Ezel / Ethics Opinions / OCBAR

May a lawyer bill old drafting time as current hourly work when adapting a form for a new client?

Short answer The 1999 opinion criticizes billing hours spent creating an old form as though they were spent on the new client's matter; it calls for accurate communication of the fee method.
Bar
OCBAR
Issued
1999
Source
View official page

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1999. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as an official web page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (official page)

Plain-English summary

The hypothetical lawyer uses a previously drafted form document, customizes it for a new client, and checks for changes in law. The lawyer then bills nine hours at an hourly rate, including seven hours spent preparing the original form before this client's matter. Only two hours were spent on the current client's work.

The committee says former California Rule 4-200's prohibition on illegal or unconscionable fees does not directly settle the question. It finds greater guidance in Business and Professions Code section 6148's requirements concerning the basis for calculating and communicating fees. The bill presents an old drafting component as if it were current hourly work, which the opinion calls inaccurate.

The opinion describes more accurate ways to communicate a flat component plus actual hourly work, or a stated flat fee. These are examples within its historical analysis, not a ruling that any particular modern amount is appropriate.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999, before California's 2018 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The State Bar's official rules page says the new rules became effective November 1, 2018. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.

Common questions

Q: What was inaccurate about the nine-hour bill?

A: Seven hours reflected original work on the form before this client's matter, while the lawyer spent only two hours adapting and checking it for this client.

Q: Did the committee find former Rule 4-200 dispositive?

A: No. It said that rule did not directly answer the billing-method question and looked to section 6148 for clearer communication requirements.

Q: What fee structures did the opinion discuss?

A: It described accurately stating a flat component plus hourly charges for new work, or using a stated flat fee instead of labeling old work as current hourly time.

Background and rules framework

The opinion examines former California Rule 4-200 and California Business and Professions Code section 6148. It focuses on whether the communicated basis of calculation matches the work and fee actually charged.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Former California Rule 4-200

Statutes:

  • California Business and Professions Code section 6148

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1999. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace