- 48 -
resulting figure (883.9 hours) for these categories is in line
with the high end of the range of reasonableness.
c. Porter & Hedges Client Conferences
Respondent alleges that the PH petitioners have failed to
demonstrate the reasonableness of “charges for numerous
conferences with various unidentified individuals, apparently
members of the Steering Committee.” Our concern lies with the
lack of subject matter descriptions for many of those conferences
and other client communications such as e-mail correspondence.
As discussed above, the committee hired Porter & Hedges not only
to replace Minns but also to recover amounts previously paid to
him. We do not intend to hold the Government responsible for
fees attributable to the latter task. In that regard, the
parties’ submissions indicate that Binder assumed primary
responsibility for the Porter & Hedges briefs, while Irvine dealt
with the Minns situation and client relations, in addition to
overseeing work on the briefs. Most of the generic references to
client contacts appear in Irvine’s time entries, and common
experience suggests that such contacts were more likely related
to the Minns dispute or client relations than, say, appellate
strategy. Nevertheless, in the absence of subject matter
descriptions, we assume that the time Irvine spent consulting
with Defense Fund representatives was divided equally between
matters relating to the Minns dispute and client relations on the
one hand, and matters relating to the appeal, on the other.
Page: Previous 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011