Most lawyers charge for their time whenever time is spent on behalf of a client. If you timely requested a clarification of charges on any particular statement, that should be handled one way and, IMO, free of charge.
If, on the other hand, you are questioning the charges for three years worth of billing -- I think most attorneys would handle it differently from the first instance and, perhaps, advise you that you would be charged for the time in responding to your inquiry.
Your statements should have included detail. If you are asking your attorney to justify all services performed beyond the detail provided, as opposed to a particular time and charge item, the attorney may be justified in billing you for that time as it will necessarily involve explaining how the charges are necessarily justified in the context of your case.
You, of course, have the option of retaining other counsel if you do not agree with your attorney’s billing practices and you may even institute non-binding fee arbitration. Your attorney has the option of suing you for fees.
Attorney’s usually strive to avoid fee disputes. I suggest you copy the statements wherein you question charges and for each disputed charge, number it on the copied statement. Then, on a separate piece of paper, corresponding to the number on the copy, state your objection to the charge. Then, determine, the amount of any adjustment you seek from adding up all the corrections you believe should be made and suggest 50% of that figure as an overall write-down. Convey that figure to your attorney along with a copy of your work. Your attorney can then very quickly determine whether or not to write-down any charges and/or accept your offer of compromise.
IMO, no -- it is not unethical conduct. You have been forwarded. Good luck.
SINCE 1974. My answers are for general information only. They are not legal advice. Answers assume California law. I am licensed in California, only. Answers must not be relied upon.<br> <br> Legal advice and counsel must be based on the interplay between specific exact facts and the law. This forum does not allow for the discussion of that interplay. My answer to any specific question would likely be different if that interplay were explored during an attorney-client relationship. I provide legal advice and counsel during the course of an attorney-client relationship only. The exchange of information through this forum does not establish such a relationship. That relationship is established only by personal and direct consultation with me followed by the execution of a written attorney-client agreement signed by each of us.<br> <br> The communications on this website are not privileged or confidential. I assume no duty to anyone by my participation on Avvo because I have answered or commented on a question. Specifically, I assume no duty to respond to any question, comment, telephone call, or email because of my participation.<br> <br> All legal proceedings involve deadlines and time limiting statutes. So that legal rights are not lost for failure to timely take appropriate action and because I do not provide legal advice or counsel in answer to any question, if you are an interested party you should promptly and personally consult with an attorney for advice and counsel. Also, see Avvo's terms and conditions of use, specifically item 9, incorporated by this reference.<br> <br> Michael R. Daymude, Esq., Sherman Oaks Galleria – Comerica Bank Building, 15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 900, Sherman Oaks, CA 91401-6150. Telephone: 818.971.9409 • Website: mrdaymude.com
Most lawyers, as a sensible business decision, would spend a reasonable amount of time with a client explaining the bill in the hopes that such a session could avoid having the client file a fee dispute with the state bar, or in the hopes that such a session could avoid bad will being generated.