- 15 -
such attorneys or that a special factor existed which justifies
an increase in the statutory maximum provided in section
7430(c)(1)(B)(iii).
In addition, respondent claims that petitioner did not
submit adequate documentation to support her claimed costs and
that Beeler's billing summaries were not adequately itemized. We
disagree. Petitioner provided a sufficient summary for the
services rendered by Beeler. See Rule 232(d)(1).
Respondent argues that "the hours billed [by Beeler] in this
matter far exceed the normal and reasonable number of hours that
should have been expended in this matter, given the narrowness of
the legal issue involved in the case and the straightforward
nature of the facts." We disagree and hold that the number of
hours billed by Beeler is reasonable, except as stated below.
Beeler provided billing statements dated October 3, 1997,
and November 4, 1997 (Invoice Nos. 7523 and 7560, respectively).
These statements combined services rendered by Beeler and another
member of his law firm.7 Although we may allow recovery for
paralegal and other reasonable fees, this individual is not
identified in any of the submissions and does not provide an
hourly billing rate. Accordingly, we will not award fees for
7 On the billing statements, Beeler is identified as
"SCB". The other individual is identified merely as "DLR." We
assume DLR is a paralegal, as the services rendered by the
individual include compiling documents for Beeler.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011