June 29, 2022

Volume XII, Number 180

Advertisement
Advertisement

June 29, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 28, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 27, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Michigan Court of Appeals Upholds Block Billing – If Entries Are Adequately Detailed

The practice of block billing, assigning a one-time entry for multiple tasks, is generally forbidden by law firm clients. The Michigan Court of Appeals, however, recently upheld the use of block billing as applied to the award of attorney fees so long as the time entries are “adequately detailed.”

Lakeside Retreats LLC v. Camp No Counselors LLC, __ Mich. App. __ (2022), involved a largely contractual dispute. The defendants were defaulted, and part of the litigation involved the plaintiff’s request for an award of attorney fees based on a provision in the parties’ contract.

In challenging the award of attorney fees, the defendants objected to, among other things, the use of block billing by the plaintiff’s attorney. They argued that the plaintiff’s invoices “failed to permit a proper calculation of the amount of hours expended” because of the block billing.

The Michigan Court of Appeals disagreed. According to the court, other courts had criticized the use of block billing in the past and reduced attorney fee awards because the entries were vague and too general in nature, making it difficult to assess what was done and whether it was reasonable. But the court felt that was not a reason to reject block billing outright.

The court instead found there was nothing inherently wrong about block billing, but added an important qualification that block billing was acceptable “so long as the entries within the blocks are themselves adequately detailed.” In other words, the court did not “find anything intrinsically vague about block billing; so long as the block billing entries are sufficiently detailed to permit an analysis of what tasks were performed, the relevance of those tasks to the litigation, and whether the amount of time expended on those tasks was reasonable.”

This, of course, does not mean that the practice of block billing should be used for all clients. Clients have, for good reason, determined that block billing is not the best way for them to analyze the work that was done and is not the best business practice. But at least the Michigan Court of Appeals has recognized that block billing can be appropriate if it’s done the right way.

© 2022 Wilson ElserNational Law Review, Volume XII, Number 173
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

William S. Cook Attorney Litigation Wilson Elser Law Firm Detroit
Partner

William Cook focuses his practice on appellate work, general liability and casualty, employment law and insurance coverage litigation. Throughout his career, William has handled appeals before state appellate courts in Michigan, Illinois and California in addition to appeals before the Sixth and Seventh Circuits. The appeals have covered numerous topics ranging from contract and tort issues to insurance coverage disputes, including cases involving bad faith in which he mounts a particularly aggressive defense.

William’s practice also involves...

313-327-3113
Matthew High Associate Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Associate

Matthew High represents established businesses and individuals in all aspects of civil litigation. His practice encompasses the defense of clients in employment law, commercial litigation, automobile liability and general liability matters.

Prior to joining Wilson Elser, Matt was the Director of Legal and Labor Affairs for a local school district. In that role, he negotiated collective bargaining agreements, conducted employee investigations, and handled matters that involved government agencies such as the Michigan Occupational Safety and...

313-327-3115
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement