Most of the observations on this blog about timekeepers have to do with too many timekeepers billing on matters (See my post of June 27, 2007: Pareto’s law and the number of timekeepers on matters; Nov. 8, 2005: number of timekeepers on a matter; March 28, 2005: rule of thumb of one lawyer and one paralegal on a matter; Nov. 15, 2005: 17 timekeepers per law firm in claims work; Sept. 5, 2005: Citigroup’s views; Nov. 22, 2007: number of timekeepers for a financial institution; and Nov. 15, 2005: during a year AIG used 34,000 timekeepers on claims.).
One reason for this profusion is that many roles have evolved to fit specialized needs or cost constraints (See my post of Jan. 19, 2008: vast array of other timekeepers; June 24, 2007: project managers in law firms; and Oct. 21, 2005: litigation support consultants; June 27, 2007: timekeepers other than partners; Feb. 4, 2007: partner time to other timekeepers’ time;
Timekeepers who record small numbers of hours on bills are a peeve (See my post of Jan. 21, 2008: those who bill short time periods on matters; Sept. 4, 2005: quick billers; Nov. 8, 2005: drive-by billers; and Nov. 6, 2007: concentration of time by firm timekeepers.).
Other posts address administrative issues (See my post of Feb. 21, 2007: difficult to maintain rates in e-billing systems; and Oct. 15, 2007: e-billing checks timekeepers
Posts about core staff also refer to the notion of a small set of timekeepers who should account for most of the billing. Other posts discuss large discounts for supernumeraries (See my post of Aug. 8, 2006: core staff with 6 references.).