basis for the fee and any additional charges to the client. [75]
{21} Scholars contend that misrepresentation is inherent in double-billing. [76] Frequently, as a lawyer doubles or pads bills, "he will not only be misrepresenting himself but also lying to her clients and colleagues." [77] On the other hand, many leading authorities on ethics suggest that double-billing is acceptable as long as there is full disclosure at the beginning of the representation. [78] Therefore, if attorneys disclose their double-billing at the beginning of the representation there might be less of an ethical question. [79]
2. Reasonableness of Fees
{22} The Model Rules imply that attorney-client relationships are not ones of equality, but that they are built on trust and the client is encouraged to be dependent on the lawyer. [80] The essence of the Model Rules' handling of billing is reasonableness. [81] Even though both the Model Rules and the Model Code [82] require reasonableness, neither defines reasonableness. [83] Yet, if the attorney and client are to benefit from their relationship, their respective interests must be balanced. [84] The client has a substantial interest in knowing how "the fee is determined in order to make an informed decision regarding the representation." [85]
{23} The lawyer's conduct should foster the client's trust in the lawyer as well as in the legal profession. [86] The lawyer, in an attempt to fulfill his obligations under Model Rule 1.1, should avoid unreasonable limitations on the amount of time a lawyer may devote to a client. [87] If a lawyer agrees to bill hourly, the lawyer does not fulfill his ethical duty if he bills for more time than he actually spent on the client's matter. [88]
{24} It is helpful to look at the situation of recycled work product from the perspective of what the attorney actually earned and not what the client should have to pay. [89] ABA Formal Opinion 93-379 suggests an attorney who has reused old work product has not re-earned the hour that were previously billed and compensated when the work product was first generated. [90] However, subtle cases of double-billing may not necessarily be unreasonable if the only consideration in reasonableness is the fee. [91] Despite many commentators that consider all double-billing unethical, attorneys have long offered rationalizations and justifications for the incidents used as examples in Formal Opinion 93-379. [92] "If an attorney bills the client eleven hours for drafting interrogatories after spending one hour editing a previously drafted set of interrogatories that originally took ten hours to draft, the attorney has clearly charged an unreasonable fee." [93] Conversely, if the client is billed only for an hour of work, the attorney's compensation may not reflect the value of his work allowing the second client to benefit from the first client. [94]
B. ALTERNATIVE BILLING SOLUTIONS
{25} Formal Opinion 93-379 was an effort by the ABA Committee on Ethics and Professionalism to clear up billing practices. [95] Yet, the Committee did not go far enough in its effort. Formal Opinion 93-379 is insufficient, in that it severely limits how an attorney may bill. In the era of rapid technological advances in the law office, Formal Opinion 93-379 penalizes attorneys for attempting to be efficient.
{26} The search for increased revenues, while avoiding a conflict with the ethical rules, has spurred the move to alternative billing [96]--allowing attorneys to charge clients by the product and results delivered rather than by the hours spent on a matter [97] -- however, new billing methods do not automatically mean increased revenue. [98] In order to benefit from alternative billing, the right foundation and strong framework need to be in place. [99]
{27} Alternative billing systems are on the rise for many factors, [100] including: economics, client demand, value, and technology. [101] All of these factors combine to accelerate the shift to alternative billing practices. [102] The following are just a few examples of alternative billing methods: incentive fee arrangement, [103] task-based fees, [104] flat fee billing, [105] and value billing. [106]
{28} In order to accommodate the broad spectrum of risk preferences, law firms may select from both traditional and non-traditional billing practices. [107] Traditional billing practices inequitably distribute risk and reward among firms and clients providing few incentives for legal efficiency. [108] Attorney's used to be able to submit one-line bills stating: "[f]or services rendered," followed by a dollar amount. [109] But now clients, courts, legislatures and voters are taking aim at attorney billing practices, [110] and making many suggestions on dealing with the technology dilemma and unethical billing. [111]
{29} Among these proposed solutions is the notion of switching from hourly billing to fixed and value billing. [112] Hourly billing once promoted increased revenue, but it has now become an impediment to profits. [113] Client resistance to high bills is not the only obstacle to the hourly rate. [114] Technological advancements in online research and desktop computers create the potential for increased efficiency and productivity. [115] Under an hourly billing system, attorney revenues will gradually decline with advanced technology. [116] Disincentives to efficiency and abuses of hourly billing create an atmosphere ripe for a change in the way attorneys bill their clients, [117] and there are a variety of billing methods to be utilized.
