event chose not to submit any opposition to the hourly rate that left the district of the magistrate with only an economic survey which he relied upon what's wrong with that theory a lot of things are wrong with the survey number one you'll see the survey questionnaire itself the last page of our brief the standard for turning our rate is the skills reputation and ability of attorney doing comparable work in the market the survey asked no questions you have no idea what the respondent skill level is it sounds on you have no idea of the response reputation it's silent on that you have no idea what you would do you agree that it it's did and you look at the factors it's you know it's got some relevance just like what there was there an objection to some use of the survey however my understanding was that there wasn't an objection to attorney's fees as well yes he did not have on his behalf any attorney affidavit suggesting anything as to his skill ability in place in the portland market so the i would say it's unfortunate that mr good did not have supporting affidavits for his fees i would agree with the court in that regard he said what his own fee was and he gave some of his own experience but that's just some of it instead needs more evidence  that the court then went to the fallback of the survey and i think that when you've got a situation such as before the mcdougal's phase where you've got affidavits from a four former president of the oregon state bar and your own affidavit yes i seemed to me that they were missing anything about attorneys in the human you doing similar work charging the rates that you were prevailing market rates if that's our flaw in the survey has one hundred times more flaws but i don't think that's our flaw because i think that really market rates are by what you would bear for that type of work in the community it's not back specific as to that's particular having the bulk of their work on man at an hourly rate so other than his affidavit and then the calculation of total yearly hours and revenue is there anything else that could be done in a contingency case to show what would be a reasonable aurally rate for say two rights or plaintiff's attorney i am not aware i did what i thought was reasonable i asked my county what would be my within an understanding that they're not trying to build another huge record and have another big litigation defense of the afternoon to come forward with evidence which might have started up could've taken definitions could've done something but they didn't test it at all and i think from the affidavit on record it's a reasonable inference that our hourly rates would prevail for this type of work in the community for people of our ranking what about the other one of the challenges to the season one that the can do it but i think it is some reference to custom in the community and the practical reality of the trial preparation it's your doing numerous different different numbers task at the same time involving a lot of different people and it's not the type of situation where you can say you know i was working on this you're putting it down going back to it you're multitasking as much as that word is overused and that's my own explanation for i don't did not identify which entries were blocked bills and then we just them accordingly the magistrate judge actually just discussed the block building but then so even though i've discussed it i'm going to do a one third across the board reduction because your team have to be attorneys and therefore i'm taking one third of all your time like that's how she reduced our hours even though she discussed black going it's one third everywhere and that's patently unfair in a case where the other side had at least eight attorneys and fourteen people  calculation which is in her opinion and i'm trying to flip through it right now  is what is the prevailing market rate for attorneys in portland and the survey has a comprehensive basis has determined that the prevailing market rate for chinese of certain types of experience in certain types of litigation  and when the court faulted the council for using it we have repeatedly held that there is a terminations of a reasonable hourly rate is not made by reference to rates actually it is not made by reference the rates actually charge the prevailing party mean that's about as far as i would not agree with that your honor she started the average the mean rate was one eighty six per hour the only attorney who came close to that in terms of the final rate was mr mcdougal who the court awarded fees that it rated one eighty five per hour given objection but they submitted affidavits that indicate that their prevailing rates for attorneys of comparable skill ability and nature of practice are far above those that well that is so far above what we believe is a comparable rate that this is a skewed affidavit so isn't that the evidence in front of the court as to what an attorney of their nature skill practice years of mr i believe it's mr woodward's affidavit the only thing he says is that he was asked to perform work and one case where he charged three hundred seventy five dollars an hour doesn't say what kind of work in any context other than that mr williamson's affidavit says there's a best practice but it's not and it's not one that isn't found in private practice and here a lot of the hours of course took place during trial and i'm having trouble understanding how the district court can just make an across the board need x cut simply because they were last detail entries for example during the time of trial what is your view on that it's sort of a multiple parts of number one the court only need the one third reduction for trial related time that wasn't across the board it was just  you know i think that's how people bill for trial you know you go to try to get up at seven you know at the office you leave that town at night and your records although not proper necessarily to compare for hours that the portland school records look much the same prepare for for billing in quarter hour increments