- 12 -
fees that showed the nature of the work performed, the attorneys’
hourly rates, the identity of the person who performed the work,
the number of hours billed for the work, the number of Hoyt
investor clients who shared in the group fees, or the manner in
which the group fees were allocated among petitioner and the
other Hoyt investor clients of petitioner’s attorneys.
On August 6, 2004, we filed respondent’s response to
petitioner’s motion, in which respondent objected to an award of
costs. Petitioner requested and was granted leave to file a
reply to respondent’s response to the motion. On September 15,
2004, we filed petitioner’s reply to respondent’s response, which
included a supplemental declaration but did not provide any
detailed information regarding her counsel’s billing and
allocation arrangements with respect to the group fees. On
December 6, 2004, we ordered petitioner to submit, on or before
January 7, 2005, an additional declaration with supporting
documentation to support her contention that the group fees were
reasonable and had been reasonably allocated and that her share
of the group fees was incurred in connection with this matter.
In the December 6, 2004, order, we also authorized respondent to
submit a supplemental response addressing the information
contained in petitioner’s supplemental declaration on or before
January 31, 2005.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011