BELL AND POLLOCK BRAD POLLOCK Brad Pollock Attorney at Law BRAD POLLOCK HAS DEMEANED ME AND ABUSES ME AS A CLIENT WHEN I CONFRONT HIM ABOUT HIS SHADY BUSINESS PRACTICES. INSTEAD OF TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS NEGLECTFUL BUSINESS PRACTICES. HE ABUSES ME AS A CLIENT. BRAD POLLOCK ENGAGES IN DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES AND UNPROFESSIONAL BUSINESS CONDUCT!! Greenwood Village Colorado

DO NOT HIRE THIS ATTORNEY UNTIL YOU RESEARCH EVERYTHING ABOUT HIS SHADY BUSINESS PRACTICES AND KNOW THE THINGS THAT YOU SHOULD KNOW TO PROTECT YOUR SELF FROM THIS SHADY LAW FIRM BRAD POLLOCK IS INCOMPETENT IN REPRESENTING MY INTERESTS AS A CLIENT BELL AND POLLOCK BRAD POLLOCK Attorney at Law BRAD POLLOCK HAS DEMEANED ME AND ABUSES ME AS A CLIENT WHEN I CONFRONT HIM ABOUT HIS SHADY BUSINESS PRACTICES. INSTEAD OF TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS NEGLECTFUL BUSINESS PRACTICES. HE ABUSES ME AS A CLIENT. BRAD POLLOCK ENGAGES IN DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES AND UNPROFESSIONAL BUSINESS CONDUCT!

I EVEN HIRED ANOTHER ATTORNEY AS CO-COUNSEL AND HE STILL CONTINUED TO TAUNT ME AND NOT PROVIDE NEEDED REQUESTS. BRAD POLLOCK ENGAGED IN DECEPTIVE CONDUCT!!!!! ANYONE THAT WANTS MOR INFORMATION HERE IS MY EMAIL ADDRESS DIGIDATAMARKETING@GMAIL.COM

Today with social platforms and social outreach it helps reveal and eliminate customer abuse.

I want to share the customer abuse that I am experiencing with Bell and Pollock law firm namely Brad Pollock.

I want to start by saying that I have been a very successful business owner for several years.

I am reaching out to the public to regarding an abuse issue that I have with an attorney by the name of Brad Pollock.  I had previously used Brad for litigation and had many successful outcomes.

 I currently have a wrongful death lawsuit with Brad. Not only does he have me for a client but I also enrolled my Nephew and Niece as clients in the case as well. That translates into to him getting paid three times the pay for one time work effort in one case. 

When my nephew retained Pollock, Pollock increased his fees by 185.00 per hour in attorney’s fees and $50 more in Paralegal fees by 50 which equates to a 100,000.00 a year increase FOR A PARALEGAL. Do you really believe that any paralegal makes 260,000.00. No: attorneys charge clients that but I guarantee no paralegal gets paid that kind of money. Not to mention attorneys pad their fees by double charging clients and clients are to trusting to ask for an accounting from the attorney not to mention W-4’s.

For the last four years Brad Pollock and his paralegal Marlena Elsloo have continually abused me as a client. 

I recently had to retain another attorney as co-counsel just to be able to even think of continuing with my case.   

That meant that I went from 33 and one third to have having to bring on another attorney for another 20 percent.

However Brad is in for a big surprise 

I had retained Brad Pollock in regards to several cases both business and personal cases. During the time I that I have worked with him he has had several incompetent paralegals.

One of his paralegals Ann Marie was dating a guy that was best friends with the Plaintiff that I was suing. She was giving confidential information to her boyfriends best friend. Brad blatantly refused to replace her even though my case was being jeopardized.

 

I hired another attorney and won the case. I swore never to trust Brad Pollock again.

I recently had a wrongful death lawsuit and was very upset because my father was killed by another driver.

I had a very serious talk with Brad about what had happened to before. He assured me that if I requested another paralegal that he would accommodate me.

I signed a contingent fee agreement and a disclosure statement  with Brad Pollock of Bell and Pollock for him to represent me in regards to a wrongful death lawsuit regarding the death of my father and the theft of the wrongful death monies that were owed to me and other heirs.

The lawsuit started in November of 2014. Brad Pollock’s original Paralegal Debbie Alverez, was a fantastic Paralegal.

Debbie Alvarez had excellent attention to detail and provided me discovery, disclosures, motions and answers to motions and copies of the contracts in a timely fashion.

Unfortunately, Debbie Alvarez, was replaced by Marlena Elsloo

Elsloo is the worst nightmare paralegal that any attorney could ever have. I began to have a multitude of problems with Elsloo.I requested discovery, disclosures, motions, answers to motions and never received anything from her for a period of three years.

I was provided 2 affidavits from Elsloo the Loser Paralegal and they were 95% wrong.

I had spent 6 hours going over every detail with that inept paralegal Marlena. When I went into to sign them they were wrong.

When I pointed out to Marlena that they were inaccurate she blew a fuse and coerced Brad into to take sides with her and insisted that I should have just signed the affidavits.

The loser paralegal had purposefully prepared them wrong.

I demanded that Brad come in and look at the documents. He acknowledged that they were wrong and he made the changes himself.

From that point forward Marlena became a defiant crusader for demeaning me throughout Brads office. Brad and Elsloo bad mouthed me to the whole office and started a bullying campaign against me as a client.

 Elsloo then defiantly sent me interrogatories that needed to be completed at the last-minute notice to meet court deadlines. I would email the answers to be reviewed Marlena would refuse to tell Brad that I had responded.

She deliberately did it to cause continual chaos.. She made consistent false and misleading statements about me in order to save her own face. And to cause chaos in Pollock’s office.

I demanded that Brad replace her with another paralegal.

I continually complained about Elsloo to Brad Pollock. Brad told me that he would demand that she send the documents that I was entitled to see on time. Elsloo never sent them. 

December 28th of 2017 I blew up and demanded that the documents be immediately given to me. Instead of taking responsibility for HER mistakes Elsloo went on an all out mission to sabotage my relationship with everyone in the office.

Elsloo tauntingly continued to deprive me of all documents that I was completely entitled to. Elsloo lied to Brad Pollock continually about documents that she had sent when in fact she had never sent them. Elsloo lied to Brad about documents that I had answered and returned to him for review.

Marlena Elsloo finally sent them in format that I could not open. I told Brad about his incompetent, defiant lazy and rude paralegal employee to no avail. I Still have not received replacement documents that I can open.

After three years of requesting documents I finally blew up and demanded that I get the documents from his loser paralegal, my patience had run out.  I complained so loudly and demanded that my files be provided to me on time that Brad himself, finally provided them to me on a thumb drive for me.

Depositions in Durango were scheduled to be held for five days and I was entirely entitled to see my file of documents, motions, responses to motions, discovery and interrogatories. When I finally received them, I was forced to review all the documents at the last minute. I had to hyper study nights, days and weekends to get up to speed for the upcoming depositions because they were not provided to me on time. It was burdensome, unethical, unprofessional and abusive to me as a client.

Brad Pollock has also withheld evidence in the case that was presented to him but never given to me until a much later date. 

He deliberately did this to me on regular basis. 

Brad Pollock has failed on numerous times to disclose all relevant facts about my case.

Brad Pollock has made multiple false and misleading statements to me in order to enroll me in fabricating a story that supports his motives and his direction for my case.

Brad Pollock told me that he was flying to Durango for depositions on Friday Feb 18th 2018.

He lied to me and did not leave until early the morning of the 19th  at 5A.M.  The depositions started at 9:00.

It was a 6 hour drive in good weather. He missed the first part of the depositions that morning because he was so late.

He told me to take copious notes, text and email him for him to keep up to speed. His lazy paralegal couldn’t even get on the phone to take notes for him.

Yet he claims he pays her 156,000.00 on my contract and  260,000.00 per year on my nephews contract. (We all know that is an incredible lie.) I dare him to show me that on her W-4 if he wants to dispute it. No paralegal gets paid that kind of money.

That means in a three year period his paralegal of a 100,000.00 per year increase. Does that seem even logical? It a lie.

I am the client paying his legal bill and he degrades and abuses me and treats me like his paralegal even though he makes his money off of his clients, not his paralegal.

Depositions were scheduled in Durango for my case February 19-23, 2018. Brad Pollock told me that he had made travel arrangement to be to the Deposition on time. He said he was leaving on Saturday to be there on Monday.

He failed to show up for the first few hours of the depositions that were being held in regards to my case. Unbelievable.

I was supposed to be conferenced into to the deposition.

I text Brad and called Brad several times in regards to being able to listen to the depositions. He would not resolve the situation.

He could have simply called me on his cell phoneand let me listen on his speaker phone.

My precious little kitty cat was dying and I was not able to attend personally. Brad continually disregarded taking care of the phone situation so that I could be patched in. I ended up having to call attorneys in the area and in Denver and finally had and finally had to contact the opposing attorney to get patched in.

Isn’t that pitiful.

On the third day of depositions. I finally got patched in on a regular basis. All Brad had to do was call me on his cell and I could have listened that way as well. I was In complete agony because my kitty was dying and then I had to deal with this uncaring unethical pompous attorney that literally abandoned his obligations to me as a client.

On Thursday Feb 22 my kitty RoCoCo passed away.

On February 22nd, 2018: Brad sent me an email that said dead cat and broken bottle..  I still have the text if he wants to deny it.

The Plaintiffs in my case made some very serious inaccurate accusations about me that were to be addressed during the depositions. Of course that was a complete lie. Brad never addressed the false accusations. These accusations were defamatory and slanderous in nature and could have been easily defended with accuracy.

Because of the fact that I missed out on much of the deposition testimony I requested a time right after the depositions to be promptly updated.

Brad Pollock said he would call me immediately after the depositions were completed on Friday. Instead he told me that he would just talk to me on Monday. As my supposed attorney,

That is pure sheer evidence that he was asserting improper leverage over me, to satisfy his cover up of abusing me as a client.

He taunted me and said that I was crazy for requesting an overview of the depositions.

He actually told me that he was siding with the defendants.

I told him I was going to do some research on someone that acts crazy and I would promptly become the leading star of a movie

I told him that he would play the dishonest attorney role and I would play the abused client role.

If he wanted to see crazy I would show him crazy in my movie. 

I text him for 6 hours and showed him what crazy was.

The name of the movie was Scum Attorneys Your Clients Are Rebelling.

I reminded him that I knew that he had an affair with one of his paralegals and had in fact cheated on his Mormon wife. I also reminded him of all the times that I witnessed him and Elsloo engaging in in appropriate behavior.

I told him that he was a low life for not being at my deposition on time. I told him that he was trying to strong arm and abuse me as a client.

