Common Billing Issues

Common Billing Issues Found in Attorney Invoices

Billing issues are a leading cause of fee disputes. Courts, insurers, and clients frequently encounter patterns in legal invoices that raise concerns about efficiency, accuracy, or the reasonableness of requested fees.

While many billing issues are unintentional, even small irregularities can undermine the credibility of a fee request. Understanding the most common pitfalls allows law firms to strengthen their billing practices and reduce the risk of disputes, reductions, or challenges in court.

Block Billing

Block billing occurs when multiple tasks are combined into a single time entry. Courts frequently criticize this practice because it makes it difficult to determine how much time was spent on each task.

• Obscures inefficiencies or disproportionate time investments.
• Prevents meaningful comparison between tasks and outcomes.
• Often leads courts to apply percentage reductions across the board.

Breaking entries into discrete tasks improves transparency and reduces the likelihood of reductions.

Vague or Undescriptive Entries

Entries such as “attention to file,” “prepare correspondence,” or “review documents” lack necessary detail. Courts require clarity about what was done and why.

• Lack of context undermines the ability to evaluate reasonableness.
• Repeated vague entries signal poor documentation practices.
• Courts often disallow or reduce vague time in fee petitions.

Detailed explanations strengthen both client understanding and court review.

Duplicative or Redundant Work

Duplicate billing occurs when multiple attorneys bill for the same task without justification or when the same work is performed repeatedly.

• Courts expect clear rationale for multi-attorney involvement.
• Repeated re-review of the same documents is a common red flag.
• Billing for unnecessary internal conferences can result in reductions.

When multi-attorney attendance or repeated review is necessary, documenting the reason is essential.

Overstaffing and Inefficient Team Allocation

Courts frequently reduce fees when senior attorneys perform tasks better suited for junior lawyers or when too many attorneys appear at routine events.

• Inefficient delegation suggests poor case management.
• Using high-rate attorneys for routine work inflates overall costs.
• Multiple attorneys billing for the same meeting or call invites reductions.

Efficient staffing not only benefits clients but strengthens the defensibility of fee requests.

Clerical or Administrative Work Billed at Professional Rates

Courts consistently disallow clerical tasks billed at attorney or paralegal rates. Examples include:

• Scheduling, filing, or organizing documents.
• Updating calendars or task lists.
• Preparing binders, exhibits, or copying materials.

These tasks are considered overhead and should not be billed separately.

Inefficient Research or Drafting Practices

Research and drafting are essential tasks, but courts scrutinize entries that appear excessive, repetitive, or disconnected from the needs of the case.

• Over-researching routine issues.
• Repeatedly drafting and re-drafting documents without explanation.
• Performing research unrelated to pending motions or strategy.

Documenting the purpose and necessity of research helps demonstrate reasonableness.

Excessive Conferencing or Communication

While communication is essential, excessive conferencing among attorneys or repeated internal discussions raise concerns.

• Long strings of internal calls or meetings without documented outcomes.
• Multiple attorneys billing for the same conversation.
• Unnecessary status updates or supervisory reviews.

When internal communication is essential, describing the reason helps avoid reductions.

Patterns That Undermine Billing Credibility

Courts look not only at individual entries but at trends across invoices. Patterns that weaken credibility include:

• Sudden spikes in hours at case milestones.
• Long periods of vague or repetitive entries.
• Minimal voluntary reductions, suggesting weak billing judgment.
• Unexplained gaps or inconsistencies in timekeeping.

Identifying and addressing these issues early improves defensibility and reduces the likelihood of across-the-board cuts.