Try padding, the simple trick will make you a top performer.
An Irwin Mitchell associate has been struck off after she was caught recording an incredible amount of time on client matters.
Natasha Fairs was a senior associate in the firm’s Serious Injury Team in its London office and had worked at Irwin Mitchell since 2007.
Two colleagues raised concerns with Fairs’ supervising partner, Richard Geraghty, after becoming puzzled by her marathon stints.
Geraghty looked into the matter and uncovered several unusual features to Fairs' time-recording.
Whereas Irwin Mitchell fee-earners would generally be expected to record 6.3 chargeable hours a day, Fairs was blasting past even the most soul-destroying targets of US firms. On 19 April 2022, she recorded 22.9 chargeable hours. A week later, she recorded 20.3 hours in a day.
Fairs also put down her time after the bills had been agreed and raised, so it was all written off. And mysteriously the all-nighters seemed to coincide with the run-up to her performance reviews, and the end of the financial year.
Although she recorded her time in six minute units on the client file note, she recorded the same numbers in hours on the time recording system. It meant that while 20 six minute units would be noted on the file, 20 hours would appear on the time recording system. The firm concluded this was a deliberate ploy so she could claim it was all an error if she was questioned.
Fairs accepted the firm’s finding she had manufactured time on her files, which included recording five hours for ‘Review/Analyse Part 36 offer on costs’ while she on sick leave - which she also put down.
Accepting the charges brought by the SRA, Fairs said in mitigation her mother had been unwell and died in 2022, while she had two young children.
“Dealing with this, my family, my work as well as the pandemic, we all were involved in that. I had to home school two children and continued to work.”
Accepting that she never asked for help, she said ,“I didn’t feel there was any that could be given. I did the stupid thing. I appreciate that it was stupid and wrong".
"I felt my only option was to make up my time. I made the wrong decision I should’ve asked for help. I was drowning and the time pressure made me make the stupid decision to put the time down.”
She said she deliberately sought to minimise thre impact by recording time in such a way it would not impact clients. “It was on closed files and I knew they were going to be written off... It wasn’t charged to clients and defendants, I wouldn’t do that… But I get the point, it doesn’t matter what stage the file is it’s still wrong and I accept that.”
Geraghty explained to the tribunal that although clients weren't impacted, her colleagues were, since they were short-changed on performance-related pay which instead went to Fairs.
Ordering Fairs to be struck off, the tribunal said her time padding represented “serious acts of dishonesty committed over an extended period”.
Fairs is the tip of the iceberg according to lawyers, who told ROF last year that padding time was endemic - and a third admitted engaging in the practice.
Comments
105
43
I am sad to read this as I really liked Natasha. She is a good soul and was clearly under a lot of pressure.
134
42
They only ever actually go after the easy stuff. Strike off seems to harsh for me, especially as no clients were harmed and this lady totally accepted the allegations. Surely there has to be some mitigation for that!
125
48
Surely this is a stern warning, not the end of a career. People make mistakes.
Every person faced with the prospect of being struck off should cite the Post Office case. After all, the key people involved in that case have been allowed to be promoted to the most handsomely rewarded tiers of law firm management in the years since the scandal broke, rather than being tackled by the SRA.
58
38
Hmmmhhh. She cooked her time recording before Financial Year End and associated performance review. She intended to do it as her firm found:
"It meant that while 20 six minute units would be noted on the file, 20 hours would appear on the time recording system. The firm concluded this was a deliberate ploy so she could claim it was all an error if she was questioned"
So she cheated her associates out of promotion or bonus payments. Not nice :(
40
34
pretty weak mitigation... we all dealt with covid, many of us deal with young kids and sick parents...
56
38
It’s always Irwin Mitchell.
46
40
Mental to think she could get away with it.
It is rife in the profession but people aren't stupid enough to trying 23 hour days on the clock!
58
25
You want to see the time recording habits of certain partners at [...] - but they'll never get caught - but they do catch their bonus!
42
43
Seems an endemic problem at IM.
She probably challenged management/status quo or they had some other reason get rid without giving her her basic employment rights.
51
33
Since was not intended to affect any clients, and did not affect them, the dishonesty is at the sillier end of the scale. And since it is v doubtful if this was a decisive or even a major factor in colleagues' bonuses, a lesser sanction (e.g., suspension) would have sufficed.
52
32
The fact she seemingly didn't think it odd that she was supposedly working more hours in the day than even the most workaholic of lawyers could achieve suggests to me that she really, really wasn't thinking this whole plan through at all, and was possibly in a panicked state or otherwise not in the best mindspace to think through her actions. Sure, her actions were definitely deceptive, but I would expect the odd hour or two added to each day over a longer period if she were acting purely maliciously. Ms Fairs says she was having difficulty and struggling, and I'm inclined to accept those were her reasons. Doesn't make it right or justify her actions, or absolve her of any form of penalty, but it does explain things. I think this is a symptom of an issue which is sadly endemic in the legal industry.
One of the biggest and most difficult lessons (for me, anyway) that I've learned during my time as a solicitor is how to ask people for help. As lawyers, we're expected (or put the expectation on ourselves) to have all the answers and act stoically in the face of difficulty. So when we face a situation we find challenging or near-impossible, we hunker down and try to sort the issue ourselves, often leading to less-than-stellar actions. If we don't, then we're "not up to" a life in the legal career; after all, a key quality required of a lawyer is being "resilient" (a word which has sadly been mutated to mean "puts up with shit that the average person would not feasibly be expected to endure"). At least, this was my experience and observation when working in private practice, and I'm slowly learning to reach out now I work in-house. If only Ms Fairs had the strength to reach out. Or perhaps: If only she felt sufficiently supported to feel able to reach out?
