Opinion
Case No. 01 B 27326
03-31-2015
In re: MCCOOK METALS, LLC, Debtor.
Chapter 7
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION OF BALDI BERG, LTD., ATTORNEYS FOR TRUSTEE, FOR ALLOWANCE OF FINAL COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES
| TOTAL FEES REQUESTED: | $130,248.00 | TOTAL COSTS REQUESTED: | $1,376.05 |
| TOTAL FEES REDUCED: | $4,553.00 | TOTAL COSTS REDUCED: | $0.00 |
| TOTAL FEES ALLOWED: | $125,695.00 | TOTAL COSTS ALLOWED: | $1,376.05 |
TOTAL FEES AND COSTS ALLOWED: $127,071.05 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.
(1) Improper Allocation of Professional Resources
The Court denies the allowance in part of compensation for the following task since a professional with a lower level of skill and experience or a paraprofessional could have performed the task. In re Pettibone, 74 B.R. 293, 303 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) ("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) (same); In re Alberto, 121 B.R, 531, 535 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1990) (determining use of partner appropriate where attendant complex legal issues warrant highly experienced practitioner).
(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.
(7) Lumping
The Court may impose a ten percent penalty for "tumping." In re Wildman, 72 B.R. 700, 709 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) ("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.").
(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. C.D. Ill. 1996) (Paralegal, but not "clerk" services entitled to compensation at an hourly rate; clerk activities are overhead of the professional); Souza 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).
(14) Computational or Typographical Error
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: March 31, 2015
/s/_________
Eugene R. Wedoff
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Image materials not available for display.