- 26 -
Ms. Spaid that these issues were frivolous. Ms. Zusi spent 3.5
hours dealing with frivolous issues, and Ms. Moe spent .75 hours
dealing with frivolous issues. We order Ms. Spaid to reimburse
respondent for 3.5 hours of Ms. Zusi’s time and .75 hour of Ms.
Moe’s time.
On January 17 and 19, 2001, Ms. Zusi spent 8 hours preparing
and mailing her response to Ms. Spaid’s informal discovery
request. Since, as we have stated, approximately one-half the
items in Ms. Spaid’s informal discovery request were requested
because of Ms. Spaid’s negligence, we order Ms. Spaid to
reimburse respondent for 4 hours of Ms. Zusi’s time.
On January 24, 2001, Ms. Zusi spent 3 hours on the “Delpit”,
“Scar”, and “Agency” issues. Ms. Zusi also shepardized a case
dealing with abusive trusts that Ms. Spaid claimed had been
overruled. We give Ms. Spaid the benefit of the doubt and
characterize her failure to verify the accuracy of her assertion
as negligence. We order Ms. Spaid to reimburse respondent for
2.5 hours of Ms. Zusi’s time.
On February 9, 2001, Ms. Zusi and Ms. Moe spent 3 and 0.5
hours, respectively, responding to and reviewing Ms. Spaid’s
supplement to her motion to continue. The motion to continue was
filed because Ms. Spaid missed the discovery deadline and is thus
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