Block billing: meaning, examples and fee risks

Block billing records several separate tasks in one time entry with a single total, concealing each task's duration. Clients, insurers and courts can reject or reduce those fees because they cannot assess each task's reasonableness. The practical fix is one entry per task, with its own duration and narrative.

Block billing gives separate tasks one shared duration

Block billing combines distinct tasks under one time charge, even when the narrative describes each task. The California fee arbitration committee's advisory uses that definition and explains the resulting difficulty in checking charges.

Itemised billing, or task-based billing, gives each task its own duration and narrative. A lengthy entry covering a single task is not automatically block billing: drafting a motion can take several hours. The problem arises when separate tasks share one undivided total, also called lumping.

Rebuilding a matter's day from memory makes that separation harder. Sixminute automatically records tasks and writes their time entries, removing the need for reconstruction.

An itemised entry makes the same work assessable

An itemised record shows how the total divides between tasks. This illustrative block-billed entry hides that division:

Block-billed: Review correspondence from opposing counsel; telephone conference with client about settlement; draft motion to compel; research case law on discovery sanctions: 6.4 hours.

The same work itemised:

• Review opposing counsel's correspondence about outstanding discovery: 0.3 hours.
• Call with client about settlement options: 0.5 hours.
• Draft motion to compel outstanding discovery: 3.2 hours.
• Research case law on discovery sanctions supporting the motion: 2.4 hours.

Both versions total 6.4 hours. The second lets a reviewer assess whether 2.4 hours of research was reasonable and the settlement call was needed. Each duration uses a 0.1-hour increment, as required by The Hartford's billing guidelines. Semicolons can prompt a review, but punctuation alone does not establish block billing. The firm's time-entry guidance should require each task's purpose and duration.

Clients reject entries they cannot test or code

Clients reject block billing because one total prevents them from assessing each task's cost. It can hide duplicated effort or clerical work charged at lawyer rates. A fee auditor needs enough detail to separate allowable work from those charges. California's Analysis of Potential Bill Padding identifies that problem without treating every block as proof of dishonesty.

Insurer litigation billing guidelines can also prohibit the format. The Hartford rejects grouping different activities under a single task code and prohibits duplicated effort. Firms should check outside counsel guidelines before submitting an invoice.

Coding adds another obstacle. The LEDES Oversight Committee's UTBMS resource explains that electronic invoice entries are task-based. A block spanning several UTBMS task codes cannot show the time attributable to each. During legal bill review, that missing detail can lead to a request for supporting records or a write-down.

A shared task code still leaves each activity's duration unexplained.

Courts can reduce fees without an express ethics ban

Courts can reduce poorly documented fees even though ABA Model Rule 1.5 does not expressly prohibit block billing. It requires a reasonable fee; the applicable jurisdiction's rules and the client's agreement also govern billing.

In US fee-shifting litigation, the lodestar starts with reasonable hours multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) places the burden of documenting hours and rates on the fee applicant. Inadequate records can justify a reduction.

In Welch v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 480 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2007), the Ninth Circuit vacated a 20% reduction applied to all requested hours when barely more than half were block-billed. It allowed a reduction on remand with an explanation relating it to the block-billed hours. The decision establishes no standard deduction from a client's invoice.

In the Netherlands, NOvA Rule 17 requires properly specified invoices showing rates and time or another agreed basis. The Hof van Discipline has criticised inadequate specifications, including after requests for detail. The Dutch and Belgian billing rules guide covers that detail.

Reconstructing the day loses the split between tasks

Lawyers rebuilding time afterwards may remember a matter's total hours without remembering each task's duration. California's fee arbitration advisory explains why delayed reconstruction is less reliable than contemporaneous records. That helps explain why separate tasks end up in one entry, although lawyers can also choose the format deliberately.

Memory gaps can reduce recorded time too. In Primary Research Group's 2014 survey of lawyers at US firms with 25 or more lawyers, 57.7% said they had reduced time because they could not remember a task's duration. The average reduction was 5.9 hours a month.

Recording each task as it happens preserves its duration and purpose. A matter total reconstructed at month-end provides no reliable basis for allocating time between tasks.

How Sixminute records the day one task at a time

Sixminute records a lawyer's whole working day and writes one time entry per task. It automatically matches each task to its client and matter, with its duration and a client-ready narrative. The mobile app covers phone calls; Outlook and Google Calendar cover meetings away from the desk.

Computer Event Reconstruction (CER) lets Sixminute reconstruct work across every application on the computer without integrations. That includes PDF readers and court portals, so tasks retain their own entries as the lawyer moves between applications.

Sixminute filters activity on the device and sends only what the timesheet needs. It takes no screenshots and logs no keystrokes. Setup takes about 5 minutes.

Entries stay private to the lawyer, who reviews and releases them into the firm's existing system in about 6 minutes a day. In Sixminute's tests, lawyers billed 9 to 15% more hours for the same work. The lawyer decides which entries belong on the bill.

Check task durations before releasing the next invoice

Review recent entries for separate tasks sharing one total before sending the next invoice. Search for semicolons and “and”, then check whether the narrative covers distinct tasks.

1. Check each client's itemisation requirements, including any insurer guidelines and required codes.
2. Split combined entries using recorded durations or supporting evidence. Ask the timekeeper to resolve gaps rather than dividing a total arbitrarily. Keep the evidence supporting the split.
3. Give each task a narrative explaining its purpose and check whether the charge is allowable.
4. Record future tasks as they happen. For firms considering automatic time capture, test a day that includes work across applications and a client call.