Spreadsheet checks before running attorney fee calculations in New Hampshire

6 min read

Published April 15, 2026 • By DocketMath Team

What the checker catches

Running attorney-fee calculations straight from a spreadsheet can hide small data issues that later become big calculation errors. In New Hampshire, you’ll also want to time-check your “work performed / bill period” inputs against the general statute of limitations—which is 3 years under RSA 508:4 for general civil actions. In this brief, no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found, so treat 3 years as the default timing baseline (rather than a tailored rule for every fee scenario).

A practical spreadsheet checker should catch problems like these before you run the numbers in DocketMath’s attorney-fee workflow:

  • Date logic errors

    • Missing dates (blank “start” or “end” fields)
    • Reversed date ranges (end date earlier than start date)
    • Off-by-one mistakes (partial days treated inconsistently)
    • Mixed formats (e.g., MM/DD/YYYY vs DD/MM/YYYY) that silently swap months/days
  • Rate and multiplier inconsistencies

    • Hourly rate stored as a percentage or as text (e.g., "120" instead of 120)
    • Multipliers applied twice (e.g., one column already includes the multiplier, then later you multiply again)
    • A fees column that “looks right” but doesn’t truly reference the rate/hours fields you think it does
  • Hours that don’t reconcile

    • Negative time entries (often from sign flips or copying formulas)
    • “Billable” totals that omit “non-billable” time with no flag or explanation
    • Decimal-hour drift from inconsistent conversions (e.g., 15 minutes becomes 0.25 in one place but 0.3 elsewhere)
  • Duplicate rows or repeated invoices

    • Multiple entries for the same date/time range
    • Same invoice number posted twice with different tax settings
    • Vendor/task columns that appear identical but differ by whitespace (e.g., trailing spaces)
  • Category mapping problems

    • Task descriptions that don’t map to the intended fee category (or map to “unassigned”)
    • Inconsistent category naming (e.g., Motion to Compel vs Mtn to Compel)
  • Sanity-checking limitations timing

    • If your spreadsheet includes dates that drive fee eligibility logic (e.g., work dates, bill period dates, claim-related reference dates), flag rows that fall outside the 3-year general window.
    • Again, because no claim-type-specific sub-rule was identified here, use RSA 508:4’s 3-year general period as the default baseline for your spreadsheet’s timing filters.

Pitfall: A spreadsheet can be numerically consistent yet still be legally mismatched if date ranges don’t align with the 3-year general limitations period under RSA 508:4. Always validate date inputs before relying on totals.

Quick validation table (use as your checklist)

CheckWhat you look forSpreadsheet symptomFix direction
Date range integrityEnd ≥ startTotals drop to zero or jump unexpectedlyStandardize date parsing; re-run conversions
Format uniformityAll dates stored as real date typesFilters don’t work; sorting behaves oddlyConvert text dates to a date type
Hours reconciliationBase units → hoursTotals differ by ~0.01–0.50 hrsRecalculate conversions from minutes/seconds consistently
Duplicate detectionInvoice/task/date duplicatesSame task counted twiceAdd a unique key + dedupe step
Category mappingNo silent “unassigned” leakageFinal summaries miss amountsNormalize category names + mapping table
Limitations timingWork dates near/outside 3-year window“Old” work still included (or wrongly excluded)Flag out-of-window entries for review

When to run it

Run the checker at three points, because each stage catches different failure modes:

  • Before you import or paste new billing data

    • Goal: prevent format drift (especially dates and numeric types).
    • Best practice: immediately run date-range integrity and hours-conversion checks after importing.
  • Right after you categorize or tag time entries

    • Goal: catch mapping errors before totals lock in.
    • Look for any entries routed to “unassigned,” and identify categories with unusually high/low totals compared to prior periods.
  • Before generating the final attorney-fee totals

    • Goal: verify your spreadsheet’s inputs match the timing baseline you plan to apply.
    • In New Hampshire, use RSA 508:4’s 3-year general limitations period as the default timing constraint.
    • Since no claim-type-specific sub-rule is identified here, treat 3 years as the standard window in your spreadsheet filters for this baseline sanity-check.

A practical timing rule

  • If your spreadsheet includes a work date and a calculation “as-of” date (or other claim-related reference date), run the checker anytime the as-of date changes.
  • Even shifting an as-of date by 1 month can move borderline records into or out of your selected window—changing totals even if everything else is correct.

Note: This is general spreadsheet validation guidance. It doesn’t replace legal review of fee eligibility or any claim-specific timing rules that may exist beyond the general baseline referenced by RSA 508:4.

Try the checker

Think of DocketMath’s attorney-fee tool as your second pass after you’ve cleaned and validated your spreadsheet inputs. Use this workflow to minimize surprises:

  1. Run spreadsheet validation checks

    • Confirm dates are real date values
    • Confirm “start/end” ranges are logical
    • Recompute hours from base units (minutes/seconds → decimals) once, then reuse that normalized value
  2. Add a limitations-aware flag column

    • Add a column that labels each time entry based on where it falls relative to the 3-year RSA 508:4 general window (default baseline):
      • ✅ within the window
      • ⚠️ near the boundary (for review)
      • ❌ outside the window
    • This flag helps prevent accidental inclusion/exclusion; it doesn’t decide legal outcomes.
  3. Export or mirror the normalized dataset into DocketMath

    • Keep a clear mapping between spreadsheet columns and DocketMath fields (task/category, hours, rate, dates).
    • If DocketMath totals differ meaningfully from your spreadsheet, re-check:
      • rate/multiplier duplication
      • category mapping
      • date parsing and filtering
  4. Compare totals with a tolerance test

    • If totals differ by:
      • < 0.5%: likely rounding or conversion differences
      • ≥ 0.5–2%: likely structural issues (duplicates, mapping, date window filters)

If you want to start, open the attorney-fee flow here: **/tools/attorney-fee

Related reading