If a lawyer tells a client the bill will be on a 'time basis,' can the lawyer add undisclosed administrative, originating-attorney, or value-billing charges?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1996. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Opinion 267 (adopted September 18, 1996) evaluated two hypothetical billing practices. In the first, a firm tells clients certain matters will be billed on a "time basis" but, on the bill, lumps into a generic "services" line additional charges the client was never told about: a set administrative or processing fee of 10 to 20 percent of the time charged, a levy based on the originating attorney's hourly rate (even when that attorney did no work on the matter), and, in some cases, a "value billing" premium of 20 to 200 percent. In the second, a fee schedule lists some work as billed on an "attorney charge" basis, and a letter explains that the fee will reflect the effort, the responsible attorney's expertise and efficiency, whether the work is expedited, and an originating-attorney supervision charge, with a stated dollar range that may be exceeded for complex matters.
The committee concluded the first practice violates the rules. Under Rule 8.4(c), the committee reasoned that "time basis" is commonly understood to mean hours worked times an hourly rate, so a client who is told that is entitled to expect the bill reflects time actually expended; folding in unidentified administrative, originating-attorney, or value premiums not calculated on that basis is dishonesty or misrepresentation. The same conduct violates Rule 7.1(a)(1), which governs all communications about a lawyer's services and bars misleading statements or omissions, because the bill affirmatively misleads the client by failing to differentiate time charges from undisclosed surcharges. And it fails Rule 1.5(b), which entitles every client to know the basis or rate of the fee: "time basis" alone is not an adequate description, and where the fee includes non-time charges the lawyer must explain what they are for and how they are calculated, citing ABA Formal Opinion 93-379 that a lawyer who agreed to bill hourly cannot charge for hours not actually worked.
The committee concluded the second, "attorney charge" practice is generally adequate, because "attorney charge" has no fixed meaning and the firm's letter supplies the missing detail: the hourly rates of the lawyers likely to work on the matter, a range of estimated total charges, and a caution that the range may be exceeded in certain circumstances. That disclosure satisfies Rule 1.5(b), provided the letter accurately describes the firm's actual practice; if it does not, Rules 8.4(c) and 7.1(a)(1) would apply as in the first scenario. The committee added that the lawyer has a continuing duty to keep the client's fee understanding current, so a substantially inaccurate estimate should be revised.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1996, before the District of Columbia's adoption of the 2007 revisions to the 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 add admin or "value" charges to a bill described as "time basis"?
A: No, if they are undisclosed and not calculated on the time basis. The committee concluded that adding such charges is dishonest under Rule 8.4(c), misleading under Rule 7.1(a)(1), and a failure of fee disclosure under Rule 1.5(b).
Q: Does "time basis" adequately describe the fee?
A: No. The committee concluded "time basis" alone is not an adequate description; where the fee is hourly, the client is entitled to know the applicable rate or range of rates, and any non-time charge must be explained.
Q: Is the "attorney charge" billing method permissible?
A: Generally yes. The committee concluded that, because the letter disclosed the lawyers' hourly rates, a range of estimated charges, and that the range might be exceeded, the arrangement satisfied Rule 1.5(b), so long as the description is accurate.
Q: What if a fee estimate turns out to be wrong?
A: The committee concluded the lawyer has a continuing duty to keep the client's understanding of the fee current, so when a cost estimate becomes substantially inaccurate a revised estimate should be provided.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interpreted D.C. Rule 1.5 (fees, including the Rule 1.5(b) duty to communicate the basis or rate of the fee to every client), Rule 7.1(a)(1) (no false or misleading communications about a lawyer's services, including misleading omissions), and Rule 8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), drawing on its prior fee opinions (185, 4, 25, 29, 211) and ABA Formal Opinion 93-379.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- D.C. RPC 1.5(b) / Model Rule 1.5 (communicating the basis or rate of the fee)
- D.C. RPC 7.1(a)(1) / Model Rule 7.1 (no misleading communications about services)
- D.C. RPC 8.4(c) / Model Rule 8.4 (dishonesty and misrepresentation)
Other opinions cited:
- D.C. Ethics Ops. 4, 25, 29, 185, 211; ABA Formal Op. 93-379 (1993)
See also
- DC Ethics Op. 284: Billing Clients for Temporary Lawyers
- DC Ethics Op. 310: Charging Interest on Unpaid Client Fees
- ABA Formal Op. 505: Fees Paid in Advance
Source
- Landing page: https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-267
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1996 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.