Reconstructed time records: how courts cut fee awards for them
Reconstructed time is rebuilt after the fact from calendars, email, or memory, often once fees become recoverable. Courts discount reconstructed hours because they are harder to verify and tend to be less accurate.
- Rulings tracked
- 23
- Total fees cut in these rulings
- $917K
What courts say
The Court will therefore deduct the 1.9 hours that Topic spent reviewing court orders during the merits portion of the case, in the amount of $1370.70.
the Court applies an additional 2% reduction to the fees on fees to compensate for any time Plaintiff spent reconstructing entries.
this Court reduces the remaining billed hours by thirty percent.
Because the Court has no information regarding the amount of time actually expended it is impossible to determine whether the time expended was reasonable or not.
Because this Court has determined that a supplementary hearing on fees is unnecessary and resolves this matter strictly on the moving papers, these speculative hours are disallowed.
How to keep it out of your fee petition
- Track time from the first day, even in matters you expect to be contingent or fee-shifting.
- If you must reconstruct time, say so and explain the sources.
- Do not round or estimate to fill gaps.
More: what a fee declaration needs · fee cuts for bad time records
FAQ
What is reconstructed time in legal billing?
Reconstructed time is rebuilt after the fact from calendars, email, or memory, often once fees become recoverable. Courts discount reconstructed hours because they are harder to verify and tend to be less accurate.
How often do courts cut fees for reconstructed time?
In 1.3% of federal fee rulings that cut a fee since January 2024 (26 rulings).
How do you avoid reconstructed time on a fee petition?
Track time from the first day, even in matters you expect to be contingent or fee-shifting. If you must reconstruct time, say so and explain the sources. Do not round or estimate to fill gaps.
Rulings that cut fees for reconstructed time
| Date | Court | Case | Practice area | Requested | Awarded | Cut | Recordkeeping reasons |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 30, 2026 | District of Columbia | LEOPOLD v. U.S. SECRET SERVICE et al | FOIA | $94,949.20 | $67,995.40 | 28.4% | Reconstructed time, Reconstructed time |
| Sep 30, 2026 | E.D. California | G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Navarro-Gonzalez | $51,122.50 | $18,616.50 | 63.6% | Reconstructed time, Block billing, Clerical work billed as legal work | |
| Aug 13, 2026 | M.D. Tennessee | Beekeepers Mill LLC v. Welcome Mat Vacations LLC et al | Consumer protection | Not stated | Not stated | See ruling | Missing contemporaneous records, Reconstructed time |
| Jul 1, 2026 | D. Massachusetts | Misiph et al v. 360 Painting, LLC et al | $18,100 | $13,695 | 24.3% | Reconstructed time | |
| Apr 20, 2026 | S.D. California | Petconnect Rescue, Inc. v. Salinas et al | $8,337.50 | $4,875 | 41.5% | Reconstructed time | |
| Aug 1, 2025 | District of Columbia | LEOPOLD v. U.S. SECRET SERVICE et al | FOIA | $94,949.20 | $67,995.40 | 28.4% | Reconstructed time, Reconstructed time |
| Jul 23, 2025 | D. Arizona | Stein et al v. Depke et al | Civil rights | $983,227.16 | $742,161.66 | 24.5% | Vague entries, Clerical work billed as legal work, Reconstructed time |
| Jul 1, 2025 | E.D. California | BMO Bank N.A. v. Singh | Commercial | $4,550 | $3,575 | 21.4% | Reconstructed time |
| Jun 30, 2025 | D. Minnesota | Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. Bradshaw Construction Corp. et al | Commercial | $14,210.95 | $12,610.95 | 11.3% | Reconstructed time |
| Jun 13, 2025 | E.D. California | BMO Bank N.A. v. Singh | Commercial | $4,550 | $3,575 | 21.4% | Reconstructed time |
| May 7, 2025 | D. Oregon | Magallon v. Robert Half International, Inc. | Consumer protection | $4,288,343.80 | $4,076,999.77 | 4.9% | Block billing, Vague entries, Reconstructed time, Clerical work billed as legal work |
| May 7, 2025 | E.D. California | BMO Bank N.A. v. Lala Trucking Inc, et al. | Commercial | $3,672.50 | $2,535 | 31% | Reconstructed time |
| Apr 21, 2025 | E.D. California | BMO Bank N.A. v. Lala Trucking Inc, et al. | Commercial | $3,672.50 | $2,535 | 31% | Reconstructed time |
| Dec 23, 2024 | E.D. California | BMO Bank N.A. v. Chahal Roadlines Inc, et al. | Commercial | $4,387.50 | $3,412.50 | 22.2% | Reconstructed time |
| Nov 21, 2024 | E.D. California | BMO Bank N.A. v. Singh | Commercial | Not stated | Not stated | See ruling | Reconstructed time |
| Nov 19, 2024 | E.D. California | BMO Bank N.A. v. Chahal Roadlines Inc, et al. | Commercial | $4,387.50 | $3,412.50 | 22.2% | Reconstructed time |
| Oct 31, 2024 | E.D. California | BMO Bank N.A. v. Singh | Commercial | $3,152.50 | $2,080 | 34% | Reconstructed time |
| Oct 28, 2024 | D. Minnesota | Zhulin v. I.Q. Data International, Inc. et al | Consumer protection | $60,765 | $39,408 | 35.2% | Clerical work billed as legal work, Reconstructed time, Vague entries |
| Sep 5, 2024 | D. Colorado | Let's Go Aero, Inc. v. Forcome, Ltd. | Commercial | $47,933 | $33,707.25 | 29.7% | Clerical work billed as legal work, Clerical work billed as legal work, Reconstructed time |
| Jul 16, 2024 | D. Arizona | TAC Holdings LLC v. Atlatl Group LLC et al | Commercial | $48,176.78 | $21,328 | 55.7% | Block billing, Reconstructed time |
| Apr 30, 2024 | E.D. California | Early et al v. Keystone Restaurant Group, LLC et al | Employment | $630,387 | $346,192.50 | 45.1% | Vague entries, Missing contemporaneous records, Reconstructed time |
| Mar 8, 2024 | Bankr. E.D. California | Buettner, III et al v. Residential Funding Corporation et al | Bankruptcy | $59,475 | $47,580 | 20% | Missing contemporaneous records, Reconstructed time |
| Feb 20, 2024 | E.D. New York | Henni v. Rotana Cafe & Restaurant Inc. et al | Wage and hour | $5,250 | $2,000 | 61.9% | Missing contemporaneous records, Reconstructed time |
Spot an error? Email team@legaltime.ai with the case name and we will correct it. Summaries of public court opinions. Not legal advice.