- 30 -
Conduct (Part Two)”, 56 La. L. Rev. 1, 119 (1995). While it is
often difficult to allocate attorney time between successful and
unsuccessful issues and claims, “denial of a particular form or
aspect of relief occasionally may be attributable to a discrete
motion or proceeding, thus allowing the limited success factor to
be measured by hours devoted to that effort.” Id.; see also
Hensley v. Eckerhart, supra at 436 (a court applying these
principles “may attempt to identify specific hours that should be
eliminated”).
b. Hours Relating to the Issue of Attorney’s Fees
Respondent does not dispute that hours devoted to the
recovery of attorney’s fees (sometimes referred to herein as “fee
request” hours) are potentially compensable under section 7430.
See, e.g., Huffman v. Commissioner, 978 F.2d 1139, 1149 (9th Cir.
1992), affg. in part and revg. in part on other grounds T.C.
Memo. 1991-144. The fees generated by fee request hours are
commonly referred to as “fees-on-fees” or “fees-for-fees” (as
opposed to “merits” fees, which are attributable to “merits”
hours). Because we apply a separate percentage reduction to the
portion of Izen’s lodestar attributable to fee request hours (the
fees-on-fees lodestar) based on the ratio of merits hours allowed
to merits hours claimed, see infra Part III.F., we separately
identify his merits hours and fee request hours.20
20 The Jones fee request (as supplemented) does not include
(continued...)
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011