I called him and his paralegal Mariloosa, and Merry Loser every name under the sun for their unprofessional behavior.

Brad Pollock isa lawyer who fails to return phone calls in a timely manner. He does not place a premium on client service and was not making my matter a priority at urgent times in my case. He does not zealously represent you, he abandons you.

Brad Pollock has a poor attitude and he displays a rude, impatient, condescending, uncommunicative, poor attitude and was extremely difficult to work with. 

Brad failed to respond to my calls as a client inquiring about the progress of the case.  He also did the same to my nephew.

I told Brad about my continual dissatisfaction, and asked for a full explanation of the matter involved. Such a discussion should have eliminated the problem and lead to its solution. However He never addressed the problems and created conflict, tension, and ill-will with his staff, other attorneys, my brother and my nephew.

Brad’s pompous attitude and his Ignorant Idiot Paralegal also Lack a proper calendaring system. A reliable, organized calendaring system is critical to meeting deadlines and prioritizing multiple obligations.

His lack of a proper calendaring led to me having to produce answers to interrogatories in unnecessary timelines and it created other disasters.

After the deposition Brad asked me to advance money for the deposition transcripts and the videos. I asked Brad for all expenses and accompanying receipts. He refused to provide the requested expenses and receipts. He told me if I would give him the go ahead that he would get them to me immediately.

It has been 7 months and he still refuses to provide them…WHAT IS HE HIDING MARKUPS TRUMPED UP FEES?

THESE ARE SOME OF THE OUTRAGEOUS THINGS THAT BRAD POLLOCK HAS DONE TO ME

Brad Pollock would not send me motions responses to motions interrogatories, billing, affidavits, disclosures, ect, to me on a normal consistent basis. 

His paralegal tried to strong arm me into signing 2 affidavits that were 95% wrong. Her name is Marlena Elsiloo. I demanded that Brad look at what she wanted me to sign. I would not sign them until they were right. THEY BOTH then started a bullying campaign across the office. I am not going to sign something that an competent paralegal wanted me to sign. I am not going to have my feet held to the fire based on wrong information.  

Brad denied me access to phone calls with the judge that I was entitled to be in on. Even thought the opposing parties were always allowed to be on the line

I have been asking Brad for a billing statement of expenses along with receipts and invoices for 7 months and he has refused my access to the billing and supporting invoices and receipts. I have reason to believe that he has padded his costs and charged markup fess.

He told me that he would have them to me by last Friday September 14th 2018 and he is still jerking my chain. 

 Brad wanted to have permission to do a settlement offer in September of 2018. I told him that i would not give him permission to settle anything for me until I knew what my expenses and percentage of the costs were. The costs were to be divided between me and my nephew and niece.

Brad has done previous legal work in this case that he is expecting to get paid for per the contingency fee agreement. 

I recently asked him to provide co-counsel with the information and this is what he said.  WHEN I ASK HIM FOR SOMETHING IT IMMEDIATELY BECOMES HARASSMENT TO HIS OFFICE....UNREAL...

He will not assist co-counsel in obtaining an organized file of something that has already been done…Now he wants me and co-counsel to do double work. 

This was his email to me:

 I have not had a chance nor do I intend to make an individual review of these documents so if you believe anything is missing or you cannot figure it out, please make sure you let me know.  

He wants me to be his paralegal again as I have been doing for the last 4 years. I have spent the majority of  weekends and multiple weekdays since January 1st2018. I have to read all depositions and discovery and then inform Brad of all pertinent issues. Of course that he takes later credit for my work for himself.  

His lazy paralegal should be doing this. There is the reason why Brad won’t make her do her job.  Brad had an affair several years ago with his paralegal and divorced his wife because of it.

I have seen behavior with Brad and Marlena that is unprofessional and is an indicator of an another inappropriate affair with a paralegal.

That is why he won’t make her do her job. This affair is going to be very expensive for him.  He can allow Marlena not to do her job however i am charging him for all the work that he dumps on me.

Because of the fact that I am a highly intelligent business person, I have to do all the detailed research work in my case and inform and update him consistently, I am not working on my case as an assistant/client for nothing.

I am charging him 490.00 per hour and 290.00 per hour for any associate that I enroll to assist me.

I will deduct my fees from the contingency agreement that I have with him.

He was late to depositions in Durango. 

My little kitty died during that week of depositions. He sent me a text that said Dead Cat and Broken Bottles. 

I have screen shot it if you want to see it for yourselves. This is the most disgusting behavior that I have ever witnessed from an attorney all to get his game on with his paralegal.

He sent my deposition into the court without my approval. I should have been able to go over it with him before he sent it in. I have literally had to badger him just to get what I am entitled to as a client.

Now because I brought on co-counsel he is ramping up his abuse to me. 

It has been 7 months and he still refuses to provide them…WHAT IS HE HIDING MARKUPS TRUMPED UP FEES?

ATTORNEYS ARE FIDUCIARY AGENTS AND SHOULD NOT TREAT A CLIENT’S INTEREST AS INFERIOR TO HIS OWN BECAUSE THOSE AGENTS HAVE AN ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY TO PUT THEIR CLIENTS FIRST.

An agreement between an attorney and a client isn’t like an agreement between two equals the client has taken the attorney into his or her confidence; the client has likely disclosed his or her confidential information and economic circumstances to the attorney; the client is entitled to rely on the attorney to respect the client’s best interests.

Preventing lawyers from taking (for instance) half the value of their clients’ lawsuits for themselves is a consumer protection measure that blocks self-dealing: it’s a method of enforcing ethical rules against lawyers who behave unscrupulously.  

The attorney-client relationship has consequences: clients believe that they can tell their attorney things in confidence, and can rely on the attorney for disinterested advice, because they have been told that the attorney will respect and advance the client’s interests.

An unscrupulous attorney’s departure from professional ethics shouldn’t be honored such as improperly not showing up for ALL of the depositions.

Lawyers intimidate. The power to intimidate, in most cases carefully disguised, is a key part of a lawyer's armoury.

But from a customer point of view, that veiled sense of power, carries the threat when it is turned against us.

That threat is one of the central reasons why lawyers have been so slow to adapt their practice to modern customer demands.

The sense of powerlessness and yes fear, which lawyers engender in their clients, means that they choke off a key element of customer feedback: complaints o requests.

Lawyers need to remember is that good complaints handling is good for business. In law, it remains the case that most clients come via personal recommendation and keeping customers happy is essential to future income. But the choice of words had been a deliberate symbol of the change which our arrival signaled.

The term "client" embodies the traditional view of the relationship between lawyers and those they represent: one of unequal power and status.

But the notion of customer turns this relationship on its head. In most businesses, customer is king. It is the customer who has the power, who can pick and choose what services to buy and from what provider. In a normal free market, it would be the lawyers who compete for patronage, rather than bestow it.

But those are not the traditions of the law and, protected by their social status, political power and deliberately obfuscatory language, lawyers have hitherto been able to ignore the notion of customer service.

But the bulwarks of legal tradition are crumbling as the market changes, and lawyers are being forced to face the possibility that their habitual view of how they go about their daily work may have to go a fundamental change. Those who adapt to the market, it appears, will survive; those who cannot may be doomed to disappear.

        WAYS ATTORNEYS RIP OFF CLIENTS:

.Billing multiple clients for the same time

ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL BILL PADDING AND OTHER BILLING ISSUES

Evaluate the process by which the fee bill was prepared and the specificity of the time entries

Evaluate the process by which the fee bill was prepared

Evaluate the specificity of the time entries

Evaluate the staffing used on the matter

Did multiple lawyers work on the same task simultaneously?

Was the task performed by the proper lawyer/person?

Evaluate some or all of the work produced against the hours claimed

Consider the format and content of the fee bills

High minimum increments

Block billing

Standardized work descriptions and lack of detail

Wrong times

Timeliness of invoices

Experts and outside investigators

Overhead items

Paralegals

Canned Briefs-Recycled Work

Billing multiple clients for the same time

Ghost Billing

Contract Attorneys

COURTS HAVE INVALIDATED MANY METHODS OF ATTORNEY BILLING IN RECENT YEARS.

While most of these fees are collected by ethical attorneys providing valuable, efficient services to their clients, many fees are paid after incompetent lawyering, purposeful padding of bills, ethical violations, or improperly.

SOME EXAMPLES OF BILLING PRACTICES OFTEN FOUND TO BE IMPROPER:

• Overhead, administrative charges, and clerical services.
• Unless specified in the retainer agreement or other agreement, you should not have hourly charges for non-legal personnel such as photocopy operators, secretaries, messengers, librarians or receptionists.
• Nor should you be paying for heating, air conditioning or word processing;
• Time spent on billing and collections. For example, if you call your lawyer to discuss your bill, and you see that call reflected on your next bill;
• Bills that have not been itemized to reflect services rendered. If you are being billed by the hour, you have a right to a bill that shows what your lawyer was doing, and when he was doing it;
• Excessive time to complete a task. While this can be subjective, courts have not hesitated to use their legal expertise to declare work on a given matter to be excessive;
• Excessive staffing of a case or transaction. From a law firm’s perspective, the more people billing, the better. Courts may evaluate a matter and determine whether the staffing was reasonable or excessive;
• Not enough delegation. Where a senior partner is billing at sky-high rates but spending a lot of time on routine legal work, such as preparing filings or reviewing documents, a Court may find that the bill is allowable, but at a lower rate;
• Evidence of double-billing. This is where a lawyer bills two or more clients for the same effort;
• Unannounced hourly rate increases;
• Time spent on training new lawyers, or lawyers unfamiliar with a certain field of law; and

Undisclosed mark-ups on “contract” or “temp” lawyers hired by the law firm.

• Lawyers will often threaten to withdraw from a case or Quit Representing You Because Of A Fee Dispute.
• Lawyers do not have an automatic right to stop representing a client in the event of a fee dispute.
• A lawyer is ordinarily not permitted to profit from unethical conduct that harms his client.
• This provides another ground for potentially challenging legal fees, even where the lawyer’s fees are otherwise reasonable. If the ethical transgression is slight or not related to the fees charged to the client, courts are less likely to order a forfeiture of fees.
• Double billing: Almost a third of lawyers occasionally bill two clients for the same work,
• Billing two clients for the same hour of work is dubious legally and ethically. That doesn't mean it's uncommon.

A STEADY STREAM OF STATE AND FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS IN RECENT YEARS HAVE INVALIDATED CERTAIN BILLING PRACTICES THAT ARE STILL RELATIVELY COMMON.

