- 46 -
Fund. It is hardly surprising that this group, faced with the
largely unfavorable outcome of Dixon III, would fracture over the
issue of legal representation going forward. Indeed, given the
number of contributors to the Defense Fund, three sets of
appellate counsel (i.e., Izen, Minns, and Porter & Hedges) does
not seem unreasonable.40 Therefore, we shall not reduce the
number of compensable hours merely to account for the fact that
Minns and Porter & Hedges had to “read the same record and learn
the same case” with which Izen was already familiar.
b. Overstaffing
Respondent also asserts that “it is apparent that these
cases have been overstaffed by both Mr. Minns and Porter and
Hedges and that the number of hours charged by those firms for
the appeal is excessive and outside the realm of reason.” In
evaluating the reasonableness of the hours claimed, we are aided
by the fact that, taking into account Izen’s appellate fee
request, we have before us three separate fee applications
relating to the same appellate proceedings.41 Each of those
applications contains a breakdown of hours devoted to various
tasks as delineated in the Ninth Circuit’s Form 9. Regarding
40 We note that three sets of counsel participated in the
evidentiary hearing underlying our opinion in Dixon III as well:
Izen, Jones, and Sticht.
41 Although Jones has also filed a motion in this Court for
appellate fees and expenses, see supra note 12, he did not
directly participate in the appeals of the test cases as did
Izen.
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011