Summary
finding conferences between attorneys and their paralegal assistant unreasonable
Summary of this case from GALT CAPITAL, LLP v. SEYKOTAOpinion
Civil No. 2005-92.
June 26, 2007
Gregory Hodges, Esq., For the Plaintiffs, Steven and Daniela Abramovitz. Richard Farrelly, Esq., For the Defendant, Donald Lynch. Andrew Stillman, pro se , For the Defendant, Stillman Limited Partnership.
JUDGMENT
Before the Court is the plaintiffs' application for an award of attorneys fees and costs.
On May 5, 2004, Donald Lynch ("Lynch") executed a promissory note (the "Note") with Steve and Daniela Abramovitz (the "Abramovitzes") for a principal sum of $248,469.50, which was to be paid in consecutive monthly installments. The Note was secured by Parcel No. 16E-2 Estate Enighed, No. 1 Cruz Bay Quarter, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. On May 31, 2005, the Abramovitzes filed the above captioned case, alleging that Lynch had defaulted on the loan. After extended negotiation, the parties agreed on an amount to reinstate the loan on August 29, 2006. The Abramovtizes now seek attorneys' fees and costs.
The Note contained a provision stating that, in case of default, "the undersigned Maker agrees to pay [the] holder any and all costs, court expenses, disbursements and attorneys fees." See Note at ¶ 3. While the Note provides no limit to the award of attorneys' fees and costs, unreasonable awards will not be given. See Cable Marine Inc. v. M/V Trust Me II, 632 F.2d 1344, 1345-46 (5th Cir. 1980) (holding that courts should not enforce contractual provisions for unreasonable awards of attorneys' fees). The standard for reasonableness in the context of attorney's fees is well-defined in cases interpreting V.I. CODE ANN. tit. 5, § 541. See, e.g., Morcher v. Nash, 32 F. Supp.2d 239, 241 (D.V.I. 1998) (awarding attorneys' fees under the Virgin Islands Code).
The Court considers factors including the time and labor involved, skill required, customary charges for similar services, benefits obtained from the service and the certainty of compensation. Lempert v. Singer, 1993 WL 661181, No. 1990-CV-200 at *2 (D.V.I., December 30, 1993); see also Morcher v. Nash, 32 F. Supp.2d at 241. Reasonable attorneys' fees may include charges for work that was "useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to secure the final result obtained from the litigation." Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 561 (1986); see also Gulfstream III Associates, Inc. v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 995 F.2d 414, 420 (3d Cir. 1993) (noting that reasonable attorneys' fees may include charges for measures necessary to enforce district court judgments as well as other charges "reasonably expended" to advance the litigation).
Applying the standard outlined above, the Court finds that most of the Abramovitzes' fee application for $17,388.63 was reasonably expended. However, the Court also finds that several items in the fee application were not reasonable.
The fees submitted in the expense report were not clearly itemized, making it difficult to assess the exact amount of time billed for each item. ( See generally, Mot. for Costs, Ex. A). This practice is strongly disfavored. See, e.g., Morcher, 32 F. Supp.2d at 242 (reducing the attorneys' fee award for failure to itemize); Good Timez v. Phoenix Fire Marine Ins. Co., 752 F. Supp. 459, 463 n. 6 (D.V.I. 1991) (noting that lumping many entries together makes it difficult to determine reasonable costs)
For instance, the Abramovitzes request reimbursement for several duplicative fees, such as fees for time an attorney spent reviewing work already performed by the Abramovitzes' other attorneys, and for time a paralegal spent reviewing work already performed by an attorney. Additionally, the Abramovitzes request reimbursement for multiple "staff conferences" between their own attorneys and their paralegal assistant. See Mot. for Costs, Ex. A. Such expenses are duplicative, and not to be included in assessments of reasonable fees. See Morcher, 32 F. Supp. 2d 239, 241-42 (D.V.I. 1998) ("Multiple lawyer conferences, not involving opposing counsel . . . involve duplicative work.")
See, e.g., Mot. for Cost, Ex. A, at 3.
"[Attorney Justin Holcombe]: Call to Attorney B. Morrisette [who formally worked on the case] to ask questions regarding file and calculations . . .
"[Paralegal Daisy Williams]: Review [Attorney Holcombe's] e-mail to Abramovtiz re calculations . . .
"[Attorney Justin Holcombe]: Prepare email to Mr. Abramovitz; review email response; confer with [Attorney Gregory Hodges] regarding past legal advice; complete preparation of opposition to motion to dismiss."
It is also well-established that "purely clerical and secretarial tasks should not be billed at a paralegal rate, regardless of who performs them." Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 288 n. 10 (1989). Yet, the Abramovitzes request reimbursement for basic secretarial tasks, like filing case documents and arranging a wire transfer, at paralegal and even attorney rates. See, e.g., Mot. for Costs, Ex. A at 5, 7. Such requests are unreasonable.
In total, the Court finds that $6,394.86 of the fees requested is unreasonable and must be deducted from the Abramovitzes' reimbursement.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Lynch shall reimburse the Abramovitzes for attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $10,993.77.