Billing for Reading E-Mails Forum

[Anonymous User]

Do you typically bill this time?

What do you write in the description of the time? Just "reviewing e-mails" ?

[dixiecupdrinking]

Do you typically bill this time?

What do you write in the description of the time? Just "reviewing e-mails" ?

Review correspondence pertaining to x issue

[1styearlateral]

and for drafting emails: "correspondence with opposing counsel/client RE: x"

[2014]

I usually let it build up and throw on a correspond with X at the end of another entry and add the aggregate .4 or whatever of email bullshit. I've never done a new .1 for just email but I also have never worked on a matter I couldn't block bill.

[BoaltAlumn88]

Doing a .1 or .2 for this kind of work is not a good idea. I do not record time simply for reading emails. If it is among other stuff I did that day I just describe the other stuff, I don't describe reading emails. Putting in a task that takes 60 seconds with a task that takes 3 hours makes me look like I am minimizing the task that took three hours.

For instance: prepare operating agreement and review email regarding clawback provision psychologically sounds worse than prepare operating agreement. Client thinks "wow if the lawyer spent more time describing something that takes 30 seconds than preparing the agreement, the agreement could not have taken this long".

Remember clients are reviewing this quick and think of their subconscious impressions.

[philepistemer]

Just write "rendered services relating to matter x" and put all your work into that.

[Lacepiece23]

I usually let it build up and throw on a correspond with X at the end of another entry and add the aggregate .4 or whatever of email bullshit. I've never done a new .1 for just email but I also have never worked on a matter I couldn't block bill.

Wow, that's awesome. I've only worked on what matter where I could block bill, and it is amazing. I recoup so much more time.

[lurklaw]

"[unimpeachable time entry] and e-mails re: the same"

[1styearlateral]

At the same token though, how can a client argue with .1 or .2 to review correspondence pertaining to their case? Of course they want you to review all correspondence just the same as they want you to review court decisions.

It's probably just my firm's clients, but I try to not block bill as often as possible. If you sell your services in a way that makes them irrefutable, you should be ok even if you're billing more often for the small tasks.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Honestly, yeah if it's the only work I did on a case that day and it's just some email I'm cc'ed on that doesn't require any action, I won't bill that. But anything else, I'm billing that time.

[Danger Zone]

"[unimpeachable time entry] and e-mails re: the same"

Yep. Except I say "correspondence" because boomer partners don't want the word email in there.

[Anonymous User]

"[X] and correspondence re same" is credited.