Litigation Invoice Review: List of what to look for

The ICalm Group has produced an excellent list of what to look for when reviewing a solicitor’s invoice:

1. Does each entry identify the date service was rendered, the individual who rendered the service, the individual’s hourly rate and position (partner, associate, paralegal, etc.) an understandable description of the particular service rendered, the amount of time (expressed in tenths of an hour) and the corresponding dollar charge for that time?
2. Do descriptions of service list each task separately? If several activities by one timekeeper on one date are combined in a single entry (example: “prepare for, travel to, attend and summarize deposition” 5.3 hours) it will be difficult to evaluate whether or not the time for each task is appropriate.
3. Do descriptions of service describe with particularity the activity in which the timekeeper was engaged or are they vague and imprecise, such as “attention to discovery”?
4. Are the descriptions of service consistent? Is the same activity described in more than one way, depending upon the date or the timekeeper (example: “draft motion to compel plaintiff’s production of construction records;” “work on construction records issue”)?
5. Do the descriptions of service include initials, abbreviations, names or case issues with which you are not familiar (example: “meeting with GJT re indemnification”)?
6. Do the descriptions of service refer to activities you did not authorize (example: “review report of defendant’s psychiatric expert” when you did not authorize retention of the expert)?
7. Do the descriptions of service refer to motions made without your prior approval?
8. Do the descriptions of service refer to activities that are unnecessary or premature (example: preparing page and line summaries of depositions when settlement is likely and no trial date has been set)?
9. Are there frequent intraoffice conferences among two or more timekeepers, each of whom has billed for the time?
10. Have two or more timekeepers billed for attending the same deposition or proceeding?
11. Does the bill contain a sub-total (hours and dollars) for each timekeeper?
12. Is the total number of timekeepers consistent with the size of the case (for example: it is the unusually large and complex case that will require five or more timekeepers)?
13. Are all of the timekeepers listed in the current bill the same as the timekeepers listed in the last bill? If some names no longer appear or others appear for the first time, why has staffing changed?
14. Are work assignments among timekeepers assigned in such a way that there is overlap or redundancy (for example: two issues to be researched, each of which requires review of the same file or records)?
15. Do descriptions of services include tasks that you or someone in your office has done or could do in this case?
16. Are the hourly rates of each timekeeper listed in the current bill the same hourly rates that appeared in the last bill? If rates are higher, was there an advance written request for and written approval of the increase?
17. Are the hourly rates of each timekeeper consistent with the individual’s experience, position and expertise?
18. Are the tasks appropriate to the experience, position and expertise of the timekeeper (example: document summaries prepared by partners vs. paralegals)?
19. Is the amount of time billed for each timekeeper category (partner, associate, paralegal) disproportionate to the complexity or magnitude of the case?
20. Do disbursements include charges for word processing or secretarial/clerical time?
21. Are disbursements sub-totaled by category (Westlaw, Lexis, messengers, photocopies, interpreters, etc.)?
22. Is the rate and basis of each disbursement reported (example: 869 copies @.10 each = $86.90)?
23. Are the services and disbursements of outside vendors consistent with your guidelines?
24. Are any disbursements billed at greater than actual cost?
25. If allocation of time or disbursements is appropriate (among multiple parties or multiple files) is the amount reported the correct proportionate share?