AS A CLIENT QUESTIONING THE PROPRIETY OF YOUR BILLS, ASK YOURSELF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

• Did my lawyer lie to me at any point in the representation?
• Did my lawyer fail to explain how this matter would be billed?
• Did my lawyer reveal any confidential information to third parties without my consent?
• Was my lawyer conflicted in any way from providing me with appropriate representation?
• Did my lawyer disobey any of my lawful instructions (not including disagreements which were discussed and resolved)?
• Did my lawyer treat advance or retainer payments as his own funds, or otherwise misappropriate my property?
• Was my lawyer incompetent in his performance of legal services? 

LEGAL FEES THINGS THAT YOUR ATTORNEY DOES NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW

• Lawyers have form agreements that clients typically sign with little or no explanation, much less negotiation.
• Diligence In Reviewing A Bill Can Reveal attorney padding of costs.
• Clients are best served by addressing padding fees sooner rather than later.
• Good and honest lawyers will explain why your accounting invoice says what it says.

ARBITRATION ADVISORY 2016-02 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL BILL PADDING AND OTHER BILLING ISSUES Replaces and Supersedes Arbitration Advisory 2003-01 March 25, 2016 QUESTION PRESENTED When a lawyer’s fee bill overstates the amount of time spent for work performed, it is called “bill padding.” If a client alleges that a lawyer’s bills are not accurate or truthful, how can an arbitrator assess the evidence, including the fee bills, for possible bill padding? This advisory explores the question of how an arbitrator may assess the evidence to identify bill padding. 1 1 INTRODUCTION Most hourly fee bills are a collection of time entries itemizing work performed in the privacy of a lawyer’s office. Therefore, it is difficult to verify the accuracy of the time entries. Accordingly, arbitrators should do at least four things: A. Evaluate the process by which the fee bill was prepared and the specificity of the time entries; B. Evaluate the staffing used on the matter; C. Evaluate the work performed against the time billed, and D. Look for certain patterns in the descriptions of the work performed, including the time entries. DISCUSSION 1 Rules and observations about determining reasonable attorney’s fees in general are addressed in other Arbitration Advisories. This advisory focuses on a subset of that topic: when too much time is alleged to have been recorded for the individual units of work performed. In the event that an arbitrator encounters bill padding, he/she may refer to our other arbitration advisories for assistance in determining an appropriate charge under the circumstances. Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the Committee on Mandatory Fee Arbitration. They have not been adopted or endorsed by the State Bar’s Board of Trustees and do not constitute the official position or policy of the State Bar of California. A. Evaluate the process by which the fee bill was prepared and the specificity of the time entries In order to understand the likely areas to look for bill padding, it is useful to consider the historical background of professional fees charged by a lawyer [See American Bar Association Commission on Billable Hours Report (August, 2002), referred to hereinafter as “ABA Report” (See abanet.org)]. Prior to the 1960s, the majority of lawyers billed clients in flat sums or fixed amounts - often at the conclusion of the matter. This required some estimating and discretion on the part of the lawyer. A lawyer’s fee bill often read something like this: “Fee for services rendered, $ 750.00.” Clients sometimes paid their bills six months or a year after receipt of the fee bill, which reflected services performed long before the fee bill was even sent. In Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002), the Supreme Court wrote: 2 “. . . . An American Bar Association (ABA) report, published in 1958, observed that attorneys’ earnings had failed to keep pace with the rate of inflation; the report urged attorneys to record the hours spent on each case in order to ensure that fees ultimately charged afforded reasonable compensation for counsels’ efforts. (citation omitted). Hourly records initially provided only an internal accounting check. See Honest Hour 19. The fees actually charged might be determined under any number of methods: the annual retainer, the fee-for-service method, the “eyeball” method under which the attorney estimated an annual fee for regular clients, or the contingent-fee method, recognized by this Court in Stanton v. Embrey, 93 U. S. 548, 556 (1877), and formally approved by the ABA in 1908. See Honest Hour [W. Ross, The Honest Hour: The Ethics of Time-Based Billing by Attorneys (1996),13-19]. As it became standard accounting practice to record hours spent on a client’s matter, attorneys increasingly realized that billing by hours devoted to a case was administratively convenient; moreover, as an objective measure of a lawyer’s labor, hourly billing was readily impartable to the client. Id., at 18. By the early 1970’s, the practice of hourly billing had become widespread. See id., at 19, 21.” 1. Evaluate the process by which the fee bill was prepared In the now-standard chronological fee bill used by lawyers, almost all time is (or should be) itemized by day and by timekeeper. If a lawyer or other timekeeper does several things in one day on a particular matter then he or she must decide how to best describe this work and how much time to record for that work. An arbitrator’s review of fee bills should include an assessment of the method and timing used to prepare the bills in order to form an understanding regarding the accuracy of the data shown by the fee bills. Some lawyers still use word processing programs to generate fee bills. Others use specialized billing software programs. Many billing software programs in use today have a timer feature that allows the user to input “start” and “stop” commands for one or more matters. The billing software program then automatically calculates the elapsed time for each task in the same manner as a stopwatch. If the evidence at the arbitration reveals that lawyers properly utilized the timer feature that is a factor tending toward accuracy. While it is almost universally acknowledged that contemporaneous records are the best practice, many times the press of business is such that a day or two (or more) passes without the lawyer recording his/her time. Sometimes a month may pass without any entries. In rare cases, a year or more may pass before a lawyer goes through his/her case file and attempts to re-create what transpired in the case since its inception. It is generally at the point when a fee bill needs to be generated that the lawyer is faced with the need to reconstruct what happened a day or two or a month ago (or a year ago) with great precision. If the lawyer is able to prepare the fee bills using information from notes he/she made contemporaneous with the tasks actually performed, that is a factor tending towards accuracy. But if the reconstruction is done by the lawyer going through his or her file and then ascribing a time entry to each e-mail, letter, document and calendar entry in the file, then it is much less likely that the time entries are truly accurate. While the corresponding fee bills may appear to be very precise, with exact times noted for each specific and itemized activity, the appearance of accuracy may be deceptive and the time recorded should be assessed by the arbitrator. Under such circumstances, it may be appropriate to put the burden of providing evidence/facts to support the accuracy of the time entries onto the lawyer. The arbitrator should also examine who recorded the entries and created the fee bills. The original time entries are generally recorded by the lawyer or other person who performed the task. However, in some firms, a support person, such as a secretary, paralegal, or billing clerk, records the time entries ultimately charged to the client. Variations for this practice abound. In some firms, lawyers hand-write their entries on paper and some other person inputs them in the billing software. In other firms, a billing clerk may go through the case file on a periodic basis and record a time entry for every scrap of paper in that file. For instance, if the file contains a letter from opposing counsel, the billing clerk may charge the client an agreed-upon minimum charge irrespective of whether the lawyer actually reviewed that letter and how long it took. Suffice it to say, the arbitrator may consider evidence of who actually recorded the time entries [and when they were recorded] to assess the accuracy of the corresponding fee bills. It is customary for larger law firms to have a draft of the fee bill, commonly referred to as a “pre-bill,” reviewed by the partner or lawyer in charge of billing on the matter. The billing partner may not have actually worked on the file, but is otherwise in control of the relationship with the client. If pre-bills are utilized, the billing partner should scrutinize and edit the time entries in the “pre-bills” to ensure that they are accurate. The recorded time entries may be increased or decreased in an exercise called “billing judgment” by the billing partner. However, any evidence that the pre-bills were adjusted upwards should be examined carefully, as it may indicate that the client is being charged more time than actually expended by his/her lawyer. Absent clearly defined and explained terms in the written fee agreement allowing such upward adjustments, the increased time may be evidence of bill padding. For example, 3 increasing a time entry to a contractually agreed-upon minimum charge may be appropriate, as would an increase to reflect time inadvertently omitted by the lawyer. On the other hand, increasing a time charge for the sake of inflating the fee bill is not. If an arbitrator encounters such circumstances, the lawyer should bear the burden to clarify and substantiate such increased time entries. The pre-bills may not be carefully reviewed by the billing partner for a number of reasons, including the fact that most billing partners are very busy and do not have or want to allocate the time to check each pre-bill carefully, the entries may be for a lawyer who is not readily available, or the billing partner may have a huge stack of pre-bills to go through and only a short time to do so since the firm wants to “get the bills out”. Consequently, arbitrators should consider facts and evidence concerning the pre-bill process, including whether the lawyer(s) that actually worked on the matter also verified the accuracy of the fee bills, and whether the pre-bill process increased or decreased the accuracy and transparency of the fee bills ultimately delivered to the client for payment. 2. Evaluate the specificity of the time entries Many lawyers no longer physically handwrite what they do on paper time-sheets but contemporaneously input a description of their tasks directly into their computers. These types of entries can usually be identified because they are often longer and more detailed. For example, if a fee bill reads: “meeting with client to discuss the elements of the separate statement of facts and the source of evidence for each element (1.8); research new opinion on the presumptions and burden of proof under Festo and progeny (2.5)” [Example 1], this is likely (but 4 not necessarily) something directly inputted into the billing software program by the lawyer. On the other hand, the briefer description for the same work of: “meeting with client re MSJ and research burden of proof (4.3)” [Example 2] is probably something initially written in longhand and then later inputted into the billing software program. Arbitrators should be aware that regardless of the method of time keeping or billing used, it is not the format of the fee bill but the information provided which is important. Accordingly, the arbitrator’s primary focus should be on analyzing those facts that tend to demonstrate the accuracy, or inaccuracy, of the information contained in the fee bills. When examining the fee bills it is very important to remember that in the vast majority of cases each time entry in a fee bill is merely an estimate of how much time was required for the task performed that is being described in a summary fashion. Therefore, the longer the time period between when the task was performed and the corresponding time entry is recorded, the greater the probability that the time entry may lack accuracy. If, in Example 1 above, the client is certain that the meeting required only 30 minutes (with no travel time), then perhaps one could question the entry of 1.8 hours. But how can one prove that the time for, say, a specific letter was really 12 minutes rather than 30?2 If the time is 2 It is just about impossible to be certain that any one single time entry is wrong or faked or padded. “The ‘perfect crime’ [is the] padding of bills…” [William G. Ross, The Honest Hour: The Ethics of Time Based Billing by Attorneys (1996)]. block-billed and one does not even know how much time is being claimed for the letter, then what? In such cases, look at the totality of the evidence. B. Evaluate the staffing used on the matter The staffing of a legal matter by a lawyer presents the potential for bill padding that an arbitrator may consider. The main staffing issues that should be assessed include: (1) Did multiple lawyers work on the same task simultaneously? and (2) Was the task performed by the proper lawyer? 1. Did multiple lawyers work on the same task simultaneously? A recurring complaint by clients concerns charges for tasks involving more than one lawyer, paralegal, or support staff from the same firm at the same time. This typically occurs when a client is charged for multiple lawyers attending a court hearing or deposition, or where two or more lawyers participate in a meeting or telephone call. Generally, the determination of whether the matter was overstaffed is a question of fact the arbitrator must resolve. In a mandatory fee arbitration it is appropriate to place the burden of proof on the lawyer to demonstrate that the disputed matters/tasks were properly staffed and not attempts to inflate time charged to a client. Issues that may affect this factual determination may include the complexity or significance of the case, the litigious nature of the parties, the amount in controversy, client consultation in advance, the client’s awareness and lack of objection, or any other fact tending to demonstrate whether it was appropriate for more than one lawyer or support staff to participate in a disputed task. In some firms, newly admitted lawyers sometimes accompany their supervising lawyer to depositions or court hearings for training purposes. In most instances, the client should not be charged solely for training time. It is also generally accepted that the more timekeepers on a case, the higher the bill will be. Pay particular attention to time recorded by newer associates who record time on the matter only briefly, such as one or two months, particularly if accompanied by entries reflecting the associate recorded “get up to speed” activities, such as “review file.” Such entries by a transient biller may not be an appropriate charge/expense to impose on a client. 2. Was the task performed by the proper lawyer/person? In some cases, a client may complain that some necessary task was performed by a senior lawyer charging a much higher hourly rate, when it could have been completed by a cheaper associate or support staff. For instance, in a commercial real estate lease dispute, the firm’s main real estate partner, charging $700.00-plus per hour, personally drives to the commercial site to deliver the keys to the complaining landlord. Even assuming that it was necessary for a licensed lawyer to deliver the keys, the issue becomes why it was done by the most expensive lawyer in the firm. Was it because some circumstance actually required that specific high-priced lawyer to undertake that task, or was it an inadvertent or intentional attempt to pad the client’s bill. The 5 client may also challenge delegation of tasks to inexperienced lawyers/staff with resulting inefficiencies. In examining such complaints, arbitrators should consider all of the circumstances relevant to the issue, as well as the custom in the community and the terms of the written fee agreement. C. Evaluate some or all of the work produced against the hours claimed Arbitrators may consider evidence and facts concerning the actual tasks/work performed by the lawyer, including an analysis of the major items of work performed. How many hours were recorded for this work? How many timekeepers were involved? What did they do? Did they duplicate each other’s work? Was some of this “training” time for new lawyers? 6 3 Major tasks. It may be appropriate for an arbitrator to review and assess the fee bills to determine how much cumulative time was recorded by the lawyer [or lawyers] to complete a major task. Major tasks may include specific motions, appellate briefs, and transactional documents. An arbitrator may need to quantify the cumulative time first. This task will require the arbitrator to go through the fee bills and essentially group separate billing entries. For example, an arbitrator may have to group all of the entries that refer to the preparation of a specific document, like a demurrer. The arbitrator would then cumulate all of the billing entries referring to or concerning the demurrer, including the review of the complaint and file, conducting legal research, telephone conferences and other communications regarding the demurrer or the sufficiency of the complaint, and then the time entries for the drafting, revising and finalizing and filing the demurrer. Once the cumulative time to complete a major task is obtained, then the arbitrator may look at the actual work product [or demurrer in foregoing example] to see if the time falls into a range that appears reasonable. This can be hard to do without some experience in the particular legal area involved. But, in the above example, if the fee bills reveal that a lawyer recorded 25- plus hours to research, draft, and file the demurrer, the arbitrator should review the actual demurrer to determine if the time recorded is reasonable. If the evidence reveals that the demurrer is a four page boilerplate document attacking the sufficiency of a fraud claim lacking specificity, then the arbitrator may put the burden on the lawyer to explain why it took so long to prepare such a simple document. On the other hand, if the evidence reveals a 20-page masterpiece artfully advocating novel concepts of law, then that may be evidence tending towards accuracy and reasonableness. While a times-by-task assessment can be hard to assemble, sometimes the fee bills themselves will have guides to that information within them if the lawyer or law firm utilizes 3 Arbitrators may also consider whether the client was given an estimate or a budget. An “estimate” is not binding. On the other hand, a budget typically involves a more detailed forecast and is supposed to be reasonably accurate (subject to disclosed caveats and assumptions). Moreover, a budget should be revised if circumstances change and the client should be promptly notified of the revision(s). Accordingly, if an estimate or budget was given, it may be reviewed to determine whether the disputed tasks were contemplated and explained to the client. task-based billing codes like the “Uniform Task-Based Management System” published by the American Bar Association (ABA Task Codes). 