On an hourly fee, can a lawyer bill more than one client for the same block of time, such as travel time, a shared court appearance, or recycled work product?

Plain-English summary

The Committee considered whether a lawyer working on an hourly fee basis may bill more than one client for the same hours, identifying three problematic practices: billing one client for travel time while billing another for work done during the travel, billing several clients the full time for a single courthouse trip that served them all, and recharging a second client the full original time for recycled work product. The opinion concluded that none is appropriate, agreeing with the relevant portion of ABA Formal Opinion 93-379.

The opinion grounded the conclusion in Rule 1.5(a), which requires a lawyer's fee to be reasonable and lists factors including the time and labor required, and in Rule 7.1, which bars false or misleading statements about a lawyer's services and applies to all communications, so a lawyer's bill may not be misleading. The Committee reasoned that, under an hourly arrangement, the time and labor actually spent must be the paramount factor, and a lawyer who agreed to bill by the hour cannot ethically bill for more than the actual time spent on a specific project. In each scenario, the lawyer would be charging for more time than actually spent and would not have earned the duplicated hours.

The opinion worked through examples: a lawyer who spends three hours flying to a deposition while drafting a motion for a different client has not earned six billable hours; a lawyer who handles three clients' hearings during three hours at the courthouse has not earned nine hours and may bill no more than a single fee for the morning; and a lawyer who reuses research or recycled discovery may charge a second client only for the actual time spent updating or modifying the work, unless the fee agreement provides otherwise. The Committee concluded that, where the client agreed to hourly billing, the economies of a lawyer's efficient use of time must benefit the client rather than letting the lawyer charge for phantom hours.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996, before Alaska's adoption of the 2009 revisions to the Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer bill two clients for the same hour of work?

A: The opinion concluded that, under an hourly fee arrangement, it is not appropriate to bill more than one client for the same hours; the lawyer may bill only for actual time spent.

Q: What about billing one client for travel time and another for work done while traveling?

A: Per the opinion, a lawyer who flies three hours for one client while drafting a motion for another has not earned six billable hours and may not charge both.

Q: Can a lawyer charge a second client full time for recycled work product?

A: The opinion concluded the lawyer may charge the second client only for the actual time spent updating or modifying the work, unless the fee agreement provides otherwise.

Q: Which rules govern this?

A: The opinion relied on Rule 1.5(a) (a fee must be reasonable, with time and labor a key factor) and Rule 7.1 (a lawyer's communications, including bills, may not be false or misleading).

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5(a) (reasonableness of fees and its factors; Model Rule 1.5) and 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services; Model Rule 7.1, applied here to billing). It noted that the predecessor Model Code, DR 2-106, framed the question as whether a fee was "clearly excessive," and it adopted the reasoning of the relevant portion of ABA Formal Opinion 93-379.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Alaska RPC 1.5(a) (reasonableness of fees)
• Alaska RPC 7.1 (communications about a lawyer's services)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Formal Opinion 93-379 (billing for professional fees, disbursements, and other expenses)

See also

• ABA Formal Op. 93-379: Billing for Fees and Expenses
• AL Ethics Op. 2005-02: Billing a Client for Fees and Costs

Source

• Landing page: https://alaskabar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/adopted-ethics-opinions-chronological/
• Original PDF: https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/96-4.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

ALASKA BAR ASSOCIATION
ETHICS OPINION NO. 96-4
Billing Practices -- Propriety Of Billing
More Than One Client For The Same Hours
The Committee has been asked whether it is appropriate to bill more
than one client for the same hours1 when the lawyer has agreed to work on an hourly fee
basis. In the Committee’s opinion, it is not appropriate to bill more than one client for the same
hours.2
Several billing practices involving more than one client and the same hours spent may be
criticized. First, a traveling lawyer bills one client for travel time and another for work
performed while traveling. Second, a lawyer appears for multiple clients during a single trip to
the courthouse, but charges each client for the total time spent at court. Third, a lawyer recycles
work product, and charges the client for the same time it took to originally prepare the brief.
The model rules provide that a lawyer’s fee shall be reasonable.3 ARPC 1.5(a). In
determining the reasonableness of a fee, the following factors are considered:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)

The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions
involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal services properly;
The likelihood that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude
other employment by the lawyer;
The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services;
The amount involved and the results obtained;
The time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances;
The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client;
The experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the
services; and
Whether the fee is fixed or contingent.

