OTLA Trial Lawyer Winter 2021

49 Trial Lawyer • Winter 2021 than a perceived (rightfully so) waste of time and money. A simpler and better solution when a status letter is not criti- cally important, is to add lots of detail and explanation to the time entry. Put another way, turn the fee statement into a quasi-status report. I have a colleague who not only uses time entries for this purpose, but who also injects humor into them for levity. This colleague recently told me about a time entry in a case where opposing counsel was just “not getting it.” The time entry he described (paraphrased) went something like: “Draft third letter to [opposing counsel] to again describe why the Smith v. Jones case was controlling, because [opposing counsel] just doesn’t seem to understand the legal impact of this Oregon Supreme Court opinion on his case.” The above example illustrates how all three of the requirements in Rule #2 are met. As between these three sub-parts, however, the third — how the work benefits the client — is the most over- looked because in our own minds we know the value of the work. But we forget the client typically does not have a clue or might not be following why you are doing what you are doing, to fully grasp the importance of the time spent on particular tasks. It is our job, as the lawyer handling the case, to make sure our clients understand and are aware of where we are going and why we are going there. Rule #3 The words you use to describe what you did matter. The last rule, which re- ally falls in the “duh,” bucket, is this — chose your words carefully. For example, if your legal assistant or paralegal bills time, words such as “analyze” or “con- sider” might suggest to someone that the timekeeper, who is not an attorney, is engaging in the practice of law. Or, instead of using the word “con- sider,” use the word “communicate.” Here is an example: A: Consider email from opposing counsel regarding deposition schedule — .2 B. Communicate with opposing counsel about deposition schedule — .2 Both A and B accurately describe the same event — scheduling depositions with opposing counsel. Both took the same amount of time: .2 (12 minutes). But, imagine for a second that this time entry is being scrutinized by someone (court, opposing counsel, client). Which entry do you think is more likely to withstand that scrutiny? “Consider email” could be viewed as “reading an email.” Depending on the length of the email, the 12-minutes attributed to that task may or may not be reasonable. In contrast, “communicate” can cover a See Value of Time p 50