Gives Tips On What to Look For. Although it dates back to January 29, 2003, the State Bar of California has an Arbitration Advisory aptly entitled "Detecting Attorney Bill Padding." To identify bill padding, the Advisory suggested arbitrators focus on three things when determining a reasonable fee: 1. Evaluate the team/staffing […]
Fee Award for SLAPP Motion Defendant Sustained. In a SLAPP motion context, defendant won a fee award of $13,900 based predominantly on the declaration of their counsel calculating the fee for services but not attaching detailed time records. Did this prevail on appeal? You bet. The appellate court in Souza v. Farrer,
Defense Did Not Oppose, But Plaintiffs Documented Things Well. Plaintiff’s counsel in Situation Management Systems, Inc. v. Lamoco Consulting, LLC, Civil Action No. 06-11557-RGS (D. Mass. June 6, 2011 Order) requested $718,015.53 in attorney’s fees and expenses for their winning client in a copyright infringement action where the governing statute allows fees to
Federal Decision Highlights Differences Between Federal Versus California State Approaches; Second Circuit Does Allow Attorney an Equitable “Fallback” Approach. At the California state law level, although it is a good idea to keep them, contemporaneous time records are not required substantiation in fee proceedings. (Chavez v. Netflix, Inc., 162 Cal.App.4th 43, 64 (2008).) Beyond
Court Should Have Ordered Supplemental Useful Billing Records or Relied on Its Own Experience in Fixing Fees. In our June 30, 2008 post, we discussed the Gregg I and Gregg II duology out of the Fourth District, Division 1 about the level of detail that must be provided in fee substantiation and what
Plaintiff’s Attorneys Urged Using Updated Laffey Matrix on Hourly Rate Determination. Plaintiffs in Heller v. District of Columbia, Case No. 03-CV-1213-EGS (D.D.C.) have requested an award of attorney’s fees totaling $3.13 million in the handgun ban case brought on behalf of Dick Heller and a group of D.C. residents. The request is
$101,178.62 in Attorney Work Must Be Reconsidered For Beneficial Result. In the past, we have discussed many cases which hold that billing records must be presented to the court (as well as the trustee) when an attorney is seeking reimbursement for probate court litigation work. This stems from the trial court’s “special responsibility” to
Second District, Division 1 Finds No Abuse of Discretion in Various Fee Awards. It is amazing how ocean views, privacy, and trees all seem to be in the mix of many neighbor/homeowner association disputes. The next one is no exception, producing substantial cross-fee awards under Civil Code section 1354 that probably only made the
No Res Judicata Impact From Prior Fee Denial; Daily Substantiation Requirements Do Not Govern Probate Fee Awards. This post will definitely interest probate practitioners. Aside from the fact that it involves a fairly substantial “extraordinary fee” award, it also demonstrates that the appellate courts will be demanding on application of res judicata principles and
Lack of Supporting Proof For Certain Time Frame Dictates Fee Reduction. Defendant won an unusual unreasonable restraint on alienation battle over a buffer zone, leading the trial court to award fees of $1,007,067 under California’s private attorney general statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5) in Greenlaw Grupe, Jr. Operating Co. v. Land
