- 42 - omission from the Sjostrom bill, are not as susceptible to the “billing judgment” inference. Those entries, none of which is among the 142 time entries to which respondent specifically objected in his initial response, chronicle Izen’s earliest substantive efforts with respect to his opening brief in the test case appeal. Whatever Izen’s reasons for not including those entries in the Sjostrom bill,30 we deem the corresponding 32.5 hours to have been a reasonable expenditure of time on his part.31 Accordingly, we disallow only 42.18 of the 74.68 hours excluded from the Sjostrom bill (74.68 - 32.5 = 42.18). c. Review of Other Parties’ Nonsubstantive Filings Izen’s time entries include numerous references to his “review, filing and analysis” of other parties’ filings (and corresponding orders) relating to attorney appearances and withdrawals, changes of address, extension requests, and bills of costs. While these entries (typically claiming .25 hours) do not necessarily stand out when viewed in isolation, we deem their cumulative effect to be unreasonable. For instance, Izen claims to have spent 6 full hours on August 24, 2000, reviewing, filing, 30 It is conceivable that Izen feared he would have to share his substantive work product with the Minns faction if he included those time entries in the Sjostrom bill. For his part, Izen merely asserts that “At this point, neither Sjostrom nor the legal defense fund had any intention of paying Izen for any work he was doing on appeal”. 31 The omission of those hours from the Sjostrom bill does raise the issue of whether the corresponding fees were “paid or incurred”. See infra Part III.H.1.e.Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011