- 48 -
at issue, if we consider only one of the paralegal worksheets,
the attorney/paralegal hours ratio becomes 143.87 to 106.25, or
approximately 5.5 to 4. The foregoing comparison, coupled with
the questionable nature of the worksheets, prompts us to
disregard the duplicate paralegal worksheet claiming 104.25
hours.
2. Specific Time Entries
a. In General
Quite apart from the reliability concerns discussed above,
the time entries contained in the reconstructed worksheets are
woefully nondescriptive. However, as we did in Dixon IV, we
shall give the Jones petitioners the benefit of the doubt here,
on the ground that they should not be overly penalized for their
counsel’s poor documentation efforts.
b. Dismissal and Recertification
Respondent urges us to disallow the time Jones (and, by
extension, his paralegal) spent on behalf of the Jones
petitioners (1) contesting the Court of Appeals’ initial
dismissal of their applications for interlocutory review, and (2)
obtaining this Court’s recertification of their cases, describing
such efforts as “caused by Jones’ own error”. We find
respondent’s argument somewhat disingenuous in light of his
appellate attorneys’ concurrence (in response to Jones’s motion
35(...continued)
manager” as well as paralegal time.
Page: Previous 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011