7 4 Task-based billing codes are in fairly wide use but are not standard and there is some debate over their usefulness. For example, one may know that certain hours were recorded for “L240 - Motions For Judgment” but not how many hours were shown for a specific Motion for Summary Adjudication. Where such codes are not used, the arbitrator may wish to ask the lawyer to provide evidence of the cumulative time expended on major tasks. For instance, in Example 1 on page 4, Section A(2) supra, assuming that the lawyer utilized the ABA Task Codes, the time billed for meeting with the client to prepare the statement of facts would show the codes “L240” / “A106” in or right after the descriptions of the activities and the totals for these things would (or could) appear on the bill. Once the ABA Task Codes key is in hand, this will help to break down the time and fees into broad tasks, which may be useful information. Once it is known that a motion for summary judgment required many hours of several timekeepers’ time, an arbitrator can then come to a conclusion or ask for an explanation of whether or not the time spent on this particular task is reasonable. Documents. There often is a good deal of time shown for “reviewing documents” (“L320 - Document Production”) in many litigation matters. First, ascertain how many document pages were produced or reviewed. This is sometimes stated in terms of “boxes” which is a standard file storage box normally holding anywhere from 2,000 to 3,500 pages of documents, depending on how tightly the documents are packed. Some courts and commentators mention 2,500 as the average number of pages per box. Assess how many timekeepers reviewed the documents and how long it took. Were summaries of the document reviews created? Were relevant documents culled? Were relevant documents scanned and tagged? If the foregoing tasks were not done, did it then result in multiple lawyers having to review the same documents? Arbitrators must assess all evidence and facts regarding whether the lawyer’s document review was efficient and judicious rather than inadvertent or intentional bill padding. Also, the propriety of tasks must be considered within the context performed. For instance, it may be entirely reasonable for a lawyer to charge a client eight-plus hours to carefully review a 100-page prospectus in a federal securities case involving claims of securities fraud and misrepresentation. On the other hand, it may not be appropriate for a lawyer to charge a client eight-plus hours to review the same 100-page prospectus if the claims in the subject lawsuit are unrelated to the contents of the prospectus [like the wrongful termination of a broker or analyst involved in the securities offering]. Lastly, the arbitrator may consider evidence or facts concerning the timeliness of the client’s objection or complaint concerning any fee bill, including when and if the client objected or made inquiries upon receiving the now contested fee bill, and whether the fee agreement 4 The ABA Task Codes assign litigation time within five groups: case assessment, pre-trial, discovery, trial and appeal. There are also 11 optional Activities Codes (such as “A106 - Communication (with client)” which may be used within each of the five groups in the Litigation Code Set. The various ABA Task Codes may be accessed at americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/uniform_task_based_management_system.htm l contained an agreement that the client would reasonably or promptly notify the lawyer if there were questions or objections to the fee bills or time entries. D. Consider the format and content of the fee bills 1. High minimum increments Many fee agreements state that the lawyer shall bill in minimum increments of .10 hour [or six minutes]. When properly disclosed to a client, such a term may provide support or justify charging that client at least .10 hour for any single task irrespective of how long the task took. Consequently, if the lawyer participates in a phone call regarding the case with opposing counsel that lasts less than two or three minutes, pursuant to the terms of the written fee agreement, the lawyer may be justified in billing .10 hour. On the other hand, some lawyers still bill in minimum increments of .25 hours or greater. Consequently, they may charge .25 hours for any compensable task, irrespective of how long the task actually takes. Assume that such a lawyer charges $300/hour. Assume further that on any given day, that lawyer completes at least four separate compensable tasks, each task taking less than 3 minutes each to complete. Billing in increments of .25 hours means that the client would be billed $300 for the four tasks [4 x .25 hours x $300/hour = $300]. However, in this example, the client is being charged $300 for less than 12 minutes of actual work, essentially requiring the client to pay an effective hourly rate greater than $1,500. Courts and fee arbitrators view high incremental charges with suspicion as they may constitute an unreasonable or unconscionable fee, particularly where application of high incremental charges results in overstating the fees owed by a client. Your Bill: A Behind the Scene look at a Legal Audit, Mekler Bulger Tilson Marick & Pearson Legal Audit Group, 1, 2 (March 2007) (high incremental charges artificially inflate fees). Relevant factors an arbitrator may consider in this regard include the terms of the written fee agreement, the frequency with which apparent minimum billing entries appeared on the bills, and whether there is evidence that the lawyer was judicious in not employing the high minimum billing entries for brief activities either by (1) not recording such activities, (2) aggregating them with other related activities, or (3) “no charged” the entry. 2. Billing all tasks separately Like high minimum increments, billing every task separately may artificially inflate time entries. For example, it does not take more than a few seconds to read most routine documents or correspondence. If a lawyer reads a group of documents or correspondence in a minute or two and then records a minimum time entry for each such document/correspondence, this may artificially increase the time billed to the client. 3. Large whole number time entries If the bills show time entries in whole numbers, especially large time entries such as 8.0, 9.0, or 10.0, these are probably estimates rather than actual time spent and should be scrutinized, 8 [except where the event involved trial, mediation, day-long deposition, or other inherently extended activity]. 4. Block billing Block billing is the practice of assigning one time charge to multiple separate tasks. An extreme example would be a fee bill mailed to a client at the end of the case with a single entry for 200 hours for “work on case” without identifying, among other things, the various individual tasks performed, who performed them, and when. A more subtle example would be a 3.6 hour charge for “review client’s e-mail, retrieve file, call with DR re same, and prepare/send reply.” In the foregoing example, a client would be unable to determine how much time any one of the listed tasks actually took. More importantly, this type of block billing is prone to hide accountability and prevents a client from discerning which of the listed tasks are compensable and which are not. For instance, in the foregoing example, what if the lawyer [charging $300/hour] decided to personally make a 3-hour drive to and from an off-site storage facility to retrieve the file rather than sending his secretary [whom he pays $15/hour]? In such an instance, the itemized tasks actually took the lawyer 3.6 hours to complete, but in most instances, the 3 hours the lawyer spent retrieving the file may not be compensable. By utilizing block-billing, the client’s [and arbitrator’s] ability to assess the accuracy [and propriety] of the 3.6 hour charge is impeded. Block billing may also inadvertently or intentionally inflate the actual time a lawyer takes to complete the listed tasks. For example, if a lawyer bills a client 8.0 hours on a given day to “prepare for trial,” that block of time would most likely include, among other things, time for coffee and restroom breaks, personal calls and non-compensable administrative/managerial tasks. Since block billing has the potential of, among other things, camouflaging noncompensable tasks, many judges, fee arbitrators, and commentators regard its persistent and egregious use with suspicion, and some consider the practice a violation of Business and Profession Code §6148(b). The basic rule is that courts [and arbitrators] have wide discretion to require additional evidence to support the accuracy of block-billed entries. In a mandatory fee arbitration, it is the lawyer’s burden to provide such additional support, which may include testimony and documentary evidence. After consideration of such additional support, or lack thereof, arbitrators may assign a reasonable percentage to the block billed entries, disregard them altogether, or determine that other evidence is sufficient to substantiate the hours aside from the block billed entries. The court in Heritage Pacific Financial v. Monroy, (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 1010 held “trial courts retain discretion to penalize block billing when the practice prevents them from discerning which tasks are compensable and which are not.” Previously, the court in Bell v. Vista Unified School Dist., (2001) 82 Cal.App.4th 672, 689, held that “the trial court should exercise its discretion in assigning a reasonable percentage to the entries, or simply cast them aside” if counsel “cannot further define his billing entries ….” In a much harsher tone, the court in Christian Research Institute v. Alnor, (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1329 held: Similarly, counsel may not submit a plethora of noncompensable, vague, blockbilled attorney time entries and expect particularized, individual deletions as the 9 only consequence. The trial court could reasonably conclude counsel made no effort to prune the fee request to comply with the law. Counsel erred grievously by attempting to transfer that responsibility onto the trial court. The trial court could reasonably conclude counsel's disregard for the law undercut the credibility of their fee request and, as officers of the court, warranted a severe reaction. If a lawyer uses block-billing, it may be appropriate for the arbitrator to place on the lawyer the burden of proving that all of the time entries that were block billed are actually compensable and appropriate. In our prior version of this arbitration advisory titled “Detecting Attorney Bill Padding” (Arbitration Advisory 2003-01)(January 29, 2003), at section C 4 on page 7, the State Bar’s Committee on Mandatory Fee Arbitration [“Committee”] opined that block billing “hides accountability and may increase time by 10% to 30%.” However, the arbitrator’s discretion is not limited to the 10% to 30% range. Rather, as noted above, an arbitrator may consider all evidence to determine the propriety of any block billed entry and may conclude, upon due consideration of all such evidence, that the entire time billed is appropriate or some portion is not. 5. Standardized work descriptions and lack of detail If an arbitrator encounters the exact same phrases used again and again in the fee bills, it is likely that some routine has set in. This may allow some “down time” to find its way into the fee bills. An entry such as “review documents produced by opposition, 7.5 hours” is typical. Furthermore, generalized time entries such as “research issues”, “review file”, “attention to file”, “discovery”, “prepare for trial”, “trial prep”, and other similar general statements are not specific enough to let the client know what was done. If a lawyer uses such non-specific task descriptions, it may be appropriate for the arbitrator to place on the lawyer the burden of clarifying what was actually done to assess whether the generalized time entries are actually compensable and appropriate. 6. Wrong times Sometimes a client knows that a specific task took less time than was billed. For example, a lawyer charges four hours to attend a deposition in his office, but the corresponding deposition transcript confirms that the deposition started at 10 am and finished at 11 am. A fee bill may charge a client for the lawyer attending an in-person meeting with the client in his Los Angeles office, but the client was out of the country on that day. The lawyer may charge an hour to prepare a letter to the client, but cannot produce the letter at the arbitration. In each instance, the arbitrator should examine all of the evidence presented by the parties to determine whether the disputed task was actually performed and if so, that it took the time recorded in the fee bills. Demonstrably false or inaccurate entries, unless explained, may justify the arbitrator viewing with distrust other disputed billings or time entries. 10 7. Timeliness of invoices As noted above, if too much time has elapsed between the disputed task and generating the fee bill, the times shown might be estimates or best guesses of the time involved. On the other hand, it is possible that the timekeeper recorded his or her time contemporaneously but did not generate the fee bill for some reason. The lawyer should clarify why the fee bills were not timely delivered. The arbitrator may also examine the fee agreement to determine if the lawyer committed to delivering periodic billing, and other factors such as (1) whether delayed billing came during a period of substantial activity, (2) whether the fee bill was a surprise to the client, (3) whether the claimed fee exceeds estimates or budgets, and (4) whether there were legitimate reasons that prevented the lawyer from timely delivering a fee bill to the client. 8. Experts and outside investigators Lawyers sometimes retain expert witnesses, consultants, investigators and other thirdparty professionals to assist a client. These third-party professionals typically forward their bills to the lawyer for payment. Sometimes the lawyer pays such third party bills directly and then subsequently sends the client an invoice for the advanced costs. Other times, the lawyer forwards the third party bill directly to the client for payment. Whatever the process used, it is imperative that such third party bills state what was done with adequate detail to allow a client to decipher what was done and how much is being charged. If the lawyer advanced payment for such third party bills, representations and proof that these charges were actually paid should also be produced. 9. Overhead items A lawyer’s hourly fee should include consideration for overhead items like rent, support staff wages, telephone service, internet fees, office supplies, library charges, seminars, continuing legal education charges, malpractice insurance and a whole host of expenses a lawyer will incur every day to keep his/her practice operating. Consideration for such expenses explains why lawyers in located in urban cities, like downtown Los Angeles and San Francisco, may generally charge higher hourly rates than their colleagues who rent much less expensive office space in the suburbs and outlying farming communities. Since overhead expenses are a cost of doing business, and should be reflected in the professionals’ hourly rates, they should not be passed on to the client unless the client has clearly agreed otherwise in the fee agreement. (See American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Opinion 93-379, Billing for Professional Fees, Disbursements, and Other Expenses, (December 6, 1993). 10. Ministerial, administrative and secretarial tasks As noted above, a lawyer’s hourly fee should include consideration for support staff wages. Accordingly, it may be inappropriate to allow a lawyer to also charge a client his/her hourly rate for doing secretarial work. For instance, the vast majority of lawyers are able to prepare judicial form interrogatories in less than 5-10 minutes. Their assistants or secretaries then prepare the actual hard document, prepare and attach the proof of service, generate the 11 stamped envelope and then serves it on the opposing party. Typically, the only service the client should be charged for is the lawyer’s 5-10 minutes to determine what boxes to check off on the form interrogatories. But arbitrators will inevitably encounter situations where the lawyer also charges the client the time spent preparing the proof of service and mailing. It is not uncommon to encounter fee bills that charge clients up to an hour for a simple task like preparing and serving form interrogatories. Arbitrators will also encounter situations where lawyers personally type their own correspondence, motions and other documents. This is typically not a problem, unless of course, the lawyer can only type 10-20 word a minute. In such circumstances, the arbitrator should consider the lawyer’s typing proficiency, whether support staff is available for such tasks, and whether the hourly fee agreed-upon by the client includes consideration of support staff wages. Also, operating a law practice requires substantial efforts on the part of the lawyers wholly unrelated to representing clients. This includes dozens of administrative, managerial, and ministerial tasks lawyers must perform every day. In the vast majority of cases, it is inappropriate to seek to charge a client for such non-legal tasks. 11. Paralegals The use of paralegals and unlicensed legal assistants is wide-spread and completely appropriate if disclosed to the client. Guideline 8 of the 2004 update of the ABA Model Guidelines for the Utilization of Paralegal Services states that: "A lawyer may include a charge for the work performed by a paralegal in setting a charge and/or billing for legal services." Courts have addressed and accepted the theory that paralegal fees are appropriately billed and recovered by lawyers under various prevailing party attorney fee recovery statutes. Missouri v. Jenkins (1989) 491 U.S. 274; Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff (2008) 553 U.S. 571; and Guinn v. Dotson (1994) 23 Cal. App. 4th 262. In California, paralegal fees are only compensable if in total compliance with Business and Profession Code §6450. This requires that the paralegal actually qualifies as a paralegal and the type of work/tasks he/she purports to perform is compensable. Surprisingly, many lawyers do not realize that some tasks performed by a paralegal are not compensable. The test to determine whether a task performed by a paralegal is compensable is not predicated on the person that performs it, but rather on the nature of the task itself. Business and Profession Code §6450 (a) states: (a) "Paralegal" means a person who holds himself or herself out to be a paralegal, who is qualified by education, training, or work experience, who either contracts with or is employed by an attorney, law firm, corporation, governmental agency, or other entity, and who performs substantial legal work under the direction and supervision of an active member of the State Bar of California, as defined in Section 6060, or an attorney practicing law in the federal courts of this state, that has been specifically delegated by the attorney to him or her. Tasks performed by a paralegal include, but are not limited to, case planning, development, and management; legal research; interviewing clients; fact gathering and retrieving information; drafting and analyzing legal 12 documents; collecting, compiling, and utilizing technical information to make an independent decision and recommendation to the supervising attorney; and representing clients before a state or federal administrative agency if that representation is permitted by statute, court rule, or administrative rule or regulation. (Emphasis added). Furthermore, Business and Profession Code §6454 states that the "terms "paralegal," "legal assistant," "attorney assistant," "freelance paralegal," "independent paralegal," and "contract paralegal" are synonymous for purposes of this chapter. Consequently, billing a client for a paralegal or legal assistant’s ministerial, administrative, or secretarial duties may be improper, particularly if not disclosed in the fee agreement and explained to the client. However, even if the lawyer disclosed the use of a paralegal or unlicensed legal assistant for ministerial, administrative or secretarial tasks in the fee agreement, the arbitrator may assess whether the consequent fees agreed upon were unconscionable at the time the fee agreement was entered into pursuant to Rule 4-200 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Lastly, it is imperative to remember that it is improper for a paralegal to establish the fees charged to the client for the paralegal’s services. Business and Professions Code §6450 (b)(8). This prohibition may prove to be a minefield for lawyers utilizing their paralegals to act as calendar clerks, office managers, supervisors or administrators who control and prepare the lawyer’s/firm’s fee bills. 12. Canned Briefs-Recycled Work Even newly admitted lawyers have access to a library or cache of canned briefs and template documents they may utilize in their practice. These include, but are not limited to, canned or standardized pleadings, motions, discovery requests, and transactional documents like trusts and leases. These canned or standardized documents may have been created by the lawyer or some third source. The issue becomes whether it is appropriate for the lawyer to bill a client any premium for the creation of the original document, or may the lawyer only bill for the revisions made to the canned or standardized document. As a threshold matter, the ABA long ago opined that: In addressing the hypothetical regarding...recycled work product, it is helpful to consider these questions, not from the perspective of what a client could be forced to pay, but rather from the perspective of what the lawyer actually earned.... A lawyer who is able to reuse old work product has not re-earned the hours previously billed and compensated when the work product was first generated. Rather than looking to profit from ... the luck of being asked the identical question twice, the lawyer who has agreed to bill solely on the basis of time spent is obliged to pass the benefits of these economies on to the client. The practice of billing several clients for the same time or work product, since it results in the 13 earning of an unreasonable fee, therefore is contrary to the mandate of the Model Rules. Model Rule 1.5. (American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Opinion 93-379, Billing for Professional Fees, Disbursements, and Other Expenses, (December 6, 1993); See also Ethics and Time-Based Billing, Michael Downey, Law Practice Today, ABA Law Practice Management Section, (January 2006) (Over-billing occurs when “billing the client who received the recycled work product time already billed to another client when that work product was originally created.”); See also, The Moral Compass of the American Lawyer, Richard Zitrin and Carol Langford, (1999 Ballantine Books)(examples of cases in which lawyers were prosecuted and convicted of bill padding practices including billing multiple clients simultaneously and for recycled work product). Similarly, the authors of the well-regarded Rutter Guide, caution: Attorneys who prepare standardized documents for clients (e.g., wills, partnership agreements) often keep forms of those documents on their computers to use as “templates” that can be revised and customized to suit each client. Absent clear disclosure to the client, attorneys billing on an hourly basis cannot properly add additional hours to a client's bill when revising such an “in-house” form to reflect the time spent preparing the original (template) form. [Orange County Bar a*s'n Form.Opn. 99–001] California Practice Guide: Professional Responsibility, Paul W. Vapnek, Mark L. Tuft, Ellen R. Peck and Justice Howard B. Wiener (Ret.), Chapter 5. Attorney Fees And Fee Agreements, Paragraph 5-945 (2012). Given the foregoing, in the event a lawyer seeks to charge a client a “premium” for the use of recycled work, the arbitrator should determine if that “premium” was properly stated and disclosed in the written fee agreement. (State Bar of California Committee on Mandatory Fee Arbitration, Arbitration Advisory 1998-03, Determination of a “Reasonable” Fee, pages 15- 16 (Updated March 20, 2015). If it is not, it may be evidence of bill padding.