55
31
I spent two years billing genuinely 1700 - 1750 in a row without padding. It required late finishes and some weekend working. If you have non billables separately it is hard to record 1700 genuine. Time sheet padding exists and it's horrible to see some lazy Chad record 6 hours for claiming to have reviewed particulars of claim settled by counsel.
45
36
i'm not sure why. But this story really hit me this morning, I feel really sorry for her.
35
39
TLDR - assume that she was fired for recording such pitiful amounts a day? And, what's worse, apparently had to fake her timesheets just to manage that?
As all the big bally ballers of the RoF boards know anything less than 40 a day is slacker numbers.
Hot tip: when you whack off in the shower thinking about the hot senior associate on the other side of a deal, then that's at least three units of 'Considering' whichever matter it is that she is opposite you on.
44
29
When I worked for a Big 4 firm (not in law) some wild timesheets were submitted. I remember a partner praising an associate for working until 4am (presumably from 9am the previous day) and thinking 'this is not possible' and 'if you did, the quality of work due to fatigue must have been awful'.
34
33
Question for Anonymous 29 August 25 10:36. as an outsider looking in.
Can the SRA suspend solicitors for say 6 months rather than striking them off?
38
35
This certainly justified a dismissal, but strike off seems harsh to me.
There was - by design - no impact on clients.
52
31
Increasingly pervasive in the City tbqf. Some partner timesheets are barmy. Joins call for 20mins; records 1.5hrs…
Reeks of a hatchet job.
34
31
How would unbilled (and eventually written off) hours even be perceived as positive in a performance review?
If my realization rate goes south, thats a negative - regardless whether it is beacuse the partner agreed to some ridiculous discount or budget overruns caused by one workstream are compensated by write-offs across all workstreams/teams. And if the invoice coincidentally only goes out in the first week of January, all that work unfortunately will not count for the bonus review because cut-off is December 31st and there is nothing that could be done about it...
28
33
Sadly, there are many people who do this!
47
28
Reminds me of a corporate partner who was able to bill 8h days on two separate transactions whilst also managing to spend the same day at York races.
45
38
There was one guy in our team who only ever recorded full hours. 6 minute interval were not his style. Asked him something once, which took him 30 seconds to answer and he billed an hour. Looked at his time recording stats and he tended to bill 12 or 13 or 14 hours a day. And back when we had free taxis home after 21.00, he used to work to 21.01 and then claim a taxi. Once he worked to 21.00 then went for dinner at 21.30, then a club, then claimed a taxi on the client at 2am, because he'd "earned a free taxi". This was brought to the partner's attention, and the response was "he's a big biller - very valuable to us".
37
40
This case highlights more than individual failings—it casts a spotlight on systemic pressures within large firms that encourage inflated billing. The senior associate’s recording of nearly 23 hours in a day, repeatedly across multiple years, distorted colleagues’ earnings, eroded staffing forecasts, and ultimately undermined the firm’s integrity . Reform-minded observers might argue that the focus shouldn’t stop at one person’s misconduct, but extend to the billing culture and performance metrics that frame such behavior as expedient, if not expected .
sometimes when we touch ill say…
Compare the scenario to two people ascending a ladder house at opposite ends—technically close, yet never meeting. Despite her personal pressures—homeschooling, bereavement, heavy caseload—the broader architecture rewarded timekeeping over transparency .
A constructive response could involve regulatory reform: limit reliance on billable-hour targets, de-emphasize individual time metrics, and foster a culture of support and accuracy. Reform isn’t about defending misdeeds—it’s about redesigning a system where fairness, not just efficiency, underpins professional reward.
52
35
It’s a tricky one, dishonesty cannot be tolerated, but I can’t help thinking that the brutal permanence of being struck off despite circumstances where the offender has admitted fault, can evidence pressure etc and genuine remorse is going to put off other offenders from coming clean.
It feels like there needs to be a middle ground punishment for dishonesty with mitigants, which is not being struck off but is also not to be taken lightly.
42
31
Did anyone in management or admin ever check her time sheets? And if they did, didn't a few alarm bells go off?
40
34
1943hrs 29 August
Like a Doctor strike off by the GMC or similar or a Nurse or Midwife strike off by the RCN or RCM, you mean lasting just a few months, certainly not for many years as for a Solicitor?
I do hope not.
The SDT has established a bar and must not be consistent with it in ALL cases and unfortunately this seems from the reports to be a particularly flagrant one. Sad to say, but true.
45
35
A lot of people down voting my tips on turning shower-time into billable-time, clearly you aren't ready for the big leagues.
What you also need to be doing when you get here is recording two hours a day, spread across all of your active matters, for 'ensuring accurate billing narratives'. Spread that shit across them all, three units here, two there, oh and four for you because you asked questions about my brilliant analysis like it wasn't perfectly clear. It racks up fast. That's how you get the real numbers.
Then delegate some stuff to your juniors (record ten units here, nobody will ever check) and take your ass down to whichever local pub it is that the smokeshows from Marketing go to after work.
25 hours is a slow day.
31
29
Thinking time is legit and billable although 23hrs a day is plain wrong. And why record on billed files. I reckon if it was on billable files she would not have been caught out. It would have gone on the bill of costs and negotiate down on detailed assessment.