- 30 -
stifle the enthusiasm or chill the creativity that is the very
lifeblood of the law. Edwards v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-
169 (quoting Greenhouse v. United States, 780 F. Supp. 136, 144
(S.D.N.Y. 1991)). We do not intend by today’s ruling to stifle
the enthusiasm or chill the creativity of counsel in this Court.
Counsel, however, must reject arguments that he knows to be
frivolous. If he advances arguments that he knows, or should
know, risk being dismissed as frivolous, he risks the imposition
on him of the opposing party’s excess costs.
4. Costs
“Attorney’s fees awarded under section 6673(a)(2) are to be
computed by multiplying the number of excess hours reasonably
expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate. The
product is known as the ‘lodestar’ amount.” Harper v.
Commissioner, 99 T.C. at 549. To assist us in computing the
lodestar amount, respondent has provided us with the declarations
of attorneys David L. Lau and Peter R. Hochman (the Lau and
Hochman declarations, respectively). Attached to the Lau
declaration is a copy of respondent’s internal time keeping
records, showing the total time expended on this case by, among
others, Messrs. Lau and Hochman. In the Lau and Hochman
declarations, Messrs. Lau and Hochman calculate their time,
dating from Mr. Sulla’s appearance, spent working on this case
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011