STEVEN RHODES, Chief Bankruptcy Judge
The debtor's attorney has filed a fee application seeking fees of $5,459.75 and reimbursement of expenses of $130.67. The trustee has filed a response asserting seven objections.
1. The debtor failed to attend the first meeting of creditors on April 7, 2006, yet counsel billed virtually the same time for both that meeting and the rescheduled meeting on June 2, 2006. The Court agrees with the trustee that it is not reasonable for an attorney to expend and bill for identical time twice for preparing for and attending two meetings of creditors and for performing post-meeting services. Some of the same preparation work must have been duplicative. The Court will reduce the fees for the services performed on April 7, 2006 by $78, which is approximately half.
2. Two associates bill at hourly rates of $195 (Sanfield) and $185 (Turpening). The trustee objects that these rates are too high and should be $175 per hour, as ordered by Judge Shefferly in In re Love, No. 05-89768 (July 20, 2006). The objection is sustained. Based on the record regarding the experience of these attorneys, this Court agrees with Judge Shefferly's conclusion. Accordingly, the fee request will be reduced by $108 for Sanfield, who performed 5.4 hours of service, and by $15 for Turpening, who performed 1.5 hours of service.
3. The trustee objects to time spent preparing the fee application because it does not conform to this Court's prior rulings regarding clerical time. The objection is overruled. It appears that there was one minor, inadvertent mistake in the application.
4. On February 20, 2006, a paralegals spent 1.7 hours at $80 per hour to prepare the documents necessary to file the case. The trustee contends that this is clerical time, not compensable as legal or paralegal services. The issue is whether any professional or informed judgment is required to be exercised in the preparation of the particular document. In re Bass, 227 B.R. 103 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1998). The Court concludes that no such judgment is required to prepare the petition, the cover sheet, the matrix, the fee agreement, the Social Security number statement, the § 342 notice, or the Rule 2016(b) statement. Time spent preparing the balance of the documents, including the schedules and statement of financial affairs, is compensable at a paralegal rate. Accordingly, the fee request will be reduced by $56, which is 0.7 hours at $80 per hour.
5. The trustee objects to many entries on the grounds that they are for clerical services. The Court sustains this objection for the following dates and amounts: 2/21/06 (fourth entry), $18.75; 2/21/06 (fifth entry), $16.00; 2/22/06, $7.50; 2/24/06 (first entry), $16.00; 3/9/06, $7.00; 3/14/06 (second entry), $15.00; 4/10/06, $7.50; 4/19/06 (second entry) $8.00; 4/24/06 (second entry), $7.00; 6/16/06 (second entry) $7.50; 7/18/06, $7.00; 7/27/06, $14.00; 7/31/06, $14.00. The fee request will be reduced by $145.25.
6. The trustee objects to entries on March 14, 2006 and July 5, 2006 as duplicative. The Court concludes that the trustee has identified only the most blatant examples of duplicative services. The fee application reflects an astonishing total of thirteen attorneys and paralegals that have worked on the case and a process that is so highly structured and compartmentalized that duplication of services is inherently extensive. In these circumstances the fee application will be reduced by 5%, as permitted by Northcross v. Bd. of Educ., 611 F.2d 624, 636-7 (6th Cir. 1979) ("In complicated cases, involving many lawyers, we have approved the arbitrary but essentially fair approach of simply deducting a small percentage of the total hours to eliminate duplication of services. Oliver v. Kalamazoo Bd. of Educ., 576 F.2d 714 (6th Cir. 1978). Such an approach seems preferable to an attempt to pick out, here and there, the hours which were duplicative."). The balance of the allowed fee after the reductions ordered above is $5,057.50. This 5% reduction therefore is $252.88.
7. The trustee objects to a total of 3.4 hours of service by one attorney on August 1, 2006, as excessive and unreasonable. The Court is satisfied that these services were reasonable and necessary, and overrules the objection.
Fees in the amount of $4,804.62 are allowed. Expenses of $130.67 are also allowed.
It is so ordered.