Overbilling Leads to Disbarment

• Author: Susan F. Dent
• Pages: 6-6

n attorney’s inabi lity to ex-

plain his large b ills, coupled

with prior discipl ine for

overbilling and his l ack of

remorse, was en ough to

warrant disbar ment. ABA Section of

Litigation leade rs say this is a remind-

er to be prof‌icient a nd prudent when

informing clie nts of anticipated costs

of litigation, and to exec ute only those

services necessary and required to

reach the client ’s objective.

In the Matter of Ric hard Ledingham,

the Supreme Co urt of the State of

New Jersey arm ed an order of the

court’s disc iplinary review board

that disbarred at torney Richard

Ledingham . Dr. Robert Bind er re-

tained Leding ham to draft a second

codicil to a Last Wil l and Testament

and First Codi cil. A dierent lawyer

had drafted tha t document.

After Dr. Binder di ed, his 88-year-

old widow retaine d Ledingham to

represent her a s executrix of the es-

tate. The retainer agreement provid-

ed for a rate of $175 per ho ur. Over

the period of a year, Ledin gham billed

674 hours, for a total of ap proximate-

ly $120,00 0. After paying $88,199 i n

fees, his clie nt began to refute the

charges. Ul timately, he forgave the re-

maining fees .

The client retain ed a new attor-

ney, who began the esta te work anew,

and he charge d a total of $9,412.50. A

Vermont attorney hire d to handle an-

cillary issu es charged a total of $3,50 0.

A district ethic s committee

charged Ledin gham with violat-

ing New Jersey Rul e of Professional

Conduct 1 .5 for charging an unrea-

sonable fee an d New Jersey Rule of

Professional Conduct 8.4(c) for dis-

honest condu ct. The committee’s fee

expert opine d that Ledingham should

not have exceeded 30 bill able hours

and that the client s hould not have

spent more than $ 12,000 in fees.

Ledingham o ered no rebuttal ex-

pert and did n ot explain why the num-

ber of hours he ch arged was reason-

able. He argu ed that his services were

necessary to e liminate $23,243 in New

Overbilling Leads to Disbarment

Jersey estate taxe s. But, as the dis-

ciplinary revi ew board observed, he

billed the estate si x times that.

The board criticized L edingham for

billing 86 hou rs to review two codi-

cils 15 times over 15 days . The com-

mittee’s expert o pined that it should

have taken him no more th an two

hours to review those do cuments. The

board also criticize d Ledingham for

billing the estate 1 31 hours to review

Vermont ancillar y probate procedures

rather than hiri ng a Vermont attorney.

New Jersey’s Rule o f Professional

Conduct 1.5(a) governs unreason-

able fees and provi des that the rea-

sonablenes s of a fee can be exam-

ined through ei ght factors, including

the time and labo r required, the nov-

elty and dic ulty of the questions in-

volved, and the skil l requisite to per-

form the legal se rvice properly.

In reaching its d ecision, the court

focused on the am ount that a law-

yer of Ledingham ’s experience rea-

sonably would have ch arged for the

work he had per formed. The court’s

tipping point for arming disbar-

ment, rather than suspension, rest-

ed on Ledingha m’s lack of remorse

and disregard fo r previous disci-

pline. Leding ham had been previous-

ly suspended fo r overcharging a cli-

ent and engag ed in a similar practice

fewer than f‌ive years later. Ultim ately,

the board held th at this time was his

third strike.

Section of Litigati on leaders agree

with the court ’s f‌inal message: It mat-

ters not the technic al precision of the

work performed, but rather whether

the time expende d for the work was

reasonably ne cessary. “From both a

practical an d risk management per-

spective, it is imp ortant to not just

look at the accura cy of time entries,”

explains Karen L . Hart, Dallas, TX, co -

chair of the Sec tion’s Real Estate,

Condemnation & Trust Litigation

Committee, “ but also to evaluate if

what has been bi lled is reasonable

and appropriate on that given matter.”

“Attorneys should always con-

sider engaging knowledgeable local

By Susan F. Dent, Litigation N ews Contributing Editor

counsel when n eeded, and should

consider consu lting attorneys who

have expertise in cer tain areas that

may arise in cases wh en the prima-

ry attorney doe s not have that ex-

pertise,” reco mmends Emily J. Kirk,

Ontario, CA , cochair of the Section’s

Solo & Small Firm C ommittee.

Kirk advises tha t attorneys should

engage in preventive bi lling practices,

including requiring authorization and

consent for larg e projects, educat-

ing themselves on o ut-of-state proce-

dures, and cle arly def‌ining each task

performed f or clients on their month-

ly invoices. “It is a lways a good prac-

tice to ensure tasks a re completed by

attorneys with the app ropriate level of

experience for th e task to ensure ap-

propriate billing , and to divide tasks

between attorn eys so multiple attor-

ney billers are not d uplicating work,”

Kirk adds.

Hart sugges ts that attorneys pro-

vide their clien ts with early and recur-

ring budgets , particularly if a matter

proves to be more complex th an orig-

inally anticipate d at its outset. “It is

part of our dut y to our clients to keep

our clients info rmed,” she notes. “As

novel issues come up , we need to do

our best to explain wh at is happening

and why.”

RESOURCES

ABA Model Ru le of Prof'l Conduct 1 .5.

Charles S. Fax , “When Overbilling Leads

to Disciplinary Sanctions,” Litigation News

(Mar. 31, 2017 ).

Katherine A. Reilly, “Billing Tip s for Young

Lawyers: How N OT to Let Billing Become

the Bane of Your Exis tence,” Litigation

News (Feb. 8, 2017 ).

6 | S ECTION OF LITIGATION

Published in Litigation News Volume 46, Number 2, Wint er 2021. © 2021 by the Americ an Bar Association. Re produced with per mission. All rights res erved. This infor mation or any portio n thereof may not be c opied or disseminated in any

form or by any means or sto red in an electronic da tabase or retrieval sy stem without the ex press writt en consent of the Amer ican Bar Associatio n.

ETHICS STR UGGLES IN THE LEGAL WOR LD