13. Billing multiple clients for the same time An arbitrator may encounter situations where the lawyer simultaneously worked on matters of several clients. For example, a lawyer charges two clients the full five hours it took him to attend two court hearings for the two separate clients on the same morning in the same court. The issue is whether each client can be properly billed for the full five hours. Generally, billing multiple clients for the same time raises questions of potential impropriety. The answer typically depends on whether the terms of the fee agreements actually disclosed and explained the manner of billing to the all of the affected clients and the fee agreements of every affected client is fair and reasonable. (See American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Opinion 93-379, Billing for Professional Fees, Disbursements, and Other Expenses, (December 6, 1993); State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct, Formal Opinion No. 1996-147). 14 Therefore, if a lawyer seeks to bill the same time to more than one client simultaneously, that arrangement must be fair, reasonable, fully disclosed in the written fee agreements of all affected clients, and fully explained to each client. If it is not, then it may be evidence of bill padding. Additionally, the arbitrator must ensure that, irrespective of how much time the lawyer ultimately bills to any one client for such a collective task, the resulting fees are not unconscionable pursuant to Rule 4-200 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. 14. Ghost Billing “Ghost billing” occurs when a lawyer bills for work or task(s) performed by another person. Variations abound. For example, a paralegal or associate prepares a motion, but the partner in charge bills the time as his/her own. Or a non-employee contract attorney attends a status conference, but the lawyer of record bills the time as his/her own. Ghost billing should be scrutinized as it may constitute (1) a deceptive practice, (2) a violation of Business and Professions Code Section 6148(b), (3) bill padding, and (4) an attempt to collect an unconscionable fee or cost in violation of Rule 4-200 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. 15. Contract Attorneys Another recurring complaint in fee disputes concerns charges for the use of contract attorneys. Lawyers use contract attorneys for a myriad of purposes, including court appearances, conducting legal research, drafting motions or appeals briefs, etc. The resulting complaints typically concern how much the client is ultimately charged for these tasks. The ABA has opined that, if properly disclosed, it is appropriate for the lawyer to mark-up the cost [or add a profit] for work performed by contract attorneys. (See American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility Formal Opinion 00-420, Surcharge to client for use of a contract attorney (November 29, 2000)). However, disputes result when a lawyer chooses to use a “contract attorney” and then bills for the work performed as a fee at the lawyer’s hourly rate, when, in fact, the lawyer is paying the contract attorney a lesser rate. 15 5 Anticipated use of contract attorneys should be addressed in the written fee agreement. The written fee agreement should state whether the contract lawyer is billed out as a cost or their time is charged as a fee at indicated rates along with the time of the lawyer’s or law firm’s other timekeepers (partners and associates). (See State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct, Formal Opinion No. 2004-165; and The Professionalism and Ethics Committee of the Orange County Bar Association, Formal Opinion 2014-1). Absent such disclosure, the client should only be charged the out-of-pocket cost of the contract attorney. 5 There are numerous other non-billing, ethical considerations that are triggered by the use of contract lawyers. As COPRAC concluded in its Opinion 2004-165: Contract attorney services, and individual lawyers providing contract legal services to lawyers, may provide cost-effective alternatives to consumers of legal services. In using these services, those lawyers hiring the contract attorneys must comply with the ethical rules concerning the disclosure to the client of significant developments in the representation. Both those lawyers doing the hiring and those lawyers who are hired must comply with the ethical rules concerning competence, confidentiality, advertising, and conflicts of interest that apply to their respective roles in any such arrangement. For example, assume that a lawyer [a solo practitioner], charging her client $300/hour, is unable to attend a status conference. She engages a contract attorney to attend a status conference. The contract attorney then delivers an invoice to the lawyer indicating that it took him 1½ hours to attend the status conference and the cost to the lawyer is $100, which the lawyer pays. Generally, given the foregoing facts, the client should only be charged the $100 paid to the contract attorney. If the lawyer seeks to charge the client some other amount, more than $100 or $450 (1½ hours it took to attend the status conference multiplied by her $300/hour rate), it must be clearly disclosed in the written fee agreement. If it is not, then it may be evidence of bill padding. However, there are circumstances where the facts are not so clear-cut. For example, some law firms [including large multi-national law firms], occasionally find it necessary to hire groups of contract attorneys to conduct special assignments, like document reviews in large cases involving hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of hard and digital documents. In addition to the hourly rate for the contract attorneys, such law firms also incur office and transportation [and other] costs associated with using the contract attorneys. For example, the law firm may have to allocate a portion of their office space, or rent some additional office space, for the contract attorneys to do their work. In such cases, assuming that the use and charge of the contract attorneys are properly disclosed in the written fee agreement, it may be appropriate for the law firm to charge a premium for the use of the contract attorneys. If there is no such disclosure, in addition to the contract attorney’s actual hourly rate, the law firm may also be able to properly charge the client for the associated costs described above. Of course, in such circumstances, it is the law firm’s obligation to bear the burden of proof to quantify the associated costs chargeable to the client. The arbitrator should consider the terms of the written fee agreement and whether the client agreed to pay for contract attorneys at some rate other than the actual cost to the lawyer. In the vast majority of written fee agreements, the term “attorney” or “lawyer” is typically defined to mean only the lawyer and/or law firm hired by the client. While a reasonable extension of this definition may include the defined lawyer’s employee associates and partners, it does not necessarily include non-employee contract attorneys to which the client has no relationship. Accordingly, the arbitrator should assess those facts regarding whether the client agreed or acknowledged the use and expense of contract attorneys. CONCLUSION The vast majority of lawyers are honest and their bills are reliable statements of the work and time billed to the client. However, if a client claims to have been over-billed, the arbitrator should, at the very least, (1) evaluate the specificity of the time entries and the process by which the fee bill was prepared, (2) evaluate the staffing used on the matter, (3) evaluate the work performed against the time billed, and (4) look for certain patterns in the descriptions of the work performed, including the time entries, to assess the accuracy and propriety of the time charged to the client.