1. Flat Fee Billing
{30} 'Many clients prefer the fixed or flat fee." [118] A fixed or flat fee is a set amount that is agreed upon for handling a special matter or portion of a case, [119] and may also be structured in stages rather than a set amount for the case. [120] The flat fee eliminates client's uncertainty about the fee because, theoretically, he or she knows what the fee will be ahead of time. [121] Attorneys gain an incentive to be more efficient when there is a set fee, [122] yet flat fees raise some ethical questions. [123]
{31} In addition to the questioned ethics, there are more disadvantages to flat fee billing. For example, knowing there is a predetermined fee, the lawyer may spend inadequate time on a matter if it becomes unprofitable. [124] Lawyers are also pressured to regulate the way they handle cases so that they make sure they are operating at an economic premium. [125] Finally, if the fee is very high, even if fairly bargained for, a court may determine that the fee is unreasonable based on the factors stated in Model Rule 1.5. [126]
2. Task-Based Billing
{32} Task-based billing is a popular system for controlling costs. [127] Task-based billing follows the idea that attorney bills should break down expenses into categories instead of merely listing activities performed. [128] This way the client knows what is being spent on a specific task and can compare the expenses. [129]
{33} Although this system is a step in the right direction, problems still remain. Current task-based concepts are very general. [130] While most cases will fit within general concepts, the concepts are not designed specifically for the individual cases. [131]
3. Value Billing
{34} Value billing is another popular system. Value billing follows the idea that fees are determined based on the worth of the work done. [132] Attorneys favor this form of billing, which may be a result of the attorney having more control to determine fees. [133]
{35} However, value billing also raises a number of ethical questions and is as much, if not more, problematic than hourly billing. [134] One of the major problems with value billing is that the attorney has a lot of discretion in determining legal fees. [135] This result-based billing method allows the attorney to fluff his or her performance to the client and contend it is worth more than it really is. [136] However, as attorneys realize they will benefit from efficiency, value billing might ultimately expedite litigation. [137]
4. Non-Traditional Billing
{36} Non-traditional billing systems offer improved allocation of risk and reward between firms and clients, while providing incentives for efficiency. [138] Some non-traditional billing systems include adjusted-hour, equity, and hybrid billing. Adjusted-hour billing enables firms and clients to share, to some extent, the financial responsibility of changes in resources. [139] Additionally, adjusted-hour billing reduces the incentive for law firms to overstaff assignments by imposing opportunity costs in displacing full rate work. [140] Under equity billing, law firms bear the burden of these changes while sharing the benefits of success with the clients. [141] Equity billing rewards intelligent deployment of skills, providing economic incentives to maintain low levels of support; [142] however, it is limited to transaction types. [143] Under hybrid billing, firms and clients blend traditional billing systems with non-traditional billing systems to achieve a more efficient and effective distribution of benefits.[144] Hybrid billing systems offer attractive combinations of benefits. [145]
{37} One hybrid system, "fixed profit billing," offers firms strong group benefits. [146] Under fixed profit billing, clients and firms share the benefits of increased efficiency. [147] Like hourly billing, firms operate as general contractors, but they charge two fees. [148] The first fee is a variable fee in the form of hourly rates, which are sufficient to cover all costs. [149] The second fee is based on the "completion [of] incentives that represent target profits for the" project. [150] Fixed profit encourages firms to maximize the number of projects completed as opposed to the number of services provided. [151]
{38} Double-billing is not an issue when the fees are based on considerations other than the number of hours spent on a project. [152] Additionally, an attorney may request additional compensation under hourly fee arrangement when the attorney has attained an outstanding or particularly efficient result, or when the attorney was able to use earlier work product on behalf of the client. [153] Therefore, implicit in Formal Opinion 93-379 is one possible solution for escaping the technology paradox: modified hourly billing. [154] This is perhaps the most practical solution for the technology dilemma, because it incorporates the best of both hourly and alternative billing. [155] It also amends the Model Rules to allow for this system as a function of technological advancements. [156]
{39} Law firms seem unwilling to move away from an hourly billing arrangement and often adjust bills to reflect the value of the attorney's service. [157] Therefore, a more practical and effective arrangement is to utilize an hourly billing rate that provides attorneys some freedom to modify their rate when special circumstances dictate. [158] This is consistent with the current legal practice.[159] Furthermore, it is not equitable for later clients to receive a break just because a previous client needed similar work done. [160] In summary, the attorney owes the original client a duty to charge reasonably similar fees for identical products.
D. PROPOSAL
{40} The profession of truth and blind justice is often associated with dishonesty and greed. [161] In order to address the essence of the problem of unethical billing, honesty must be encouraged. [162] The main thing clients want is predictable billing. [163] Fully disclosing the fee scale and amount billed to clients at the beginning of representation will satisfy this desire. [164] Full disclosure of the fee scale will clarify many of the inherent problems that occur as a result of attorney fees and hourly billing. [165] Therefore, flat or fixed fee billing is the most predictable billing system for the client. Like a patron in a restaurant viewing the menu, the client would have a list of prices for particular services before entering into any kind of relationship with the attorney. If the client thinks the prices are a bit high, the client may either seek the services of another firm--much like seeking lower prices at another restaurant -- or the client may discuss an arrangement with the attorney to lower the prices.
