- 12 -
fees were allocated among petitioner and the other Hoyt investor
clients of petitioner’s attorneys.
On August 5, 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 petitioner’s 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.
On January 10, 2005, we received and filed petitioner’s
supplemental declaration, which contained billing records for
fees and costs petitioner’s attorneys had charged to common
accounts for two separate groups of Hoyt investor clients. The
billing records provided specific information about the nature of
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