Inflating Hours is Widespread, Say Lawyers After Irwin Mitchell Associate Ban
London, UK — The recent barring of a former Irwin Mitchell senior associate for inflating billable hours has sparked a broader conversation within the legal industry about the pervasive issue of timesheet padding. Natasha Janet Dionne Fairs, who joined the national law firm’s serious injury team in 2007 and was promoted to senior associate in 2022, was struck off the solicitors’ roll after admitting to dishonest billing practices over several years, including recording nearly 23 hours of chargeable work in a single day. The case, ruled on by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) on August 26, 2025, has prompted lawyers to speak out, claiming that inflating hours is a widespread practice in Big Law culture that demands reform.
Details of the Case
Fairs, aged 47 and admitted as a solicitor in 2003, was reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) by Irwin Mitchell in May 2023 after colleagues raised concerns about her timekeeping. A review by supervising partner Richard Geraghty revealed that Fairs consistently recorded hours far exceeding the firm’s expected 6.3 chargeable hours per day. Notable instances included 20 hours and 24 minutes on April 28, 2020, 22.9 hours on April 19, 2022, and 18.1 hours on April 14, 2023. The SDT found that Fairs deliberately inflated timesheets on high-value cases where bills were already finalized or on fixed-fee matters where extra hours would be written off, meaning clients were not directly charged for the excess.
While no clients suffered financial harm, the SDT ruled that Fairs’ actions had “a significant impact on both her colleagues and the firm.” Her inflated hours distorted fee allocations, reducing the share of fees for colleagues working on the same cases, which affected their salaries, bonuses, and promotion prospects. The tribunal concluded her behavior was “deliberate, sustained, and dishonest,” leading to her being struck off and ordered to pay £5,200 in costs. Fairs admitted to the misconduct, citing personal and professional pressures, including homeschooling during the pandemic and a heavy caseload, but accepted that these did not excuse her actions.
Industry Reaction and Broader Implications
The case has ignited a debate about billing practices in the legal profession, with many lawyers arguing that inflating hours is a systemic issue driven by intense pressure to meet billable hour targets. Anna Elena Brolis, a lawyer and executive trainer, told Law.com that inflating hours, at least to some extent, is “widely accepted” in Big Law, particularly for associates not directly managing client relationships. She noted that annual targets of 2,000 to 2,400 billable hours are often unachievable without padding, given the actual working days in a year.
Posts on platforms like Legal Cheek reflect similar sentiments, with one commenter stating, “Inflating hours is a rite of passage. And if clients don’t like it, tough. Hire in-house lawyers, it’s much MUCH more efficient.” Another recounted observing partners at a legal aid firm claiming hours not worked, describing it as “common” practice. These comments highlight a culture where timesheet inflation is seen by some as an accepted workaround to meet firm expectations, though others condemned it as fraud that undermines professional integrity and public trust.
The SDT’s ruling has also raised questions about oversight at Irwin Mitchell. One commenter on Legal Cheek noted that it took three years to detect Fairs’ egregious timesheets, pointing to potential lapses in management. Irwin Mitchell, which reported a 45% profit increase to £21.7 million in 2023-24, has faced scrutiny before, including a 2021 decision to scrap chargeable hours firm-wide to prioritize flexible working. However, the Fairs case suggests that billing pressures persist, particularly for associates aiming for promotions or bonuses.
Calls for Reform and Industry Context
Legal experts argue that the Fairs case underscores the need for systemic changes in how law firms measure productivity. The pressure to meet billable hour targets, often tied to performance metrics and career advancement, can incentivize unethical behavior. Brolis suggested to Law.com that firms should adopt more transparent billing models or shift toward value-based pricing to reduce reliance on hourly targets. Others advocate for better oversight, such as regular audits of timesheets, to catch discrepancies early.
The issue is not unique to Irwin Mitchell. Similar concerns have surfaced across the legal industry, with posts on X and Reddit highlighting timesheet padding in corporate due diligence and document review. One X user remarked, “Timesheet padding is incredibly common in lev[eraged finance], corporate due diligence… it’s a dirty secret firms don’t want to admit.” Such practices, when exposed, erode client trust and fuel calls for in-house legal teams, which are seen as more cost-effective.
Community Impact and Ongoing Discussion
While the case has not been widely discussed in Kansas City, Kansas, where recent local news has focused on the tragic death of Police Officer Hunter Simoncic on August 26, 2025, it resonates nationally within the legal community. The barring of Fairs serves as a cautionary tale for lawyers under pressure to meet unrealistic targets. The SDT’s ruling, combined with industry commentary, has amplified calls for reform to address the root causes of timesheet inflation, from excessive billing targets to inadequate oversight.
As the legal profession grapples with these challenges, the Fairs case may prompt firms to reevaluate their cultures and practices. For now, it stands as a stark reminder of the ethical and professional risks of prioritizing billable hours over integrity, with ripple effects likely to influence discussions on law firm management and client relations for years to come.
This article has been reviewed for grammar and clarity to ensure accuracy and readability for a U.S. audience.