- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011