- 47 -
included in the paralegals’ worksheets amount to 210.5 hours
(106.25 hours and 104.25 hours, respectively).
Respondent points out that, with the exception of four time
entries (totaling 2 hours) that appear in one of the paralegal
worksheets but not the other, the paralegals’ worksheets are in
all respects identical. Furthermore, the 64 identical time
entries contained in the paralegals’ worksheets also appear in
Jones’s worksheet, with the only difference being the amount of
time claimed for each entry (the dates and descriptions are
identical).34 Respondent understandably questions the reliability
of these worksheets.
While we are willing to accept the “reconstruction” of
paralegal time based on Jones’s worksheet, we question the total
number of paralegal hours so reconstructed. In a declaration
submitted with the initial fee request, Jones’s office manager-
controller posits an attorney/paralegal hours ratio for the
period August 16, 1999 through May 27, 2003, of almost 8 to 3.
Materials submitted by the Jones petitioners for the post-appeal
period June 1, 2003 to July 15, 2005 (not addressed in this
opinion), reveal an attorney/nonattorney hours ratio of
approximately 5 to 4.35 Turning to the reconstructed worksheets
34 Jones’s worksheet contains an additional 42 time entries
that do not appear in the paralegals’ worksheets.
35 The nonattorney time for the post-appeal period includes
time charged by a law clerk, an accountant, and an “account
(continued...)
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011