- 26 -
decided under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we
concluded in Harper v. Commissioner, supra, that a reasonable
hourly rate is the hourly fee that attorneys of similar skill in
the area would typically be entitled to for the type of work in
question. See id. at 551, and cases cited therein.
We agree with respondent that Messrs. Izen, Jones, and
Sticht have failed, in varying degrees, to provide the Court with
sufficient information to determine the exact number of excess
hours that they reasonably expended in these cases as a result of
the Government misconduct, and that Messrs. Jones and Sticht have
neither addressed the reasonableness of their hourly rates nor
furnished detailed billing statements. We are particularly
troubled by Mr. Izen's persistent failure to produce the
documentation requested by the Court despite repeated extensions
of time for compliance. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the
test case and nontest case petitioners who participated in the
evidentiary hearing, as well as many other Kersting petitioners
who were not formal participants in the evidentiary hearing but
agreed to help fund the effort, incurred substantial attorney's
fees and costs following the remand of the test cases by the
Court of Appeals. Though presented with less than an ideal
record, we shall award attorney's fees to petitioners based upon
an approximation of the amount of the excess attorney's fees and
costs that petitioners incurred as a consequence of the
Government misconduct. See Ragan v. Commissioner, 135 F.3d 329,
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011