Billing issues in a copyright matter of Holland & Knight

Further to an earlier IPBiz post on Holland & Knight, a reader pointed to a link concerning billing issues in a copyright case.

The link is to an article by Nathan Koppel of the Wall Street Journal, reproduced in the Pittsburgh Gazette, and concerns charges made by Matthew Farmer, once a junior partner in the Chicago law offices of Holland & Knight LLP.

The article includes the text:

After the trial, Mr. Farmer reviewed the firm's bills. The first invoice struck him as odd, he says. It claimed he worked 6.5 hours on Aug. 7, 2002, the day he learned of the suit. Mr. Farmer says he distinctly recalls hearing about the case late that day and spending only 15 minutes on it.

(...)

In one instance, Mr. Farmer says, Mr. Ryan sent a bill to Pinnacle claiming that partner Scott Petersen had worked 89.8 hours over a 17-day period in March 2003. Mr. Farmer says internal firm records show the lawyer didn't work on the case at all during that time.


The article also includes the text:

It's difficult to know how widespread billing fraud is, but Stephen Gillers, an ethics professor at New York University School of Law, says "there is a general consensus that billing fraud has increased" as law firms seek to increase profits and attract top lawyers.


[IPBiz post 1965]