THESE ARE THE CONTRACTS AND THE DIFFERENCES IN FEES CHARGED BETWEEN ME AND MY NEPHEW… PLEASE READ CLOSELY MY AGREEMENT  LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCES IN FEES

THIS CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT is made this 19th day of

November, 2014, by and between BELL & POLLOCK, P.C., whose

address is 5660 Greenwood Plaza Blvd., Ste. 220, Greenwood Village,

Colorado 80111 hereinafter referred to as the "Attorney" or "Firm" and

, hereinafter referred to as "Client."

RECITALS

WHEREAS, Client has requested the Attorney to provide legal

services relating to the following matters:

Automobile Accident/ Personal Injury/ Short-Term Disability

WHEREAS, in order to avoid misunderstandings, Client and

Attorney wish to formalize their agreement concerning the fee to be

charged by the written contract.

WHEREAS, IT IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE

CLIENT THAT THE ATTORNEY HAS INFORMED THE CLIENT THAT

THE HOURLY RATE IS $290.00 PER HOUR, $200.00 TO $250.00

FOR ASSOCIATE ATTORNEYS, $75.00 FOR PARALEGALS AND

$60.00 FOR LAW CLERKS. THE CLIENT FURTHER

ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE ATTORNEY HAS OFFERED TO

HANDLE THIS MATTER UPON SUCH REGULAR HOURLY RATES,

PLUS EXPENSES, TO BE PAID MONTHLY AS BILLED. INSTEAD

OF THAT FEE AGREEMENT, CLIENT HAS REQUESTED THE

ATTORNEY TO PROVIDE REPRESENTATION BASED UPON A

CONTINGENCY FEE AGREEMENT BASIS, INSTEAD OF

REPRESENTATION ON AN HOURLY BASIS.

NOW, THEREFORE, CLIENT AND ATTORNEY AGREE AS

 

MY NEPHEWS AGREEMENT

WHEREAS, in order to avoid misunderstandings, Client and Attorney wish to formalize

their agreement concerning the fee to be charged by the written contract.

