Opinion
Case No. 11bk4l555
02-25-2015
In re: JORDON HARRY KAISER Debtor.
Chapter 7
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ORDER AWARDING TO THE LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM J. FACTOR, LTD., ATTORNEYS FOR CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE, FOR ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF THIRD INTERIM COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES
| TOTAL FEES REQUESTED: | $ 108,750.00 | TOTAL COSTS REQUESTED: | $ 327.95 |
| TOTAL FEES REDUCED: | $ 7,533.00 | TOTAL COSTS REDUCED: | $ 0.00 |
| TOTAL FEES ALLOWED: | $ 101,217.00 | TOTAL COSTS ALLOWED: | $ 327.95 |
TOTAL FEES AND COSTS ALLOWED: $ 101,544.95
The attached time and expense entries have been underlined to reflect disallowance in whole or in part. The basis for each disallowance is reflected by numerical notations that appear on the right of each underlined entry. The numerical notations correspond to the enumerated paragraphs below. (1) Improper Time Increments for Billing - TOTAL of disallowed amounts: $ 2,310.00
The court may impose a ten percent penalty for using improper time increments for billing. "Professional persons . . . cannot, in all honesty and reasonableness, charge their clients for increments in excess of one-tenth of an hour." In re Wildman, 72 B.R. 700, 726 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (Schmetterer, J.). This penalty will be imposed where time increments larger than one-tenth of an hour are being used. For example, applicants who bill time using quarter-hour increments risk the ten percent penalty. One counsel in this case billed a majority of his time entries in half-hour increments. (2) Computational or Typographical Error - TOTAL of disallowed amounts: $ 1,265.00
The court denies the allowance of compensation for the following tasks because the amount of fees appears to be a computational or typographical error. Also, where there are two identical entries (same day, same tasks, same time billed), the court will consider one of the entries to be a typographical error. Where counsel bills different time for the same conference, all time entries will be billed at the lowest time. (3) Insufficient Description - TOTAL of disallowed amounts: $ 2,660.00
The Court denies the allowance of compensation for the indicated task(s) as the description of each task fails to identify in a reasonable manner the service rendered. In re Pettibone, 74 B.R. 293, 301 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (Schmetterer, J.) ("A proper fee application must list each activity, its date, the attorney who performed the work, a description of the nature and substance of the work performed, and the time spent on the work. [Citation omitted] Records which give no explanation of the activities performed are not compensable."); In re Wildman, 72 B.R. 700, 708-9 (Bankr. N.D. Ill 1987) (Schmetterer, J.) (same).
(4) No Benefit to the Estate - TOTAL of disallowed amounts: $ 170.00
The court denies requests for fees relating to services that do not benefit the estate or that are not necessary to the administration of the case. 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(4)(A). An attorney's internal work prior to retention to determine whether the attorney's firm satisfies the disinterestedness requirement of section 327 of the Bankruptcy Code does not provide benefit to the estate and is not compensable.
(5) Unreasonable Travel Time - TOTAL of disallowed amounts: $ 50.00
The Court denies the allowance in part of compensation for travel time, where compensation at the normal hourly rate (not the customary one-half discounted rate) is sought without explanation. In re Planter, No. 08 B 16883, 2009 WL 1393691 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. May 18, 2009) (Barbosa, J.) ("this Court has routinely held that time spent traveling to and from a location typically shall be compensated at one-half of the attorneys' or other professionals' hourly rate."); In reMcKeeman, 236 B.R. 667 (B.A.P. 8th Cir.1999); In re SpanjerBros., Inc., 191 B.R. 738, 755 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1996) (Squires, J.).
(6) Lumping - TOTAL of disallowed amounts (10% of affected entries): $ 203.00
The Court may impose a ten percent penalty on entries that appear to be "lumping." The Court will reduce each entry marked as such per the penalty. In re Wildman, 72 B.R. 700, 709 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (Schmetterer, J.) ("Applicants may not circumvent the minimum time requirement or any of the requirements of detail by "lumping" a bunch of activities into a single entry, [citation omitted]. Each type of service should be listed with the corresponding specific time allotment.").
(7) Improper Allocation of Professional Resources - TOTAL of disallowed amounts: $ 175.00
The Court denies the allowance in part of compensation for the indicated task(s) as a professional with a lower level of skill and experience or a paraprofessional could have performed the task(s). In re Pettibone, 74 B.R. 293, 303 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (Schmetterer, J.) ("Senior partner rates will be paid only for work that warrants the attention of a senior partner. A senior partner who spends time reviewing documents or doing research a beginning associate could do will be paid at a rate of a beginning associate. [Citation omitted]. Similarly, non-legal work performed by a lawyer which could have been performed by less costly non-legal employees should command a lesser rate."); In re Wildman, 72 B.R. 700, 710 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (Schmetterer,].) (same); In re Alberto, 121 B.R. 531, 535 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1990) (Squires, J.) (determining use of partner appropriate where attendant complex legal issues warrant highly experienced practitioner).
(8) Duplication of Services - TOTAL of disallowed amounts: $ 700.00
The Court denies the allowance of compensation for services that duplicate those of another professional or paraprofessional. See 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(4)(A)(i). Reduction in fees is warranted if multiple attorneys from the same firm appear in court on a motion or argument or for a conference, unless counsel adequately demonstrates that each attorney present contributed in some meaningful way. In re Pettibone, 74 B.R. 293, 307 (Bankr. N.D. Ill 1987) (Schmetterer, J.) ("A debtor's estate should not bear the burden of duplication of services. If found in the record, such, duplication shall be disallowed by the court as unnecessary."). It is also an accepted principle that generally no more than one attorney may bill for time spent in an intra-office conference or meeting absent an adequate explanation. See In re Advenlist Living Ctrs., Inc., 137 B.R. 701, 716 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1991) (Sonderby, J.); In re Pettibone, 74 B.R. at 303. Dated: February 25, 2015
/s/_________
Timothy A. Barnes
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Image materials not available for display.