Why attorney fee calculations results differ in New Hampshire

The top 5 reasons results differ

If your New Hampshire attorney fee numbers don’t match between two runs (or two people using DocketMath), the cause is usually a small input mismatch, not a mysterious “math bug.” Below are the most common reasons attorney fee calculation results differ in New Hampshire (US-NH) when calculators model fees using the default assumptions many tools apply.

Baseline timing context (often overlooked)

New Hampshire’s general civil statute of limitations (SOL) is 3 years under RSA 508:4. Based on the information in this brief, there’s no claim-type-specific sub-rule identified, so you should treat 3 years under RSA 508:4 as the general/default period for timing-related modeling. (This matters if your fee calculation includes SOL horizon timing or period-based projections.)

1) Different fee type assumptions (hourly vs. flat vs. blended)

A frequent divergence is whether the calculation is configured for:

• Hourly rates (rate × hours)
• Flat fees (fixed amount)
• Hybrid/blended (some tasks hourly, others flat)

Even if both outputs “look close,” changing fee structure can shift the final result—especially when tasks are split across categories or multiple line items.

2) Rate and hours entered from different sources

People often pull inputs from different places:

• billing invoices (e.g., net billable hours)
• timesheets (e.g., raw recorded hours)
• role-based entries (attorney vs. paralegal vs. other timekeepers)

A small difference—like entering 6.5 hours in one run versus 6 hours in another—can cascade quickly, particularly if multipliers or multiple timekeepers are involved.

3) The jurisdiction/timing model is applied differently (SOL horizon vs. actual work window)

Some workflows apply a 3-year SOL horizon (the general period) using RSA 508:4, while others calculate fees strictly for the actual work dates.

Example of how this creates mismatch:

• Run A projects fees across a 3-year window (SOL horizon model)
• Run B limits totals to the actual start/end dates worked

Even with identical hourly math, totals won’t match if one run effectively stretches the timeframe.

4) Disputed billing items treated differently (what’s included vs. excluded)

Fee tools may separate or ignore certain categories, for example:

• administrative time
• clerical work
• travel time
• drafting vs. review

If one calculation includes categories that the other excludes, you can get a meaningful difference even when rates and hours appear consistent.

5) Rounding rules and charge formatting

Mismatch can come from when and how rounding is applied, such as:

• rounding hours before multiplying by rate
• rounding final totals only
• rounding per invoice block vs. rounding after summing all blocks

On multi-line calculations, rounding differences can create totals that don’t reconcile cleanly.

How to isolate the variable

A practical way to diagnose the issue is a controlled “diff” method: change one input (or setting) at a time while keeping everything else constant.

• Freeze the jurisdiction and tool settings so both runs use the same rule set.
• Compare one input at a time (dates, rates, amounts) and re-run after each change.
• Review the breakdown to see which segment or assumption drives the difference.

A quick checklist (run both versions)

Use DocketMath to verify input/output alignment

Start by running the same scenario in DocketMath and compare inputs to outputs. If you’re using the tool directly, begin here:

• Run your scenario in DocketMath: **/tools/attorney-fee

Then isolate the mismatch:

1. Lock dates and rerun with identical fee line items.
2. Lock all dates/lines, then change only the rate(s).
3. Lock all numeric amounts, then change only rounding/display settings (if your workflow supports them).
4. If SOL timing is involved, confirm both runs use the same SOL basis (default/general period: 3 years under RSA 508:4).

Gentle reminder: this is an accounting-style reconciliation exercise, not legal advice. If your case involves a specific rule beyond the general SOL, confirm the relevant doctrine with a qualified professional.

Next steps

Once you find the mismatch, you can reduce the chance of future discrepancies.

1. Pick a single “source of truth” for inputs

   • Use invoices for hourly/time totals, or timesheets for hours—just don’t mix them without documenting why.

2. Write down assumptions with the numbers

   • Fee type (hourly/flat/hybrid)
   • Timekeeper list
   • Included/excluded categories (travel, admin/clerical, etc.)
   • Rounding rule (per line vs. end total)

3. Re-run using the same date span

   • If your method includes SOL horizon timing, anchor it to 3 years under RSA 508:4 as the default/general period.
   • Otherwise, base totals strictly on the actual work period.

4. Re-check category inclusion before changing math

   • Many “calculation” differences are actually classification differences (what the tool included).

5. Check the size of the delta

   • Large differences usually point to hours/rates or fee structure.
   • Small differences often point to rounding rules or category inclusion/exclusion.

Related reading

• Worked example: attorney fee calculations in Vermont — Worked example with real statute citations
• Attorney Fees Guide for Alaska
• Attorney Fees Guide for American Samoa