The issue presented here was narrow and straightforward, controlled by a single case. Even though careful counsel would understandably perform additional research beyond that sole case to be sure that no other authority existed, I find that an attorney of Mr. Glickman's experience would still be justified in expending no more than 1.5 hours in research on this matter, resulting in a total reduction of six hours from the number stated. Complainant also notes that Respondent has requested reimbursement for work done on the parallel federal case involving the parties. See entry of June 15, 1993. The award of fees, of course, is for expenses in this matter, not some other matter.
Complainant also objects generally to the number of hours requested as excessive.
In examining the number of hours billed for the preparation of the motion to dismiss and reply thereto, both of which were fairly brief and straightforward pleadings, I find that the stated number, ten hours, is excessive. I reduce that figure by six hours to four. Because Respondent does not explain this entry, which on its face shows no application to this matter, I disallow that hour. The remaining entries appear reasonable on their face and have not been singled out for attack by Complainant. I therefore allow them.