The Most Offensive Way To Refer To Biglaw Bills

Overall, this is just a bad look for the firm.

Shocked billAh, the billable hour — the measure of a Biglaw attorney’s worth. For lawyers stuck in the firm-sponsored hamster wheel, being able to bill hours to a client is your ticket to respect, bonuses, and circularly enough, more billable hours.

Clients, of course, see them differently. In-house counsel, many of them Biglaw refugees, know the padding inherent in the bills, and their own standing at their employer is often tied to keeping costs down, which frequently means battles over bills.

Take the case of Dechert and their client, Eurasian Natural Resources Corp. (ENRC). Dechert was hired to conduct an internal investigation over corruption charges in Kazakhstan. $23.5 million later, the investigation had spread to activities in Africa, and litigation over the bill. That fact, alone, might garner a mention, but it isn’t particularly shocking. However, testimony in the case has revealed the way one partner reportedly referred to billing, and, wow, it’s a doozy.

And, yes, it is worse than “churn that bill, baby!

ENRC general counsel, Beat Ehrenberger, alleges London-based Dechert partner Neil Gerrard referred to billing practices as being, “in rape mode.” As the American Lawyer reports:

Challenging the fees in court, general counsel Beat 
Ehrensberger testified that “Dechert made decisions regarding the methods and scope of investigation for the principal purpose of expanding the work to generate higher fees.” More colorfully, the GC testified that Dechert’s Neil Gerrard reportedly referred to himself as being “in rape mode.”

Wow, there is so very much to unpack in this statement. First of all, it shows incredible disrespect for your client. Are they really nothing more than conquered land you and your team are pillaging? And what of the ethical implications? When discussing a client, an entity one has a duty towards, you should probably avoid using an euphemism for “taking advantage of.” It just doesn’t play well.

Sponsored

Then, of course, is the way this language makes light of sexual violence. Charging a multinational corporation money for investigating corruption is not at all like sexually violating someone. To equate the two demeans the real pain and anguish rape victims go through. There may be an impulse by some to dismiss the statement as “insensitive” or concerns about it being “politically correct.” However, that underplays the way this rhetoric undermines a real issue. Imagine if you were a rape victim that happened to work for Gerrard and he referred to billing as “in rape mode.” Would you feel comfortable working often long hours with a man who could take up the persona of rapist to demonstrate how good he was at making money?

Overall, this is just a bad look for the firm. Large bills, particularly in internal investigations where firms have an obligation to follow the issues as they are uncovered, are nothing new or memorable. Dechert was investigating potential corruption, but instead of focusing on that serious issue, the issue for the firm, at least as ENRC sees it, became how to make more money. The language Gerrard allegedly used tells the real story, and it isn’t a flattering one.

With Internal Investigations, Firms Walk a Tightrope [American Lawyer]

Earlier: Overbilling Gone Wild: Paying the (DLA) Piper

Sponsored