Opinion
Case No. 14bk41720
02-26-2016
In re: RICHARD AND JOAN HANK Debtors.
Chapter 11
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ORDER AWARDING TO CRANE, HEYMAN, SIMON, WELCH & CLAR, ATTORNEYS FOR DEBTOR, FOR ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF FINAL COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES
| TOTAL FEES REQUESTED: | $ 168,131.00 | TOTAL COSTS REQUESTED: | $ 8,515.69 |
| TOTAL FEES REDUCED: | $ 6,826.00 | TOTAL COSTS REDUCED: | $ 0.00 |
| TOTAL FEES ALLOWED: | $ 161,305.00 | TOTAL COSTS ALLOWED: | $ 8,515.69 |
TOTAL FEES AND COSTS ALLOWED: $ 169,820.69
The attached time and expense entries have been underlined to reflect disallowance in whole or in part. The basis for each disallowance is reflected by numerical notations that appear on the right of each underlined entry. The numerical notations correspond to the enumerated paragraphs below. (1) Duplication of Services - TOTAL of disallowed amounts: $ 6,039.00
The Court denies the allowance of compensation for services that duplicate those of another professional or paraprofessional. See 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(4)(A)(i). Reduction in fees is warranted if multiple attorneys from the same firm appear in court on a motion or argument or for a conference, unless counsel adequately demonstrates that each attorney present contributed in some meaningful way. In re Pettibone, 74 B.R. 293, 307 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (Schmetterer, J.) ("A debtor's estate should not bear the burden of duplication of services. If found in the record, such duplication shall be disallowed by the court as unnecessary."). It is also an accepted principle that generally no more than one attorney may bill for time spent in an intra-office conference or meeting absent an adequate explanation. See In re Adventist Living Ctrs., Inc., 137 B.R. 701, 716 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1991) (Sonderby, J.); In re Pettibone, 74 B.R. at 303.
(2) No Benefit to the Estate - TOTAL of disallowed amounts: $ 315.00
The court denies requests for fees relating to services that do not benefit the estate or that are not necessary to the administration of the case. 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(4)(A).
In this case, there were counsel that charge for less than a half an hour of work. The court finds it hard to see how such little time could produce a benefit to the estate. The court also found it hard to charge $49.50 for a counsel to note an appearance on the docket.
(3) Improper Time Increments for Billing - TOTAL of disallowed amounts (10% of affected entries): $ 58.00
The court may impose a ten percent penalty for using improper time increments for billing. "Professional persons . . . cannot, in all honesty and reasonableness, charge their clients for increments in excess of one-tenth of an hour." In re Wildman, 72 B.R. 700, 726 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (Schmetterer, J.). This penalty will be imposed where time increments larger than one-tenth of an hour are being used. For example, applicants who bill time using quarter-hour increments risk the ten percent penalty.
In this case, Deana Kobrynski's only time entries were in whole-hour increments.
(4) Improper Allocation of Professional Resources - TOTAL of disallowed amounts: $ 162.00
The Court denies the allowance in part of compensation for the indicated task(s) as a professional with a lower level of skill and experience or a paraprofessional could have performed the task(s). In re Pettibone, 74 B.R. 293, 303 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (Schmetterer, J.) ("Senior partner rates will be paid only for work that warrants the attention of a senior partner. A senior partner who spends time reviewing documents or doing research a beginning associate could do will be paid at a rate of a beginning associate. [Citation omitted]. Similarly, non-legal work performed by a lawyer which could have been performed by less costly non-legal employees should command a lesser rate."); In re Wildman, 72 B.R. 700, 710 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (Schmetterer, J.) (same); In re Alberto, 121 B.R. 531, 535 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1990) (Squires, J.) (determining use of partner appropriate where attendant complex legal issues warrant highly experienced practitioner).
In this case, the partner rate was reduced to the paralegal rate.
(5) Computational or Typographical Error - TOTAL of disallowed amounts: $ 252.00
The court denies the allowance of compensation for the following tasks because the amount of fees appears to be a computational or typographical error. Also, where there are two identical entries (same day, same tasks, same time billed), the court typographical error. Dated: February 26, 2016
/s/_________
Timothy A. Barnes
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Image materials not available for display.