WHEREAS, IT IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE CLIENT THAT THE

ATTORNEY HAS INFORMED THE CLIENT THAT THE HOURLY RATE IS $475.00 PER

HOUR FOR PRINCIPALS OF THE FIRM,$400.00 PER HOUR FOR ASSOCIATE

ATTORNEYS, $125.00 FOR PARALEGALS AND $95.00 FOR LAW CLERKS. THE CLIENT

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE ATTORNEY HAS OFFERED TO HANDLE THIS MATTER UPON SUCH REGULAR HOURLY RATES, PLUS EXPENSES, TO BE PAID MONTHLY AS BILLED. INSTEAD OF THAT FEE AGREEMENT, CLIENT HAS

REQUESTED THE ATTORNEY TO PROVIDE REPRESENTATION BASED UPON A

CONTINGENCY FEE AGREEMENT BASIS, INSTEAD OF REPRESENTATION ON AN

HOURLY BASIS.

 

FOLLOWS:

1. Legal Service. Client has requested Attorney to provide

legal services relating to the above-referenced matter, and Attorney will

provide said legal services all as is more particularly hereinafter set

forth.

2. Attorneys Fees. Client agrees to pay the Attorney a fee

contingent upon the outcome of the matter. Specifically, Client agrees

to pay the Attorney for a fee, thirty-three and one-third percent (33

1/3%) of all sums and/or any other form of valuable consideration

recovered from any defendant, or any other person, party or entity,

whether the sums and/or any other valuable consideration are

recovered by way of settlement or judgment. The Client agrees to pay

the contingent fee as described herein. The Attorney contingent fee is

computed by multiplying the contingent fee times the gross recovery,

which said contingent fee will be computed before taking into account

or subtracting expenses.

The Attorney will submit to Client monthly statements for

expenses incurred during the previous month. All statements are due

and payable within thirty (30) days unless otherwise indicated on the

statement. The Attorney may charge interest on the outstanding

balance. If Attorney finds it necessary to engage in collection efforts

and/or a lawsuit to collect fees and/or costs from Client, Client is

responsible for all attorney’s fees and costs incurred as a result

thereof, in addition to interest on the outstanding balance.

3. Expenses. Client acknowledges that the Attorney may

incur various expenses in providing services to Client. Some examples

of these expenses are charges for court filing fees, depositions, court

reporting fees, service of process fees, expert witness fees and

expenses, staff overtime, investigations, investigator expenses, outside

paralegal fees and expenses, reports, witness fees, postage, xerox

expenses billed at $.20 per page, travel expenses, fees for copies of

medical records, x-rays and reports, messenger and delivery services,

doctors and medical charges, e-filing charges and other expenses

incurred by the Attorney on Client’s behalf. Client will reimburse the

Attorney for all expenses incurred by paying the Attorney’s monthly

billing statements. All statements are due and payable upon receipt

unless otherwise indicated on the statement. All balances not paid

within thirty (30) days of the date of any statement shall bear interest at

the rate of 1.00% per month.

By signature hereon, Client authorizes Attorney to incur the

necessary expenses and make disbursements thereon. Attorneys may

advance expenses and Client will be responsible for reimbursing

Attorney for expenses, or paying expenses directly.

The initial estimate for expenses is Two Thousand Dollars,

($2,000.00); however, these expenses may be higher or lower.

Attorney will not incur expenses in excess of said amount without

Client’s written authorization.

Upon notice to the Client, Attorney may advance and incur

expenses which exceed the aforementioned amounts. The Attorney,

may in its discretion, require that costs and expenses be advanced by

Client before they are expended. Otherwise, the Client will reimburse

the Attorney for such expenditures as follows: first, out of any costs

deposited as a retainer; then, upon receipt of a billing; and finally, upon

the end resolution of the representation of the case.

4. Retainer. Upon signing of this Contract, Client will pay the

sum of N/A dollars ($ N/A ) to the Firm as a retainer, which will be

used as an advance against expenses and fees. The Firm will deposit

this amount in its trust account and hold it for future withdrawal. The

Firm will submit to Client monthly statements for expenses and fees

incurred during the previous month. All statements are due and

payable upon receipt unless other wise indicated on the statement. All

balances not paid within thirty (30) days of the date of any statement

may bear interest at the rate of 1.75% per month. If the sum held as a

retainer is depleted, Client may be asked to make additional advances

to reestablish a retainer fund. Any balance remaining in the retainer

fund upon the termination of the Firm’s representation and payment of

the Firm in full will be refunded to the Client. The Firm reserves the

right to request a retainer at anytime and to request additional monies

if any retainers are depleted. The Firm reserves the right to pay itself

out of the trust account for fees and/or expenses without further

authorization from Client.

5. No Guarantees. There are no guarantees with regard to

the recovery of damages, if any, from any defendant or any other

person, party or entity and the terms of this Contract will in no way

guarantee that damages will be recoverable.

 

6. Client agrees to keep the Attorney informed of any changes

of home address, work or personal telephone numbers and any

lengthy vacations during the time that Attorney shall be rendering

service to Client. Client agrees to assist in the preparation and trial of

the case, to appear on reasonable notice for deposition, court

appearances, and settlement conferences, and to comply with all

reasonable requests made by Attorney in connection with the

preparation and presentation of the claim. Client also agrees to

immediately inform Attorney of any and all possible Bankruptcy

proceedings.

7. The Client further authorizes the Attorney to pay directly

from the proceeds of any gross recovery all outstanding bills and

financial obligations, costs and expenses associated with the case,

whether incurred by the Client or by the Attorney on Client’s behalf.

Any amounts so paid will be subtracted from the amount remaining

after computing the amount of the contingent fee payable under this

Agreement. Client agrees to timely and completely inform Attorney of

any and all attorney liens, contract liens, healthcare liens, insurance

liens, or other monetary obligations arising from this matter.

8. Termination of Employment; Withdrawal. In the event

that the Client terminates this Contract without wrongful conduct by the

Attorney, or if the Attorney properly withdraws from the representation

of the Client prior to the conclusion of a settlement or entry of

judgment, the Client agrees to pay the Attorney a fee for the services

provided by the Attorney, determined by the Attorney’s hourly rate

multiplied by the number of hours devoted to the Client’s matter. The

Client shall further be responsible and liable for payment of all costs

expended by the Attorney on the Client’s behalf. In the event of

termination, withdrawal, or failure of this Contract for any reason, the

Attorney is entitled to quantum meruit recovery, or compensation for

the reasonable value of the services provided by the Attorney until the

date of the termination, withdrawal after investigation of claim, or failure

of the Contract.

9. Risks. Client acknowledges that Client has been informed

of various risks with regard to prosecution of this claim concerning

Client’s legal matters and such risks include, but are not necessarily

limited to, the risk of: losing the lawsuit in its entirety and being

required to pay costs or fees to the opposing side; being dismissed

from court prior to the time the trial is actually commenced, either

pursuant to motion for summary judgment, motion to dismiss or other

legal procedure prior to the time of trial; being dismissed during the trial

for various reasons, including the merits of the case; and the risk of not

being successful and losing this entire litigation after expenses have

been paid and then being responsible for paying costs of the opposing

side.

10. Any fee that Client is obligated to pay to Attorney or

another attorney (including the opposing side) is an independent

obligation. If attorney’s fees and costs are paid to the opposing side,

then Client will be responsible to the other side and if this is a

contingent fee agreement, then any fee Client is obligated to pay to

Attorney will be based on the amount of recovery, before payment of

awarded costs and attorney’s fees to an opposing party. Any award

entered against Client for attorney’s fees and costs does not

necessarily have to be paid out of any proceeds or amount collected

on Client’s behalf. Any subrogation or lien rights, if any, may be paid

out of the proceeds of any recovery, but do not have to be so paid and

the fee that Client is obligated to pay Attorney will be based on the

amount of recovery before payment of any subrogation right or lien.

 

11. Client hereby gives a Power of Attorney to endorse and

deposit settlement checks into Attorney’s trust account. The

aforementioned Power of Attorney includes all those duties and rights

implicit in the attorney/client relationship.

Dated this _____ day of ________________, 2014.

 

BELL & POLLOCK, P.C.: CLIENT:

 

__________________________________ _________________________________

Brad P. Pollock, Esquire

 

(Initial below if contract is signed in the attorney’s office)

 

____ I, the Client, acknowledge that on ____ day of __________, 2014, I signed this

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT/CONTINGENT FEE AGREEMENT and the

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT and that I received an executed copy of these

documents from my Attorneys, Bell & Pollock, P.C.

 

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT CONTINGENT FEE AGREEMENT

THIS CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT is made this 13th day of March, 2018, by and

between BELL & POLLOCK, P.C., whose address is 5660 Greenwood Plaza, Blvd., Suite 220,

Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111, hereinafter referred to as "Firm" or “Attorney” Bell and

Pollock and Justin Fierstein whose address is 266 Meadows Circle, Bayfield, CO 81122 hereinafter

referred to as "Client".

 

RECITALS

 

WHEREAS, Client has requested the Attorney to provide legal services relating to the

following matters:

 

Automobile Accident / Personal Injury / UM / UIM

 

WHEREAS, in order to avoid misunderstandings, Client and Attorney wish to formalize

their agreement concerning the fee to be charged by the written contract.

WHEREAS, IT IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE CLIENT THAT THE

ATTORNEY HAS INFORMED THE CLIENT THAT THE HOURLY RATE IS $475.00 PER

HOUR FOR PRINCIPALS OF THE FIRM,$400.00 PER HOUR FOR ASSOCIATE

ATTORNEYS, $125.00 FOR PARALEGALS AND $95.00 FOR LAW CLERKS. THE CLIENT

FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE ATTORNEY HAS OFFERED TO HANDLE THIS

MATTER UPON SUCH REGULAR HOURLY RATES, PLUS EXPENSES, TO BE PAID

MONTHLY AS BILLED. INSTEAD OF THAT FEE AGREEMENT, CLIENT HAS

REQUESTED THE ATTORNEY TO PROVIDE REPRESENTATION BASED UPON A

CONTINGENCY FEE AGREEMENT BASIS, INSTEAD OF REPRESENTATION ON AN

HOURLY BASIS.

NOW, THEREFORE, CLIENT AND ATTORNEY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Legal Service. Client has requested Attorney to provide legal services relating to the

above-referenced matter, and Attorney will provide said legal services all as is more

particularly hereinafter set forth.

