Honorable Timothy A. Barnes
Chapter 7
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ORDER AWARDING TO BAUCH & MICHAELS, LLC, ATTORNEYS FOR TRUSTEE, FOR ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF INTERIM COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES
| TOTAL FEES REQUESTED: |
$53,184.00 |
TOTAL COSTS REQUESTED: |
$ 1,680.15 |
| TOTALFEES REDUCED: |
$ 3,092.00 |
TOTAL COSTS REDUCED: |
$ 0.00 |
| TOTAL FEES ALLOWED: |
$ 50,092.00 |
TOTAL COSTS ALLOWED: |
$ 1,680.15 |
TOTAL FEES AND COSTS ALLOWED: $ 51,
772.15 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) Reimbursement Limited to Actual,
Necessary Expenses
The Court denies the allowance of reimbursement for expenses that were not actually and necessarily incurred by the applicant. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 330(a)(1)(B) & 331. The fee application fails to demonstrate the exact expense for the deposition and the court will not reimburse based on estimates.
However, at the hearing counsel provided an oral modification to the expense to account for the actual. The amount above reflects this modification.
(2) Lumping - TOTAL of disallowed amounts (10% of affected entries): $ 340.00
The Court may impose a ten percent penalty on entries that appear to be "lumping." The Court will reduce each entry marked as such per the penalty. In re Wildman, 72 B.R. 700, 709 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (Schmetterer, J.) ("Applicants may not circumvent the minimum time requirement or any of the requirements of detail by "lumping" a bunch of activities into a single entry. [citation omitted]. Each type of service should be listed with the corresponding specific time allotment"). (3) Duplication of Services - TOTAL of disallowed amounts: $ 2,472.00
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. In this case, the majority of CYS' entries were for conferences or reading emails. The court deemed such efforts repetitive where more than one counsel charged for the conference and where such time entries did not result in work product, only review.
(4) Computational or Typographical Error - TOTAL of disallowed amounts: $ 280.00
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 will consider one of the entries to be a typographical error. Dated: November 4, 2015
/s/_________
Timothy A. Barnes
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Image materials not available for display.