• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Senator Says Goldman Sachs Misled Congress, Plans DOJ Referral | Main | Morning Wrap »

April 14, 2011



I agree with Salescoach. Furthermore, changing descriptions for the same work could lead to confusion and complications down the road in fee disputes.


Apart from billing for billing, which would irritate any client, this more likely has to do with the pointless tedium of hourly billing than intent to defraud. After all, how many different ways are there to describe the repetitive acts that are the core of boring legal work like this? If every day you're, in fact, "reviewing and revising transaction documents," as I'd suppose there are an army of lawyers doing every day on a contract like this, what would be the point of wasting time trying to come up with original variations of what is repetitive work? Really, what else are you going to call it?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad