- 36 -
bill”. He then separately addresses 17 of the discrepancies,
vouching for the necessity of the services and reasonableness of
the time not included in the bill (hereafter, the Sjostrom bill).
Although Izen has not, in our view, adequately explained why
the Sjostrom bill does not include certain charges claimed in the
Izen fee request, we are not inclined to pass judgment on his
veracity in that regard without further investigation, which we
are loath to undertake at this late date.22 Accordingly, we shall
assume that the time entries in the Izen fee request accurately
depict the services performed by Izen and the number of hours
devoted thereto. As discussed below, however, that does not mean
that the Sjostrom bill is irrelevant to our determination of
hours reasonably expended.
2. Adjustments to Hours Claimed
The Izen petitioners base their fee request on 1,072.03
hours of attorney time, including 223.23 hours we have identified
as fee request hours (leaving 848.8 merits hours). Our
adjustments to the hours claimed fall into eight major
categories. Of course, where adjustments are described in more
than one category, we take them into account only once.
22Respondent, after receiving the Sjostrom bill from
Sjostrom and bringing it to the Court’s attention by means of a
supplement to respondent’s opposition to Izen’s appellate fee
request, did not request an evidentiary hearing on this point.
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011