6. The problem of accuracy
Minimum increments are not the only anomaly arising out of hourly billing. Another is that billing is not as exact a science in practice as it is meant to be in theory.
A reality check about time records
Even with the best of intentions, it is very hard for lawyers to maintain time records that are completely accurate. If one is multitasking, and being interrupted by phone calls and other distractions, it requires a discipline that not all possess in order to keep records that one knows to be totally accurate (even putting aside the built-in imprecision of the six-minute minimum and the like).
Indeed, as noted in Chapter 2, one of the contributors to the American Bar Association’s first study on billable hours — a leading law practice management guru — opined that “very few lawyers keep truly accurate time records.”
The more the timekeeping is done in “real time” (i.e., with time recorded as soon as a task is complete), the higher the accuracy. However, in practice, real-time records, while aspired to, are not always kept.
All too often, therefore, lawyers come up with their best estimates of time at the end of a morning or day during which they juggled several balls. Some even try to reconstruct their time at the end of the week or month.
This might work to the client’s advantage. Ethical lawyers tend to under-record time when they are unsure of the total. Often, tasks are forgotten.
Then again, it might work to the client’s disadvantage — especially in environments where lawyers are under pressure to bill high numbers of hours.
But whether the inherent problems of accurate timekeeping work to the client’s advantage or not, the important thing to realize is that timekeeping is very often a more makeshift process than its proponents generally care to admit. And if time records cannot be counted on for accuracy, why, exactly, does the profession rely on them so heavily?
Entire contents © 2008 John Derrick