Apparently, quite a bit.
I was wowed by this post over at Legal Research and Writing Pro, “What Independent US-Based Contract Lawyers Can Learn from the Attorneys’ Fees Award in Carlson v. Xerox“.
A big chunk of the $120 million in legal fees in Carlson v. Xerox was for contract attorneys being billed out at associate rates — rates that were six to seven times what the firm was actually paying the contract attorneys.
The District Court of the District of Connecticut used the rationale that even if the lawyers are only paying $55 an hour to their contract attorneys, if they are supervising and adopting the work as their own, then it is worth the $300 an hour associate rate. The court rejected the argument that these costs should have been billed as expenses instead of fees.
I agree with the court’s conclusion because when a practitioner adopts a contract attorney’s work as their own, they are endorsing it, and opening themselves up to liability if there is a problem with the work. Whether they sat their butts in the chair and whipped up the memo themselves or not doesn’t seem to matter as much as their being able to deliver the client a professional product, with the same professional guarantee.
For an awesome analysis, you’ve gotta go read Lisa’s post.
Lawyer On! Kimberly
Subscribe via RSS