and approves a twenty percent reduction based on quarter hour increments here mr kasuri mr mcdougal's time was basically in one hour every hour was rounded to a flat zero so there were no no breaks because that's hours not properly if you will to a client or not properly billed to an adversary and i think big from the private practice example would be very difficult to go to submit a bill to a client four years after the fact saying well i based my computer records in memory and think because what she does which is well there's this problem because you've got duplicate hours you've got black killing mr good you work at home we've got this problem and that problem and through the court's opinion that she does go through and talking specifically about the hours that were that she was reducing she just didn't cut one third across the board but it was rather the time that was time being started two hundred dollars an hour i think it was more a product of it turns out the mr good has claimed really what he's called his contract rate of two hundred fifty dollars was actually a rate that he would claim in the full proceedings because most of what he was handling were routine collections small dollar collections actions where he would submit affidavit saying i don't or submit bills for two hundred fifty dollars an hour is not contested because there is no party to contest it and we're over time  one way or one more lawyer and that would have been understandable but to bring in two more who had to be brought completely up to speed was grossly inefficient and it's a charge that should not have to be borne by the district for welsh and also the supreme court said intensely is that the trial judges really has the best vantage point to determine what charges are reasonable which charges are not and that's why the court  that i personally i don't think so i think i meant street steward is a fine judge and she would i would not expect her to act in that kind of fashion i think she's follows the law with fidelity and that's her job is she supposed to and another thing that i want to ask you about that was somewhat troublesome is she's she says the defense properly delegated work down to lower billing associates paralegals etc but  the plaintiff's attorneys didn't do that and that seems to me to be looking at you know most defense firms operate on that kind of a structure where they have a pyramid person and there's not any evidence here that you know that's the structure of for example the plaintiffs or that it wasn't actually more efficient albeit at a higher hourly rate for more experienced lawyers to do these things because as you know sometimes associates spend way more time doing what an experienced lawyer can knock off in an hour or two that kind of judgment seems to permeate the decision here  and maybe you can comment on because it seems to me that did drive part of her reason for reducing was this view that the plaintiff just overspent on the case is it is that incorrect impression of her opinion well your honor i think that that did show up quite a bit as i think there are a lot of deductions that the district court made that have not been challenged on appeal and there are things that mr good for example would a delivery service could have done that a lot more efficiently and so the defense of the district should not have to bear that cost so there were i think that's what's permeating the opinion of those specific  that's why the gross hours for the district i think were were you know i guess i think it's kind of to the big question is that a number of her points i think are very legitimate and you've raised some of those today but she doesn't then take hours and then deduct those specific things that she's completely you know that are perhaps either overbilling or you know not valued billing she then does this cross the board so how if you articulate those thing but then doesn't actually do the calculations consonant with her explanation how are we to figure out whether the one third cot is reasonable or not but your honor i think the one third cut has to do not with the specific tasks you know lengthy conferences or or handle differing materials but rather that has to do with bringing two attorneys in on the eve of trial and with mr  mcdougal she takes off point seven five so that's kind of why i'm having some trouble i'm trying to figure out what to benchmark the decision against because i see her written opinion and her complaints but i don't see how that's reflected in at least as to mr godfrey mr mcdougal in there so maybe you can enlighten me somewhat maybe i'm just not seeing it if you're looking at page three twenty three which is for a little char related to being a messenger service or this or that the only reduction that i see unless i'm missing some of their hours was the one third across the board on their two thousand hours year overreaching i submitted it to the district court but the way we did it if anything penalize ourselves i think when you look at the actual record and their trial counsel they have to misrata spent five hundred twenty one point eight hours and mr reuben spent four hundred eleven point three hours if you compare that to the time that mr before and i plan you don't get any sense of overreaching and when you look at the district spelling versus ours you don't get any sense of overreaching on fairness also i would ask that the court of one of the on the district only challenge forty seven five of my hours specifically and four point four of mr crow for these are specifically the court disagreed on a four point four the point look at what we've built compared to what the district built of the same activity one might say well maybe we should do a reduction for block building but one might say looking at this record is the reason for the rule behind the court not remain on this matter as on some occasions the court keeps the matter makes its own determination i know a lot of cases in the system are aged we went to trial back in two thousand and one remanding it back down as a further delay and there is