- 31 -
and which each claims was due to Mr. Sulla’s actions “vexatiously
multiplying these proceedings” (excess hours).
Respondent asks reimbursement for 58 hours of Mr. Lau’s time
at $150 an hour. Mr. Lau is the attorney with day-to-day
responsibility for the case. He is an attorney employed in the
Office of Chief Counsel in Honolulu, Hawaii. He has been a
member of the Hawaii State Bar since 1982. He has detailed the
time he spent on the case from June 20, 2000, onward, which
involves time spent on research, drafting, telephone calls,
review of submissions to the Court, consultations with Mr.
Hochman, and appearances. Based on various factors, including
the cost of living and attorney wages in Honolulu, Hawaii, and
awards in previous cases, respondent asks reimbursement at a rate
of $150 an hour for Mr. Lau’s time. The hourly rate properly
charged for the time of a Government attorney is the “amount to
which attorneys of like skill in the area would typically be
entitled for a given type of work on the basis of an hourly rate
of compensation.” Harper v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. at 551. Mr.
Sulla does not question the reasonableness of that rate. We do
not, however, believe that 58 hours is the number of excess hours
that Mr. Lau expended on this case. Respondent begins his
computation of excess hours for Mr. Lau on June 20, 2000, adding
1 hour for time spent in preparing for and participating in a
conference call with Judge Marvel and Mr. Sulla. Notwithstanding
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