ATTORNEY FEE HU$TLE
Recent Court Rulings
Summaries are for informational purposes only
Billing for Clerical Work
Kadiyala v. Pupke, S.D. Fla. (2024) — 2024 WL 4008540. A FLORIDA Court, citing other cases, held that "purely clerical or secretarial tasks that require no legal skills or training, such as converting pleadings to PDF, faxing and mailing, updating lists and calendars, and filing or e-filing documents, should not be billed at a paralegal rate regardless of who performs them."
In re Green, 11 P.3d 1078 (Colo. 2000). A COLORADO disciplinary case involved an attorney who charged more than $69,000 for work on an appeal. In reviewing the attorney's billing, the Colorado Supreme Court identified charges for tasks such as faxing documents, contacting the court clerk's office, and delivering documents to opposing counsel. The court concluded that charging an attorney's hourly rate for clerical services generally performed by a nonlawyer was unreasonable as a matter of law. The court also questioned billing entries that were too vague to adequately identify the services performed.
https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/2000/99sa150-0.html
Block Billing
EXRP 14 Holdings LLC v. LS-15 Ave LLC, N.Y. Sup. Ct., Commercial Division (Sept. 5, 2024).
A Court in NEW YORK reduced attorneys' fee request by 50% due to block billing entries that made it impossible to assess the reasonableness of the fees.
Disciplinary Cases
A LOS ANGELES attorney (2025) was approved for disbarment after admitting to charging incarcerated clients and their families excessive legal fees and misleading them about their chances of resentencing. In one case, he charged $14,000 to the sister of a man serving a 160-year sentence for violent felonies — a category excluded from AB 2942 consideration. In another case, he charged $26,700 to a woman seeking resentencing for her brother, despite knowing the request would be rejected under Los Angeles County's criteria
A CHICAGO attorney (2024) licensed since 1979, was suspended for five months, with the suspension stayed after 60 days by a two-year period of conditional probation, for charging and collecting excessive legal fees in eight domestic relations matters. The overcharges totaled $440,000 across those eight cases
An attorney in NORTH CAROLINA was censured for failing to participate in good faith in the State Bar's mandatory fee dispute resolution process and for not responding to a grievance in a timely or fully responsive manner.
Florida Bar / Texas Reciprocal Discipline (March 2024) This case is notable because it spans both states. A SAN ANTONIO attorney, was disbarred by the Florida Bar in March 2024 as reciprocal discipline after Texas suspended her for one year, followed by a two-year probated suspension for neglect of clients' matters in two cases and for failing to return unearned fees in those cases.
https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-news/march-1-2024-disciplinary-actions/
Vague Descriptions
Gatore v. DHS, No. 15-459, 2025 WL 721804 (D.D.C. Mar. 6, 2025) (Walton, J.) U.S. District Court for the
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA found "glaring deficiencies" such as "counsel’s ‘time records are vague, inadequately descriptive, or made in error[,]’ . . . and are therefore not ‘of sufficient detail and probative value to enable the court to determine with a high degree of certainty that such hours were actually and reasonably expended" and the plaintiffs’ requests suffers from ‘grossly excessive billing.'" The Court denied the fee request.
https://www.justice.gov/oip/gatore-v-dhs-no-15-459-2025-wl-721804-ddc-mar-6-2025-walton-j