I just completed posts on four findings from a recent survey about the effects of UTBMS codes on law firm billing practices (See my post of June 23, 2011: often, many codes used even in a modest bill; June 27, 2011: codes made little difference in billing behavior of firms; June 28, 2011: little feedback on selection of codes; and July 5, 2011: law departments give no guidance based on codes). The Legalbill survey is rich in speculative insights and you are welcome to ask for a copy from Steve French. firstname.lastname@example.org
Inspired, I took a look back at my writings on the topic but found meager postings (See my post of April 9, 2009: no good set of task-based codes exist for discovery; June 3, 2010: GE litigators favor task codes; Feb. 11, 2010: drawbacks of Uniform Task Based Billing Codes; and April 7, 2011: task-based codes compared to automated bill review software.). These posts supplement my first metapost on the topic (See my post of Dec. 21, 2008: UTBMS with 8 references.).