They "billed" 4500 hours in 15 months. That doesn't mean they actually worked that amount. I'm suspicious.

Law firms should just raise their hourly rates then, and "bill" less hours.

Alternatively, they must just add a "win" bonus. Either way, the Judge is a bit of a schmuck. This is how business is done, and they knew exactly what they were getting into.

Also, Allen & Overy billed RIM more than 5x what Visto's counsel billed its client.

"Allen & Overy billed RIM more than 5x what Visto's counsel billed its client."

Yeah, and which one won, again?

The judge is an idiot/never practiced at a big firm. 4500 for two associates could mean 2250 each. 2250/15 month=150 a month (or 1800/year). At a US AMLaw 100 firm, they could easily be stripped of a bonus for not meeting their billables (assuming, of course, they only worked on this case). Either way, this is not (on its face, as the judge considered it)even remotely excessive for a major IP case like this one.

this posted on rollonfriday.com last week so you should probably start checking that for stories.

I don't think the judge is an idiot 8:43. On average the billable means they each worked 5 hour or so a day. Maybe there was some evidence that the two associates were abusing their discretion in billing? alternatively, could be that the billing was not don't exactly by whatever the regulation is over there.

Just a thought.

What would Norman say about all of this?

so "years’ worth of man hours" = 4500 hours. One year = 500 hours. That sounds more like a few good man months to me.

Real men of biglaw

Without knowing more about the case, it's really impossible to know if the judge was acting reasonably or not. Obviously he has a better sense of the type of research that was involved in this specific case than any of us.

I'd tend to give a judge the benefit of the doubt that something shady was going on with the lawyers here. No, the bill isn't unreasonable for every patent litigation case, but it may have been unreasonable for THIS patent litigation case.

$10M = not that much for high stakes patent lit

7:58 said: "This is how business is done"

That's not really much of an argument. By that standard, Visto could have shown up in court and said to RIM, "This is how business is done." Why should Visto be brought to account for its misdeeds, and the A&O lawyers not?

12:08: Don't be naive. You are equating patent infringement by two parties not in any kind of agreement with the cost of legal counsel, 100% consistent with industry standards? Stay in law, you'll never make it in the real world.

The wrinkle here is that the UK has a "loser pays" system. Surely a company should be able to spend whatever it wants to defend itself in a lawsuit (even leaving no stone unturned, as apparently the lawyers in this case were directed to do), but does that necessarily mean that the other side should have to pay that same amount if it loses?

I assume that the law firm here is getting paid; the issue is just how much of it should be paid by the client, and how much by the losing party.

Guys at my high school used to whore themselves out on one case for fifteen months at a time, it was no big deal.

There's a whole interesting discussion on this on the WSJ Law Blog too. Some of the points made here covered there, and more besides. Some extracts from the judgment itself are there and clarify some of the points made here too.

Posted by guest | Permalink
Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:10 PM

Also, Allen & Overy billed RIM more than 5x what Visto's counsel billed its client.

-------------------------
A&O bill = GBP 5.18m

Taylor Wessing bill = GBP 1.6m

5.18 / 1.6 = 3.2375

(please steer clear of any numbers-based profession)

Allen and Ovaries is a joke. Clifford Chance is the place to be for cutting edge cross border transactions and litigation. Beware, Clifford Chance is on the move.

What exactly do people think A&O billed their client 10 mil for? 10 mil divided by 4500 hours is ~$2200 an hour. Even if you assume that expenses were high and there were others that billed an additional 4500 hours (just to be safe), that would still come out to around $1000/hour. What gives?

You think the only attorney hours billed on the entire case were the 4500 (or possibly 9000) racked up by two associates?

No, but partners bill out at $1200 an hour (according to previous threads) - are you saying that it was all partners doing the work?

12:36-
Don't be naive to think I ever was in law. I realized very quickly what the billable hour-game was all about, and I wanted nothing of it. But I think you're missing the point. Law firms are entitled to overbill. That may be, as you said, "how business is done." But if firms are going to take that risk, and they get caught, they have to live with the consequences.

It is amusing how quickly you write off the ethics of the profession though. If money is what matters most to you, I'd have to say your decision to enter the legal profession shows you to be the naive one.

$10 mil. for a patent case that went all the way through trial? Seems pretty cheap. Perhaps the losing law firm should have spent more time on the case.

12:36, you're silly. Sorry I assumed that someone spending their free time on a legal chat board might be...in the law. Wow, you sure got me on that one. Tricky guy, you. But how amusing you have also assumed I'm in the field. Overall, you're about as smug as you are naive.

I'm glad you've figured out the "billable hours game" early in your career. You get a gold star. And a silver medal for rising above it. If you happen to have a law degree, hopefully you don't feel like an idiot for spending $100k on an education that you never had need for and don't use. And yes, I suppose you could have a non-billable hour job in law. But honestly, no one here cares about you or what you do for a living, but feel free to continue to amuse us, man of mystery.

I'm glad to see that you abandonded your absurd comparison of 3rd party IP infringment to a fulfilled contractual obligation between two sophisticated parties. You must admit, it was a pretty shitty comment.

At the end of the day, there's little reason to believe that this client didn't simply pay for a large number of hours at a high rate. There's nothing unethical about it, and hence no ethical issue to debate. No one is debating whether or not billing for time not worked is the issue. The issue is wether billing many hours at high rates is unethical. It's not. Get over it.

5:05, this isn't about whether billing many hours at high rates is unethical. It is about whether billing for work not actually done is ethical. If the judge believed these two associates had actually done the work they claimed, he wouldn't have made it an issue. But from his comments, he doesn't believe they actually did the work. So the issue is not about high rates, or long hours, it's about padding bills.

this is a normal billing figure. for those who don't do patent cases - it takes a lot of work. cases at the ITC are always costing millions in lawyers fees and they only last 18 months.

There is no story here - dumb journalist, and uninformed judge!

5:22.

I see your point, and agree that charging for hours not worked is fraudulent. But all I can discern from the ruling is that the Judge simply takes issue with the large number of hours, which strikes me as making something of nothing, and simply decrying the high cost of fees that are legally due. There's no concrete evidence that the work wasn't actually completed--it appears to be more a bench resentment with profitability.

A&O responds to Financial Times article on BlackBerry patent litigation:
http://www.aonewsletter.com/news/press_review/press_extracts/2008/04/blackberry.asp?title=A&O%20responds%20to%20Financial%20Times%20article%20on%20BlackBerry%20patent%20litigation