Hoyt W. and Barbara D. Young, et al. - Page 42

                                        - 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