In re Canopy Fin., Inc.

Eugene R. Wedoff United States Bankruptcy Judge

Chapter 7

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION OF SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP, ATTORNEYS FOR TRUSTEE, FOR ALLOWANCE OF INTERIM COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES

TOTAL FEES REQUESTED:	$309,247.50	TOTAL COSTS REQUESTED:	$1,598.02
TOTAL FEES REDUCED:	$7,285.50	TOTAL COSTS REDUCED:	$0,00
TOTAL FEES ALLOWED:	$301,962.00	TOTAL COSTS ALLOWED:	$1,598.02

TOTAL FEES AND COSTS ALLOWED: $303
,560.02 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 left of each underlined entry. The numerical notations correspond to the enumerated paragraphs below.

(4) Insufficient Description

The Court denies the allowance of compensation for the foitowing task since the description of the time entry fails to identify in a reasonable manner the service rendered, In re Pettibone, 74 B.R. 293, 301 (Bankr. N.D. Ill 1987) ("A proper fee application must list each activity, its date, the attorney who performed the work, a description of the nature and substance of the work performed, and the time spent on the work. [Citation omitted] Records which give no explanation of the activities performed are not compensable."); In re Wildman, 72 B.R. 700, 708-9 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (same).

(5) Duplication of Services

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) ("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); In re Pettibone, 74 B.R. at 303.

(12) Clerical Work Not Compensable

The court disallows the compensation of clerical or stenographic employees of the professional for the performance of routine clerical or administrative activities in the normal course of the professional's business, such as photocopying, secretarial work, or routine filing. Such activities are not in the nature of professional services and must be absorbed by the applicant's firm as an overhead expense. In re Dimas, LLC, 357 B.R. 563, 577 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2006) (citing Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 288 n. 10 (1989)). See also In re Chellino, 209 B.R. 106, 114 (Bankr. CD. Ill. 1996) (Paralegal, but not "clerk" services entitled to compensation at an hourly rate; clerk activities are overhead of the professional); Soma v. Miguel, 32 F.3d 1370, 1375 (9th Cir. 1994) (Trustee not entitled to reimbursement or compensation of overhead expenses such as secretarial, stenographic, clerical, and routine messenger services). Dated: May 12, 2015

/s/_________

Eugene R. Wedoff

United States Bankruptcy Judge

Image materials not available for display.