The Law Firm Billing Myth
Ben Thomson, LawFuel contributing editor
The legal profession has always been fond of a long lunch, a late night, and a generous definition of billable. But every now and then, someone pushes the grift so far it becomes a morality tale, which is what just occurred with an associate at Irwin Mitchell who claimed to work 23 hours in a single day.
Even Sisyphus would have asked for a nap. Unsurprisingly, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has now struck her off.
The Law Firm Billing Myth
The Irwin Mitchell associate who billed 23 hours in a day was struck off, but the real scandal is how widespread inflated billing is across law firms. Clients aren’t blind, and AI tools are now exposing the cracks in BigLaw’s billing culture.
The Myth of Honest Billing
The case uncovers an uncomfortable truth about over-billing by law firms. Although the case looks spectacularly stupid, the underlying sin is hardly unusual. Over-billing has been the worst-kept secret of BigLaw for decades. A recent Law.com report carried the unsurprising revelation from lawyers themselves, inflating hours is endemic ratherthan an occasional aberration.
The incentives are clear to overbill are very clear to anyone familiar with the requirements and constraints imposed upon associate fee-earners expected to pay their way. Consider what they are:
• Associates are judged not by the quality of their work, but by how close they come to the mythical 2,000-hour annual target.
• Partners use inflated hours to protect margins, meet client expectations on staffing, and secure their profit-per-partner bonuses.
• Everyone pretends not to notice, unless it goes too far and makes headlines.
It’s a law firm billing culture that rewards dishonesty while punishing the unlucky fool who leaves fingerprints on the till.
A System Built to Fail
Consider the absurdity of all this – firms demand hours that would leave most normal people catatonic, then act shocked when associates invent time.
The profession has created a system where junior lawyers are essentially incentivised to cheat. A partner who pads a bill is a rainmaker. An associate who does it clumsily is dishonest.
General counsel at major corporates have long suspected they’re being fleeced, and in-house teams increasingly use AI-powered analytics to pick apart outside counsel invoices. One wonders how many 23-hour days are quietly being absorbed, massaged, or simply ignored.
Why It Matters
Clients are not idiots, in case lawyers hadn’t notice. They may tolerate the fiction of six-minute billing units, but not a fantasy world where lawyers don’t sleep.
Scandals like this don’t just embarrass a single firm. They reinforce every cynical assumption corporate clients already hold about private practice. And in an era where alternative fee structures, subscription models, and AI-assisted legal services are on the rise, traditional firms are effectively eating away at their own business case.
The Irwin Mitchell associate is gone, but the billable-hour problem remains. Striking her off is the easy bit. The harder task is reforming a profession that’s addicted to billing targets, fictional hours, and the polite silence that surrounds both.
The Big Billing Takeaway
The 23-hour lawyer is a convenient scapegoat, but she didn’t invent over-billing. She just did it badly. The truth is that BigLaw’s most sacred cow, the billable hour, is also its weakest point. And if firms don’t deal with it, clients armed with spreadsheets, AI, and a deep distrust of lawyers certainly will.
In law, honesty may be the best policy, but only if you’re incompetent enough to get caught.