Id.(emphasis added). As the rule suggests, what constitutes a reasonable fee will vary with the
particular circumstances. See Fourchon Docks, Inc. v. Milchem, Inc., 849 F.2d 1561 (5th Cir.
1988) (“language of [Rule 1.5(a)] as well as state court decisions have held that the guidelines
are permissive and that consideration of them all is not mandatory.”). Rule 1.5 recognizes there
are many different types of fee arrangements. The Committee does not mean to suggest that the
1 This opinion is limited to hourly fee billing arrangements.
2 In reaching this conclusion, the Committee has considered and agrees with

that portion of the American Bar Association Formal Opinion 93-379 which addresses
this subject.
3 The focus of the predecessor Model Code of Professional Conduct was
somewhat different in prohibiting fees that were “clearly excessive.” DR 2-106.

-1-

practices identified in this opinion would never be permissible.4 Nonetheless, in the case of an
hourly fee arrangement, the time and labor spent on the project must be a paramount factor.
Further, Rule 7.1 prohibits a lawyer from making false or misleading statements about
the lawyer’s services. ARPC 7.1. As noted in the comment, “[t]his rule governs all
communications about a lawyer’s services . . . .” ARPC 7.1 cmt. While this rule does not
specifically address a lawyer’s bill for services, it applies to all communications. Thus, a
lawyer’s bill for services may not be misleading.
The lawyer who has agreed to bill a client on the basis of hours expended cannot
ethically bill the client for more than the actual time spent. In each of the scenarios posed above,
the lawyer is charging the client for more time than the lawyer actually spent on the specific
project. When viewed from the client’s perspective, or the perspective of what fee the lawyer
has actually earned, the ethical obligation seems clear.
For example, a lawyer spends 3 hours traveling to attend a deposition in Seattle. If the
lawyer decides to spend the time on the airplane drafting a motion for a different client, he or she
may not charge both clients, each of whom agreed to hourly billing, for the time during which he
was traveling on behalf of one client, but drafting a document on behalf of another.
The
lawyer has not earned 6 billable hours. Similarly, the client who agrees to pay a lawyer on the
basis of hours spent, would not expect to pay the lawyer when he or she was not actually
working for that client.
In another example, a lawyer schedules court appearances for three different clients on
the same day. The lawyer spends 3 hours at the courthouse, the amount of time he or she would
have spent for each client if it had not been for the fortuitous scheduling. The lawyer may not
bill each client 3 hours. The lawyer has not earned 9 hours of billable time. The lawyer has
earned no more than a single fee for the morning’s work. While it might be reasonable for the
client to pay for 3 hours for each hearing if each one was conducted separately, the efficiency
and benefits of arguing all three motions on the same day should inure to the benefit of the
clients.
In a final example, a lawyer performs research on a topic for one client which later turns
out to be relevant to a question raised by a second client. The lawyer may not charge the second
client the same number of hours for the recycled work product that he or she charged the first
client. The lawyer may only charge the second client for the actual time spent updating or
modifying the brief, unless the fee agreement provides otherwise. Similarly, a lawyer who
spends 1 hour recycling a set of discovery for use in a personal injury case has not earned more
than 1 billable hour in fees. In addition, the client likely expects that the lawyer’s hourly rates
4 This opinion is limited to those circumstances where the lawyer and client
have agreed that the fee will be based upon the hours worked.

-2-

will reflect the efficiencies which may be gained because the lawyer has significant experience
in a particular area of the law.
In summary, where the client has agreed to pay the lawyer on an hourly basis, the
economies associated with a lawyer’s efficient use of time must benefit the client rather than
giving the lawyer an opportunity to charge a client for phantom hours.
Approved by the Alaska Bar Association Ethics Committee on April 4, 1996.
Adopted by the Board of Governors on May 13, 1996.
G:\DS\EC&OPS\OPINIONS\96-4.DOC

-3-