Is it unethical for a lawyer to bill in minimum time increments, like a tenth or a quarter of an hour, even when a task took less time than the full unit?

Plain-English summary

A state agency that frequently reviews or approves counsel fees asked whether it is unethical to bill for minimum time periods (such as a tenth or a quarter of an hour) without regard to whether the activity actually took the full time. The Commission concluded the issue does not rise to the ethical level, while acknowledging a case could be hypothesized where standardized minimum charges produced an impermissibly high fee.

The Commission recognized that attorneys and members of other professions keep records using a convenient minimum unit of time, rather than recording minutes and seconds with stopwatch accuracy. It found that whatever deviation from exact precision results will, in substantially all cases, be de minimis, and that in the unusual case where many such overcharges combine into an excessive total, that fact would be apparent from a review of the scope of work undertaken. It also observed that attorneys, intentionally or not, often omit charging for fractions of units actually spent, so these minimal deviations may balance out over a case.

The Commission found no ethical impropriety in adopting reasonably accurate minimum time units, treating a tenth of an hour as normally reasonable and noting that larger units are reasonable only if they reflect a true average of the time spent. It added that the question is not the exclusive province of the Commission: the state agency presumably has power to adopt rules on when it will approve counsel fees, and may place such restrictions on minimum-time-period billing as it deems justified.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1981, before Maine's replacement of the former Maine Bar Rules with the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct (effective August 1, 2009). 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 in tenth-of-an-hour increments even if a task took less time?

A: The opinion concluded yes. Reasonably accurate minimum time units are not an ethical impropriety, and a tenth of an hour is normally a reasonable unit.

Q: When could minimum-unit billing become a problem?

A: The opinion concluded that, in the unusual case where many minimum-unit overcharges combine to make the total fee excessive, that would be apparent from reviewing the scope of work undertaken.

Q: Can a reviewing agency restrict minimum-unit billing on its own?

A: The opinion concluded yes. The Commission said the state agency presumably may adopt rules on approving counsel fees and may restrict minimum-time-period billing as it deems justified.

Background and rules framework

The opinion concerns the reasonableness of a lawyer's fee and billing practices, the subject of Model Rule 1.5 (fees) and, in Maine at the time, the fee provisions of Bar Rule 3.3(a). The Commission did not cite a numbered Bar Rule; it concluded the practice of reasonably accurate minimum-unit billing does not implicate professional responsibility, leaving any further limits to the reviewing agency's own rules.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 1.5 (fees)
• Maine Bar Rule 3.3(a) (fees), as the governing framework; the opinion cited no numbered rule

See also

• Maine Ethics Op. 40: Title Insurance Premiums and Double-Charging
• Maine Ethics Op. 103: Splitting Fees Without Regard to Responsibility
• Maine Ethics Op. 31: Profit-Sharing Bonuses for Non-Lawyer Staff

Source

• Landing page: https://mebaroverseers.org/attorney_services/opinion.html?id=89525

Original opinion text

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

Issued by the Professional Ethics Commission

Date Issued: August 25, 1981

A State agency, frequently required to review or approve the amount of counsel fees sought by attorneys who appear before it, has raised the question of whether it is unethical to bill for minimum time periods (such as 1/10th or 1/4th of an hour) without regard to whether the activity actually consumed the total time indicated.

While a case could be hypothesized where the use of standardized minimum charges could result in an impermissibly high fee, we do not believe that the issue posed rises to the ethical level. The Commission recognizes that records kept by attorneys and members of other professions and businesses utilize some convenient minimum unit of time, such as 1/10th or 1/4th of an hour, rather than attempting with stopwatch accuracy to record the minutes and seconds involved in a given task. Whatever deviation from exact precision may result from the use of these time units will, in substantially all cases, be de minimis; in the unusual case where a great number of these "overcharges" combine to make the total fee excessive, that fact would be apparent from a review of the scope of work undertaken.

The Commission also suspects that there are equally as many instances where attorneys intentionally or unintentionally omit charging for fractions of time units actually spent on a matter; these minimal deviations may well balance out over the course of a case. In short, the Commission finds no ethical impropriety in an attorney adopting reasonably accurate minimum time units. We believe 1/10th hour is, under normal circumstances, such a reasonably accurate unit. Whether larger units are also reasonable depends upon whether they reflect a true average of time spent by the attorney.

The question raised is not the exclusive province of this Commission. Presumably the State agency has the power to adopt rules specifying the conditions under which it will consider and approve counsel fees. We see no reason why it may not, therefore, place such restrictions on the use of minimum time period billing as it deems justified.