Call for a free consultation!

(301) 916-5000

Maryland Legal Malpractice Attorney

Have you been overcharged by your attorney?

There are numerous ways for an attorney to overcharge a client.
A. CONTINGENCY FEE CASES
In personal injury cases, attorneys usually agree to represent the client in exchange for one-third (33.33%) of the gross recovery.  This is known as a contingency fee.    For the attorney’s contingency fee agreement to be enforceable, it must reasonable at the time the attorney was retained in relationship to the expected difficulty of the case.   In other words, it would be unreasonable for an attorney to charge a client in excess of one-third, unless there are extraordinary circumstances.    An excessive contingency fee agreement is not enforceable.
One Court explained why: “[A] fee agreement between lawyer and client is not an ordinary business contract.  The profession has both an obligation of public service and duties to clients which transcend ordinary business relationships and prohibit the lawyer from taking advantage of the client.  Thus, in fixing and collecting fees the profession must remember that it is a branch of the administration of justice and not a mere money getting trade”.  Matter of Swartz 686 P.2d 1236, 1243 (Ariz. 1984)

The reasonableness of the contingency fee must also be determined after the case is resolved.   For example, a one-third contingency fee may become unreasonable if the attorney spent only a few dozen hours in obtaining a settlement.  In such situations, the attorney should voluntarily agree to reduce his or her fees so that the attorney does not receive an unwarranted windfall.

In Maryland, a contingency fee agreement of 50% or more is both unethical and unenforceable, because an attorney is not allowed to have too great an interest in the client’s case.   If the attorney’s fee agreement is unenforceable due to excessiveness, the attorney is only allowed to recover the reasonable value of  the legal services rendered.   The reasonable value of the attorney’s services is usually substantially less than the contingency fee.

B. HOURLY RATE CASES

There are at least 10 ways for an attorney to overcharge a client who is paying an hourly rate for legal services.

  1. Phantom Billing
    “Phantom billing” occurs when an attorney invoices a client for work that was never performed.   An audit of the client’s file is necessary to detect phantom billing.
  2. Unnecessary Work
    An attorney should not be compensated for performing work that was not reasonably necessary.  An audit of the client’s file is necessary to determine whether the legal services were reasonably necessary.
  3. Block Billing
    “Block billing” is when an attorney provides no description or an inadequate description of the work performed.  For example, the attorney might have an entry on the invoice that states “case work” or “reviewed email”.    Such billing entries are insufficient, because they do not inform the client of either the nature of the legal services performed, the source and nature of the communication, nor why the work was reasonably necessary.  When an attorney block bills, the attorney may face difficulties in seeking to recover legal fees based on either contract or quantum meruit.A proper invoice from an attorney should be in a format that is clear and should be reasonably particular regarding the nature and the necessity of the legal services performed. Diamond Point v. Wells Fargo 400 Md. 718, 760 (2007) (“It goes without saying that attorneys who bill on a time basis should make their billings as detailed as reasonably possible, so that the client, and any other person who might be called upon to pay the bill, will know with some precision what services have been performed”).
  4. Lack of Contemporaneous Time Records
    It is the responsibility of the attorney to maintain accurate billing records.  This is accomplished by making contemporaneous billing entries.  When a client does not receive a monthly bill, it may mean that the attorney is not maintaining contemporaneous time records. Without contemporaneous time records, an attorney will often resort to reconstructing the time records or backdating bills.  The inherent inaccuracies of such reconstructed invoices should be resolved against the attorney.
  5. Large Billing Increments
    Most attorneys bill in 0.1 hour (6 minutes) increments.  When an attorney bills in 0.2 (12 minutes) or 0.25 hour (15 minute) increments, the amount billed does not reflect the actual work performed by the attorney.  Such inflated bills are unacceptable and should be discounted.
  6. Duplication of Effort
    Duplication of effort is not compensable.  For example, when a firm has 2 attorneys attend a court hearing, the client should be billed only for the appearance of the senior attorney.
  7. Excessive Conferencing
    At large law firms, junior attorneys report to senior attorneys.  Unfortunately, this means that both attorneys bill the client for their meetings.  While occasional conferences are often necessary, constant meetings are usually unproductive and wasteful.
  8. Billing Rate Increases
    A law firm may not unilaterally increase its billing rate.  Nevertheless, many firms increase their hourly on an annual basis without their clients’ permission.
  9. Change in Personnel
    A client should not be charged for a new staff member or an newly assigned attorney to review the client’s file to get up to speed, because such effort does not advance the client’s cause.  When the law firm assigns new staff, the additional costs associated with the change in personnel should be charged to overhead, not to the client.
  10. Excessive Supervising and Training
    Law firms are always training new staff and attorneys.  The law firm should reduce its hourly rate for the on-the-job training of its staff.
Articles
Article by Stewart A. Sutton featured in the Maryland Bar Journal:
Emotional Distress Damages - Recoverable in Legal Malpractice Actions
Contact Stewart Sutton

Receive Complimentary Case Consultation

To contact us simply complete this form or contact us using the information provided below.





Name:
Email:
Phone:
Question:

Enter this the text below in the space provided.
captcha

Law Office of Stewart Andrew Sutton, LLC
8 Executive Park Court
Germantown, Maryland 20874
Telephone: 301-916-5000
Fax: 301-916-1201
E-Mail: stewart@stewartsutton.com

  • Mediation Confidentiality Statute Bars Malpractice Claim Where Breach ... March 24, 2015
    In Amis v. Greenberg Traurig LLP , Division Three of the Second District Court of Appeal held that a malpractice plaintiff cannot circumvent mediation confidentiality by advancing inferences about his former attorney's supposed acts or omissions during an underlying mediation.
  • Federal Lawsuit Charges Six Prominent Attorneys with Racketeering, Fraud & Legal Malpractice March 16, 2015
    PRLog - March 16, 2015 - NEW YORK -- On March 13, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The lawsuit charges six prominent attorneys from the Stuart, Florida based law firm, Gary, Williams, Parenti & Watson, P.L.L.C., including law firm partners Willie E. Gary […]
  • Two Donnelly Minter & Kelly, LLC Attorneys Named to New Jersey... March 13, 2015
    Patrick B. Minter and Laura Ann Kelly, founding members of the Morristown, NJ law firm of Donnelly Minter & Kelly, LLC, have been named to the list of New Jersey Super Lawyers for 2015. It is truly an honor for Laura and me to be recognized by our peers for the work we do for […]
  • 20MarLegal Malpractice 2015 - ROCH March 12, 2015
    Lawsuits against lawyers arising from errors and/or omissions in the performance of legal services are on the rise. It is now an integral part of a law firm's business practice to evaluate its legal risk and malpractice insurance needs.
  • Sedgwick Settles $210 Million Legal Malpractice Case March 11, 2015
    Sedgwick has reached a tentative settlement to resolve a lawsuit over its role in a $1 billion Ponzi scheme in California. A spokesman for the San Francisco law firm, which put off a March 3 trial to begin settlement discussions, confirmed that an agreement had been reached.