{41} Clients want honesty and predictability when it comes to billing, and attorneys want to be able to adjust for any extenuating circumstances. Therefore, when a client walks into the attorney's office, the attorney should present the client with a menu consisting of prices for various procedures the attorney may utilize in handling a case along with a price for each procedure. [166] The "menu" should also contain a disclaimer--similar to a gratuity disclaimer at a restaurant--indicating the attorney may charge an hourly (or modified hourly) fee, in addition to the "menu" price, for any circumstance that prolongs the said task. However, this disclaimer will be slightly modified, in that it will also state that the attorney may reduce the "menu" prices based on any economies of scale that may result. This proviso will let the client know that the attorney is not just looking to adjust the bill for the attorney's benefit but will also adjust the bill to benefit the client whenever possible, giving the client a feeling of trust in the attorney.
{42} By implementing a flat fee billing program in combination with a hourly billing program, the law firm has the opportunity to not only determine the fees that will be represented in the fixed fee "menu," but also to adjust for any additional time spent on a particular matter by inserting some sort of hourly fee arrangement into the mix. Additional time should not be allowed in the bill unless the client is aware that the attorney has discretion in the arrangement. However, if the fixed fee billing system is properly instituted there should not be a need to adjust the bill.
B. IMPLEMENTING A NEW BILLING SYSTEM FOR THE FIRM
{43} The new technology means that attorneys have a greater amount of information at their disposal, and the research time is greatly reduced. [167] Unfortunately, the reduction of research time translates into a reduction in billable hours. [168] From the law firm's point of view, its expenses have risen while income based on billable hours has decreased because the attorneys are spending less time completing a project. [169] The goal is to determine how the client and attorney can mutually benefit from modern legal technology. [170]
{44} Many of the problems addressed in Formal Opinion 93-379 arise out of miscommunications and the presumption that legal services are provided strictly on a hourly billing basis. [171] The key to a successful transition to alternative billing is to have the full commitment of management. [172] The shift to alternative billing could mean less emphasis on billing hours and more on learning the art of being an advocate. [173]
{45} From there it is important to calculate the cost to provide specific services. [174] First, know how much the firm earns. [175] A firm needs to prepare full accrual financial statements. [176] In addition to accrual financial statements, a full analysis of costs is needed. [177] All of this information will inform the firm of how much it costs to render a particular service and how much it costs just to open the doors each month. [178]
{46} Equally as important is placing the billing arrangements with clients in writing. This writing should outline the normal practice of billing, whether hourly billing or not, and state that under certain circumstances and upon obtaining certain results, an adjusted fee may be charged. [179] If the attorney communicates in an honest, open and frequent manner with the client, the attorney will implement a fee structure that is beneficial to all. [180]
{47} Finally, law firms should utilize technological tools that are on the market because these tools help to deliver better and more timely legal service to their clients. [181] Therefore, it is reasonable for law firms to be adequately compensated for these investments. [182] If the law firm is not able to increase its rates to reflect its new acquisitions, the law firm must then devise alternative billing methods to recoup some of this cost.[183] If law firms offered a modified hourly billing system, the firms would perhaps enjoy a greater profit margin. [184]
{48} Successfully implementing alternative billing procedures may be difficult; [185] yet, if firm leaders are to better measure whether their technology investments improve efficiency, enhance productivity and increase net income, it must be done. [186] Alternative fee arrangements will not solve all the billing problems, but they can be a valuable tool for managing legal work. [187] Furthermore, because clients generally choose attorneys who are experienced in a particular area, [188] they understand the firm has handled similar matters before and will draw on prior knowledge. [189] The attorney, therefore, should be able to create a fixed fee scale that will predict the amount of time needed to complete a task and a fee that will compensate him for his expertise. Attorneys and clients alike should become comfortable with the fact that documents can and should be reused. [190]
{49} Unethical billing is an ugly blemish on the legal profession. But until the technology dilemma is addressed and solved, it will continue to be a problem long into the 21st Century. The pressing issue that continues to plague the ABA is, how to compensate attorneys for becoming technologically advanced while at the same time not penalizing attorneys by aggressively regulating their billing practices. If the past decade is any indication of what to expect in the future, the technology available to attorneys will continue to make them more efficient. Unfortunately, however, the current ethics rules continue to penalize attorneys for being technologically proficient.
{50} The ABA has two choices. It can ignore this problem, in which case it will only continue to grow and haunt its members. Or, the ABA can deal with the technology dilemma now and face it head-on before it gets too large. Clearly, this problem must be addressed. By implementing the modified hourly billing system of the "menu," attorneys and clients can share in the benefits of technology. The client will have the honesty and predictable billing the client seeks, and the attorney will be able to set the fee while, at the same time, having the opportunity to adjust the bill for extenuating circumstances. The "menu" allows the attorney to become a more efficient advocate by taking the focus away from the billable hour, and the client will know exactly how much the bill will be for the attorney's work because the client has previewed and consented to the "menu" arrangement.
