This is a frequent client concern, yet historically one that is difficult to address. Clients often sense that a task took too long but struggle to articulate why. LBR’s analysts, with extensive large law firm experience, recognize the indicators of hourly time inflation. When discrepancies arise, LBR provides a detailed explanation of why the time was excessive and how the bill should be adjusted.

When a lawyer does not adequately describe his or her activity, there is no way for the client to determine if that activity added value for the client or if the charges for that activity are reasonable. Attorneys are paid to be precise in their language. It is not unreasonable to require lawyers to accurately describe how they spent their time and the client’s money.

Law firms often find ways to charge for a junior lawyer’s on-the-job training. But the law firm carries the financial responsibility for training its lawyers; it is for the law firm’s benefit, not the client’s. Most of the time, this is an honest mistake that occurs because most junior lawyers are not adequately taught the difference between time that is billable to the client and time that is not.

At times, two lawyers attend the same meeting but report different durations. In other cases, a lawyer bills for an in-office task while another entry shows they were not in the office that day. These inconsistencies take many forms, but the conclusion is clear: one of the entries is likely inaccurate. In such instances, LBR conducts a thorough investigation to determine the correct charge.

Duplicative work usually results from an honest mistake; at the end of one month and the beginning of the next, an attorney may charge for the same task twice, across two billing periods. In other instances, two attorneys may both perform the same task in the same billing period, failing to coordinate with each other and divide responsibilities.

Sometimes lawyers will do work that is more appropriate for a lower-rate attorney or a paralegal. As one court quipped: “Michelangelo should not charge Sistine Chapel rates for painting a farmer's barn." Ursic v. Bethlehem Mines, 710 F. 2d 670, 677 (3rd Cir. 1983). In these cases, LBR identifies the staff that should have been assigned that task so the law firm can adjust its charges.

Sometimes law firms will charge attorney or paralegal rates for tasks that could and should be done by administrative staff. For example, the client should not pay $300 an hour for filing a court document. That type of task should be done by a legal secretary at no charge, as part of the firm’s overhead costs.

Block billing is when a lawyer enters multiple unrelated tasks under one time period, without separating the time each task took. Block billing obscures the value to the client and the reasonableness of the charges for a given task, and courts around the US have condemned the practice. Studies have shown that lawyers who enter their time in blocks tend to overestimate the actual time they worked, which is why LBR discourages this practice.

A client should not have to pay three attorneys to accomplish a task that requires only one lawyer. Worse yet, sometimes overstaffing actually increases the time it takes to complete a task because there are "too many cooks in the kitchen." LBR adjusts these charges to match a more appropriate staffing level.