2. Attorney’s Fees. Client agrees to pay the Attorney a fee contingent upon the outcome of

 

the matter. Specifically, Client agrees to pay the Attorney for a fee, thirty-three and one-

third percent (33 1/3%) of all sums of money and/or any other form of valuable

 

consideration recovered from any defendant, or any other person, party or entity, whether

the sums and/or any other valuable consideration are recovered by way of settlement or

judgment. If a lawsuit is filed, the contingent fee will be forty percent (40%) of all sums of

money and/or valuable consideration recovered from any defendant or any other person,

party or entity. If the matter is appealed, by either party, the contingent fee will be fifty

percent (50%) of all sums of money and/or valuable consideration recovered from any

defendant or any other person, party or entity. Forty percent (40%) goes into effect upon

the filing of a lawsuit. Fifty percent (50%) goes into effect upon the filing of the Notice of

Appeal. The Client agrees to pay the contingent fee as described herein. The same

Contingent Fee (33 1/3%, 40% or 50%) shall be paid on all amounts saved, negotiated

 

2 and/or reduced concerning medical bills, charges, claims, costs, medical expenses, Doctor's

bills, Heathcare Provider's bills, collection, and/or liens. The Attorney contingent fee is

computed by multiplying the contingent fee times the gross recovery, which said

contingent fee will be computed before taking into account or subtracting expenses. These

same fees (33 1/3%, 40$ or 50%) apply to all sums saved by Firm or by Attorneys of the

Firm when negotiating costs, charges, expenses, medical expenses, medical bills, Doctor's

bills, Healthcare Provider's Bills, Liens, collection or anything similar. The Firm will have

earned its fee. At no time can the total Fee exceed 50% of the Gross Recovery, including

any amounts saved.The Attorney may submit to Client statements for expenses incurred previously, includingduring the previous month, unless otherwise agreed to in writing. All statements are dueand payable within thirty (30) days unless otherwise indicated on the statement. TheAttorney may charge interest on the outstanding balance. The interest rate is 1% per month.If Attorney finds it necessary to engage in collection efforts and/or a lawsuit to collect feesand/or costs or anything of value from Client, Client is responsible for all attorney’s feesand costs incurred as a result thereof, in addition to interest on the outstanding balance.

3. Expenses. Client acknowledges that the Attorney may incur various expenses in providing

services to Client. Some examples of these expenses are charges for court filing fees,

depositions, court reporting fees, service of process fees, expert witness fees and expenses,

staff overtime, investigations, investigator expenses, outside paralegal fees and expenses,

reports, witness fees, postage, xerox expenses billed at $.25 per page, travel expenses, law

clerks, fees for copies of medical records, x-rays and reports, messenger and delivery

services, doctors and medical charges, e-filing charges and other expenses incurred by the

Attorney on Client’s behalf. Client will reimburse the Attorney for all expenses incurred

by paying the Attorney’s billing statements. Additionally, client consents to and agrees to

pay for all investigative charges at the beginning, middle or end of case, up front or upon

request. All statements are due and payable upon receipt unless otherwise indicated on the

statement. All balances not paid within thirty (30) days of the date of any statement shall

bear interest at the rate of 1% per month.

Additionally, it may be necessary for the Law Firm to reimburse itself for the expenses set

out in the paragraph above, by executing a note at a financial institution at a reasonable

rate of interest. In other words, the Firm may (but is not obligated to) borrow money to

fund costs. The amount of interest and any administrative fees that may be assessed or

charged by the lending institution will be carried as an expense of litigation, and will be

charged to the client, which client agrees to pay. Client agrees that Attorneys may borrow

funds from a lender to finance or pay such Court costs and litigation expenses and the

interest and costs and fees charged by the lender on such borrowed funds will be added to

the Court costs and litigation expenses to be deducted from the settlement or recovery.

Nothing contained herein obligates Firm to borrow any money whatsoever.By signature hereon, Client authorizes Attorney to incur the necessary expenses and make

disbursements thereon. Attorneys may advance expenses and Client will be responsible

for reimbursing Attorney for expenses, or paying expenses directly. Client specifically

agrees to this.

The initial estimate for expenses is Ten Thousand Dollars, ($10,000.00); however, these

expenses may be higher or lower. Attorney will not incur expenses in excess of said

amount without Client’s written authorization. If the case proceeds to Trial, the costs will

increase and be higher. Client should understand that.

Upon notice to the Client, Attorney may advance and incur expenses which exceed the

aforementioned amounts. The Attorney, may in its discretion, require that costs and

expenses be advanced by Client before they are expended. Otherwise, the Client will

reimburse the Attorney for such expenditures as follows: first, out of any costs deposited

as a retainer; then, upon receipt of a billing; and finally, at the option of Firm, upon the end

resolution of the representation of the case. If the case proceeds to Trial, in all likelihood,

you may be asked and required to fund and pay costs in advance of Trial. Client agrees to

do this.

4. Retainer. Upon signing of this Contract, Client will pay the sum of N/A dollars ($

N/A) to the Firm as a retainer, which will be used as an advance against expenses and fees.

The Firm will deposit this amount in its trust account and hold it for future withdrawal.

The Firm may submit to Client statements for expenses and fees incurred. All statements

are due and payable upon receipt unless otherwise indicated on the statement. All balances

not paid within thirty (30) days of the date of any statement may bear interest at the rate of

1% per month. If the sum held as a retainer is depleted, Client may be asked to make

additional advances to reestablish a retainer fund. Any balance remaining in the retainer

fund upon the termination of the Firm’s representation and payment of the Firm in full will

be refunded to the Client within approximately 120 Days or 4 billing cycles of termination

of case. This is not an exact time period. There is no set or guaranteed period of time

within which to do this. It may be longer or shorter. The Firm reserves the right to request

a retainer at any time and to request additional monies if any retainers are depleted. The

Firm reserves the right to pay itself out of the trust account for fees and/or expenses without

further authorization from Client. Client agrees Firm may pay itself at any time without

further authorization from client and without notice of any kind.

5. No Guarantees. There are no guarantees with regard to recovery, if any, from any

defendant or any other person, party or entity. The terms of this Contract does not and will

not in any way guarantee that there will be a recovery.

6. Client agrees to keep the Attorney informed of any changes of home address, work or

personal telephone numbers and any lengthy vacations or absences during the time that

Attorney shall be rendering service to Client. Client agrees to assist in the preparation and

trial of the case, to appear on reasonable notice for deposition, court appearances, and

settlement conferences, and to comply with all reasonable requests made by Attorney in

connection with the preparation and presentation of the claim. Client agrees to cooperate

with Firm at all stages of the case(s). Client also agrees to immediately inform Attorney in

advance of any and all possible Bankruptcy proceedings, and any other activity or related

event that may affect recovery. Firm has authority to disclose client's medical records and

billing records to opposing counsel, insurance adjustors, mediators, and any other person

or entity Firm deems appropriate, without privileging any records. This is at the discretion

of the Firm.

7. The Client further authorizes the Attorney to pay directly from the proceeds of any gross

recovery of all outstanding bills and financial obligations, costs and expenses associated

with the case, whether incurred by the Client or by the Attorney on Client’s behalf. This

does include any Bank Fees, interest or charges incurred by borrowing money to fund

client's case. There is no requirement Firm borrow any money or deal with any lender.

That is at option of Firm. Costs are the Client's responsibility. Any amounts so paid will

be subtracted from the amount remaining after computing the amount of the contingent fee

payable under this Agreement. Client agrees to timely and completely inform Attorney of

any and all attorney liens, contract liens, healthcare liens, Doctors liens, insurance liens,

collection actions, or other monetary obligations arising from this matter.

8. Termination of Employment; Withdrawal. In the event that the Client terminates this

Contract without wrongful conduct by the Attorney, or if the Attorney properly withdraws

from the representation of the Client for cause, or the Attorney and Client agree to mutual

abandonment of the Contract prior to the conclusion of the settlement or entry of judgment,

the Client agrees to pay the Attorney a fee for the services provided by the Attorney,

determined by the Attorney's hourly rate set forth herein multiplied by the number of hours

devoted to the Client's matter. The Client shall further be responsible and liable for

payment of all reasonable costs expended by the Attorney on the Client's behalf. The total

fees shall not exceed the amount anticipated under the Contract's percentage-based

contingent fee provision.

9. Risks. Client acknowledges that Client has been informed of various risks with regard to

prosecution of this claim concerning Client’s legal matters and such risks include, but are

not necessarily limited to, the risk of: losing the case or lawsuit in its entirety and being

required to pay costs or fees to the opposing side; being dismissed from court prior to the

time the trial is actually commenced, either pursuant to motion for summary judgment,

motion to dismiss or other legal procedure prior to the time of trial; being dismissed during

the trial for various reasons, including the merits of the case; and the risk of not being

successful and losing this entire litigation after expenses have been paid and then being

responsible for paying costs of the opposing side.

10. Any fee that Client is obligated to pay to Attorney or another attorney (including the

opposing side) is an independent obligation. If attorney’s fees and/or costs are to be paid

or paid to the opposing side, then Client will be responsible to the other side and if this is

a contingent fee agreement, then any fee Client is obligated to pay to Attorney will be based

on the amount of recovery, before payment of awarded costs and attorney’s fees to an

opposing party. Any award entered against Client for attorney’s fees and costs does not

necessarily have to be paid out of any proceeds or amount collected on Client’s behalf.

That is at the discretion of the Firm. Any subrogation or lien rights, if any, may be paid out

of the proceeds of any recovery, but do not have to be so paid and the fee that Client is

obligated to pay Attorney will be based on the amount of recovery before payment of any

subrogation right or lien. If Attorney saves money for or on behalf of client on any or all

medical bills, costs, expenses, Doctors, bills, Healthcare Provider's bills, expenses,

collection, liens, charges, costs, Health Insurance, Med Pay, charges, investigative fees,

ERISA, Self-Funded Plans or any other expenses costs, or other item to be paid, client

agrees to pay Firm the applicable percentage (33 1/3%, 40% or 50%) of any amount saved

or reduced.

11. If Client has not paid for costs, they may be taken out of the proceeds of case and in some

cases that may not be enough to pay all liens, costs and bills. Client will then owe the

difference. Attorney fees shall be paid first in any event.

12. Client authorizes Firm to communicate with client and to bill client via e-mail. Client

understands that the e-mail address to be used will be the one identified by Client on Firm's

Intake Sheet. If an e-mail address ever changes, it is Client's responsibility to notify the

Firm in writing, of the change of e-mail address Client wishes for Firm to use. Client has

been informed, and hereby acknowledges that any and all communication via E-mail is not

secure, and could possibly be revealed by a third-party.

13. Client hereby gives a Power of Attorney to endorse and deposit checks, including

settlement checks into Attorney’s trust account. The aforementioned Power of Attorney

includes all those duties and rights implicit in such relationship and/or in the attorney/client

relationship.

Dated this ___ day of ________________, 2018.

BELL & POLLOCK, P.C.: CLIENT:

 

________________________ __________________________

Bradley P. Pollock Justin Fierstein