New York, NY – August 28, 2025, The recent one-year suspension of a young associate lawyer for inflating billing hours has ignited a firestorm in the legal community, with veteran attorneys coming forward to claim that the practice—known as “padding” or “churning”—is far more common than regulators admit. The New York State Bar Association’s disciplinary committee announced on August 25 that 29-year-old associate Emily Carter of Manhattan-based firm Goldstein & Partners was banned from practicing law for 12 months after an internal audit revealed she had billed 1,200 hours over three years that were deemed “unnecessary or fabricated.” Carter, who admitted to the misconduct in a plea, cited intense pressure from senior partners to meet billable targets as her rationale. But in the wake of the ruling, anonymous lawyers from top firms are speaking out, asserting that exaggerating time sheets is a “survival mechanism” in a billable-hour-driven industry.
The case stems from a whistleblower complaint filed by a paralegal at Goldstein & Partners in late 2024, which triggered an investigation by the New York Attorney Grievance Committee. Records show Carter, a 2018 graduate of Fordham Law School, inflated entries for routine tasks like email reviews and phone calls, sometimes doubling the actual time spent. “I was terrified of falling short of the 2,000-hour quota,” Carter stated in her disciplinary hearing, according to transcripts obtained by Law.com. The committee’s decision emphasized the breach of New York Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.5, which prohibits unreasonable fees, and highlighted the ethical duty to be honest in billing. Goldstein & Partners, a mid-tier firm with 150 attorneys specializing in corporate litigation, has faced no formal charges but issued a statement recommitting to “ethical billing practices.”
A Widespread Practice? Insiders Weigh In
What has shocked the legal world is not the incident itself, but the chorus of support—or at least understanding—from peers. In a poll conducted by Above the Law on August 26, 62% of 1,200 respondents (mostly associates and partners at AmLaw 100 firms) admitted to knowing colleagues who “routinely inflate hours,” with 28% confessing to doing so themselves under pressure. “It’s an open secret,” said one anonymous Big Law partner at a New York firm, speaking to Reuters. “Billable hours are the lifeblood of the industry—firms track them obsessively, and juniors are expected to hit targets or risk their future. Padding a 15-minute call to 0.3 hours? Happens every day.”
Experts trace the issue to the billable-hour model’s flaws. Introduced in the 1950s by firms like Skadden Arps, it incentivizes quantity over quality, leading to burnout and ethical lapses. A 2024 American Bar Association survey found that 75% of associates experience “high stress” from billing quotas, with 40% reporting they’ve been encouraged to “round up” time. “Inflating hours isn’t just widespread; it’s systemic,” said ethics professor Deborah Rhode of Stanford Law School. “Firms profit from it, and until alternative models like flat fees or value-based billing become standard, it will persist.” Rhode pointed to high-profile cases, like the 2019 disbarment of a Los Angeles attorney for billing 40 hours in a day, as rare enforcement amid thousands of unreported instances.
The Carter ban has prompted soul-searching. On X, legal influencers like @BigLawInsider posted, “Emily Carter is the scapegoat. How many partners signed off on her sheets? Time to reform billing or watch the profession crumble.” Threads on Reddit’s r/LawFirm subreddit echoed this, with users sharing stories of “ghost hours” fabricated during slow periods. One viral post from a former associate at a top firm claimed, “My mentor taught me to bill 8 hours for a 6-hour day—’productivity is what counts, not reality.'”
Broader Implications for the Legal Industry
The fallout extends beyond Carter, who must now seek reinstatement after completing ethics training and community service. Firms are scrambling to audit billing practices, with Clio’s 2025 Legal Trends Report noting a 15% uptick in internal compliance reviews post-scandal. Regulators, including the ABA, are considering stricter oversight, such as mandatory AI-assisted billing audits, though privacy concerns loom. “This could accelerate the shift away from hours-based billing,” predicted legal tech analyst Bob Ambrogi. “Tools like TimeSolv and Clio Manage already track actual time; firms ignoring them risk lawsuits from clients overinflated fees.”
Clients, too, are reacting. Corporate counsel from Fortune 500 companies have demanded more transparency, with some, like General Electric, announcing they’ll scrutinize bills more rigorously. A 2025 Deloitte survey revealed 55% of in-house lawyers suspect overbilling, potentially eroding trust in external firms.
For young lawyers like Carter, the ban serves as a stark warning. “I regret it deeply, but the pressure is real,” she told the committee. As the industry grapples with this reckoning, calls for reform grow louder— from capping billables to embracing alternative fee arrangements. Until then, inflating hours remains a ticking time bomb in Big Law’s high-pressure world.