- 41 -
Sjostrom bill, includes a 5.75-hour charge for Izen’s
“preparation for conference” on top of the next day’s 6-hour
charge for the meeting itself. The fee request, but not the
Sjostrom bill, includes a charge for an additional hour that Izen
currently claims he spent “locating the Petition for Writ of
Certiorari he filed with the Supreme Court”. As any billing
attorney can attest, these are the types of attorney time charges
that, however necessary the underlying activity, are difficult to
justify on a client invoice. Under the corollary espoused by the
Supreme Court in Hensley v. Eckerhart, supra, they should not be
chargeable to respondent, either.29
On the other hand, we have identified five time entries
between January 16 and January 29, 2001 that, despite their
28(...continued)
the same date (Aug. 25, 2000--2.5 hours).
29 Other examples include the following: New entry for 2.25
hours devoted to forwarding this Court’s Notice of Filing of
Notice of Appeal to the test case petitioners; 2 additional hours
for “transcript search” for the Court’s comments concerning
settlement; additional time claimed for routine filings such as
motions for enlargement of time (2.5 hours) and the Ninth
Circuit’s Civil Appeals Docketing Statement (4.25 hours);
additional time for “legal research/check of citations” or
“research of authorities cited” relating to other attorneys’
procedural filings, including Jones’s motion for reconsideration
of the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of his interlocutory appeal as
untimely (4.08 hours), the Government’s response thereto (3.5
hours), the ensuing order of the Court of Appeals (5.5 hours),
and Sticht’s objection to consolidation on appeal (1 hour); new
entry for 2.25 hours devoted to “proof of filing Notice of
Appeals”; and 2 additional hours for travel time to Minns’s
office for meeting “re - providing access to Hongsermeier
records”.
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011