Opinion ID: 2314990
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Documentation Requirement

Text: As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has noted, it is insufficient to provide the District Court with very broad summaries of work done and hours logged. Concerned Vets., supra note 8, 219 U.S.App.D.C. at 102, 675 F.2d at 1327. Rather, the application must be sufficiently detailed to permit the District Court [or agency] to make an independent determination whether or not the hours claimed are justified, and contemporaneous, complete and standardized time records may be called for to support a disputed fee request. Id.; accord Hensley, supra, 461 U.S. at 438 n. 13, 103 S.Ct. at 1942 n. 13 (approving the reduction of one attorney's hours by 30 percent to account for his inexperience and failure to keep contemporaneous time records); Grendel's Den v. Larkin, 749 F.2d 945, 952 (1st Cir.1984). Here the RHC determined that the documentation offered by the Association was in several respects simply not adequate to explain the work performed when counsel intends to persuade us that we should impose the cost of his fees on another party. Clearly this serious deficiency throws doubt upon the validity of the entire presentation. The RHC noted that the Association submitted no contemporaneous timekeeping records to show that these hours were in fact expended, and expressed concern that the record of counsel's hours not be an after-the-fact estimate of what may have been done. As an example, in regard to a single entry submitted to cover 40 hours over four days of work, [12] the RHC found the dearth of detail disturbing. While it is true, as the Association argues, that the itemization of hours claimed generally specified the dates the work was performed, the general nature of the services, and the total time spent, more could be required of the Association in this contested award request. Even if the itemization was, for certain purposes, of the type traditionally used in the legal profession, as the Association asserts, it did not provide as much information as the trial court and this court ordinarily expect for CJA litigation on the itemization form entitled Explanation of Claim for Services and Expenses. Such forms require in addition daily dating of services, as opposed to aggregate entries, as well as logging of the times of day work is begun and ended and categorization by type of work performed. The RHC could require as much here. [13]