- 19 -
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had been satisfied. We
observe that Ms. Spaid’s conduct also satisfies the recklessness
standard for imposing sanctions under 28 U.S.C. section 1927 in
the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. See Takaba v.
Commissioner, supra at 297.
“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, supra at 549. Pursuant to the Court’s order,
respondent’s attorney of record, Ms. Zusi, submitted an affidavit
setting forth the costs incurred by respondent as a result of the
sanctionable behavior of Ms. Spaid. The affidavit contains a
detailed itemization of the time Ms. Zusi and Ms. Moe spent on
each instance of misconduct. Attached to the affidavit is a copy
of respondent’s records of time spent by Ms. Zusi and Ms. Moe.
Respondent requests reimbursement for 167 hours of Ms.
Zusi’s time at $200 an hour. Ms. Zusi is the abusive trust
coordinating attorney for the San Jose, California, area
counsel’s Small Business/Self-Employed Division of the Office of
Chief Counsel. She has been practicing law for 17 years, 14 of
which have been with respondent. Ms. Zusi detailed the time she
spent on the case, beginning with Ms. Spaid’s entry of appearance
on December 1, 2000, which included legal research, trial
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011