Moreover, there is no explanation for the somewhat astonishing number of lawyers (10, in a 16-lawyer firm) whose time was billed to one or more of the Hilldun engagements. See United Realty Advisors, LP v. Verschleiser, 2023 WL 4141545, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2023) ("Courts routinely reduce fee awards for this sort of overstaffing, given the excess that invariably results from the needless involvement of too many attorneys[.]"). I note as well that portions of the billing records provided by BG Law - including time entries from early 2020, before the Rider and the HCBH Guaranty were signed - are heavily redacted.
Thus, the Court does not award any fees for the work of those three partners. See, e.g., United Realty Advisors, LP v. Verschleiser, 2023 WL 4141545, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2023) (“Courts routinely reduce fee awards for this sort of overstaffing, given the excess that invariably results from the needless involvement of too many attorneys; see also Gen. Elec. Co. v. Compagnie Euralair, S.A., 1997 WL 397627, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 1997) (“It is well recognized, of course, that when more lawyers than are necessary are assigned to a case, the level of duplication of effort increases.
Courts, in some cases, have approved blended rates after assessing them for reasonableness and making any necessary adjustments. For example, in United Realty Advisors, LP v. Verschleiser, 2023 WL 4141545 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2023), the court approved a blended rate of $450 for the work of eight partners, one senior attorney, and three associates, where the “available time records show[ed] that partners performed a clear majority of the legal work” and the rate was lower than the reasonable rate “many of these experienced partners otherwise could have charged.” Id. at *12.