96-4.

• Case Date: May 13, 1996
• Court: Alaska

Alaska Ethics Opinion 1996. 96-4. 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 hours (endnote 1) 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. (endnote 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. (endnote 3) ARPC 1.5(a). In determining the reasonableness of a fee, the following factors are considered: (1)The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal services properly; (2)The likelihood that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer; (3)The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; (4)The amount involved and the results obtained; (5)The time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances; (6)The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; (7)The experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and (8)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 practices identified in this opinion would never be permissible. (endnote 4) Nonetheless, in the case of an hourly fee arrangement, the time and labor...