Padding of time records is Theft

A US disciplinary body has described the recording of personal phone calls as billable to a client as "simple thievery".  And so it is.  Charging time to a client for work which was either not undertaken, or took less time than that recorded ("padding"), results in the client paying for a service which wasn't actually undertaken.  If the fee arrangement with a client provides that the lawyer is charging in accordance with time spent, then that says it all.  Is seeking payment for time not actually spent that much different to Visyboard and Amcor entering into a price fixing arrangement?

I recently gave a seminar on "The Ethics of Time Based Billing".  This is a topic which some lawyers would rather ignore.  However, it is likely to be of increasing interest to Australian disciplinary bodies and to courts reviewing legal fees, with the continuing impacts of the Legal Profession Acts.  There are many other ethical aspects of time billing other than time padding.  I will look at these in future posts.