Opinion ID: 3019701
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Individual Items

Text: We now turn to particular items in the attorneys’ time sheets to determine if they are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Id. at 434. We note at the outset that the fee schedule from Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP (“Weil, Gotshal”) includes only the hours billed by Mr. Sugarman and Mr. Yale, and about two-thirds of the hours billed by Mr. Lowenthal; it does not include time billed by other associates or paralegals, which totals approximately 145 hours. This, with the reduction in Mr. Lowenthal’s time, 9 represents a discount of about 360 hours. The Supreme Court has recognized that “‘billing judgment’ is an important component in fee setting,” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434 (internal quotation marks omitted), and we believe this significant discount mitigates many of appellees’ concerns about “overbilling” by Messrs. Sugarman, Yale, and Lowenthal.5 We have considered thoroughly appellees’ numerous challenges to the time sheets submitted by appellants, and find most of the objections to be unfounded (and, in any event, unpersuasive). For example, appellees challenge the hours Mr. Lowenthal expended drafting correspondence with the Court (about 9 hours), preparing necessary forms and statements to allow the filing of briefs in our Court (about 30 hours), and drafting the Fair Housing Act portion of the brief (about 22 hours), but we believe these hours were necessary and reasonable in length, especially as Mr. Lowenthal’s hours have already been reduced by one-third.6 Appellees also contend that the presence of several attorneys at oral argument was duplicative and unnecessary, but we note this was a 5 We also note that appellants’ attorneys do not seek compensation for time spent preparing and litigating the pending motion for fees, despite the fact we have expressly approved such fees. See Planned Parenthood of Central N.J. v. Att’y Gen. of N.J., 297 F.3d 253, 268 (3d Cir. 2002) (“A party entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees is also entitled to reimbursement for the time spent litigating its fee application.”). 6 Indeed, we note that all of Mr. Lowenthal’s challenged time entries fit within the number of hours for which he does not seek reimbursement. Although his time sheets do not identify the entries that are not included in the fee he seeks (rather, he has provided a complete list of his time entries), we believe it appropriate to refuse appellees’ objections to his use of time, since it appears to us all the entries to which appellees object are not included in the requested fee. 10 complicated case with multiple appellants raising important constitutional claims, and those cases often “mandate[] the help of numerous attorneys for both parties,” including at oral argument. Planned Parenthood, 297 F.3d at 272. They further challenge the time (about 140 hours) spent collectively by the attorneys on meetings and conference calls, but do not explain why this amount of consultation time is unreasonable given the complexity of this case and the many parties involved.7 Moreover, they complain that appellants’ attorneys spent time consulting with the amici in this case (which appellees seem to suggest is improper), but do not explain why this was inappropriate and not compensable.8 7 Appellees complain particularly that a large percentage of the hours claimed by Mr. Shapiro reflect telephone conferences with his clients and co-counsel. Appellees contend this is excessive, and further note that the fee schedules of the other attorneys do not reflect several of the telephone conferences Mr. Shapiro claims. First, we note that Mr. Shapiro was the only attorney for the Tenafly Eruv Association who did not work at Weil, Gotshal, so it is unsurprising he used the telephone more than co-counsel. As for appellees’ apparent contention that Mr. Shapiro’s entries are disingenuous, we note that co-counsel did list almost all of the same telephone conferences, either explicitly indicating a telephone conference with Mr. Shapiro or noting more generally attention to the subject matter. Indeed, of the 43 entries containing telephone conferences on Mr. Shapiro’s time sheets, we have found only eight that do not correspond to equivalent entries on the time sheets of co-counsel. This could, of course, merely reflect cocounsel’s failure to record properly a few conversations on their time sheets. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we will not penalize Mr. Shapiro by reducing his fee, especially since the overall number of hours Mr. Shapiro spent consulting his clients and co-counsel appears reasonable. 8 As then-Judge (now Justice) Alito observed in Neonatology Associates, P.A. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 293 F.3d 128 (3d Cir. 2002) (Alito, J., in chambers), the idea that an amicus must be impartial is “outdated,” since “an amicus who makes a strong but responsible presentation in support of a party can truly serve as the court’s friend.” Id. at 131. We therefore reject appellees’ apparent belief that there is something 11 Appellees also point out that Mr. Yale’s entries on his time sheets often report his “att[entio]n to” a matter (rather than a detailed description of his exact task), and contend those entries should be disallowed as violations of our rule that a “fee petition is required to be specific enough to allow the . . . court to determine if the hours claimed are unreasonable for the work performed.” Washington v. Phila. County Ct. of Common Pleas, 89 F.3d 1031, 1037 (3d Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have explained, however, that the documentation requirements for time charged are not exacting: “a fee petition should include some fairly definite information as to the hours devoted to various general activities, e.g., pretrial discovery, settlement negotiations, . . . [but] it is not necessary to know the exact number of minutes spent nor the precise activity to which each hour was devoted nor the specific attainments of each attorney.” Id. at 1037-38 (internal quotation marks omitted). While it is advisable in certain circumstances to provide greater specificity than Mr. Yale does, we believe most of his entries (“Attn to brief,” “Attn to reply,” etc.) are sufficiently clear to allow us to know the tasks to which he devoted his time, and we therefore conclude they are documented properly. We note two exceptions below in our itemized list of reductions of the requested fees. unseemly about discussions between appellants and supportive amici, and conclude that this time is compensable. 12 We are also unpersuaded by appellees’ objections to the time spent preparing the briefs for this appeal and preparing for oral argument. Appellees contend that Messrs. Sugarman, Yale, Lowenthal, and Shapiro spent a combined 327 hours preparing their opening brief and a combined 173 hours preparing the reply brief, and expended (in the aggregate) 86 hours preparing for oral argument. As stated, this was a complex constitutional case with numerous appellants and amici, and we added to the mix by requesting (two weeks before oral argument) supplemental briefing from the parties regarding symbolic speech issues in the case. Under these circumstances, we are confident that the amount of time charged by appellants’ attorneys to draft, review, and file the briefs, and argue the case, is not excessive.9 Having concluded that the bulk of appellants’ claimed hours were expended reasonably, we note the following entries that are not appropriately compensable. (1) Although, as noted above, Mr. Yale’s entries noting his “att[entio]n” to various matters are mostly sufficient to satisfy our documentation requirements, we note two entries that are not. A December 11, 2001 entry for “attn to papers” and a November 1, 2002 entry for “attn to status” do not provide any indication to what “papers” or 9 Appellees also allege that Mr. Sugarman spent 19 hours reading the District Court’s opinion in this case, an amount they assert is excessive. We have reviewed Mr. Sugarman’s time records and do not find that he charged those hours. The only entries related to the District Court’s opinion are for three hours spent reviewing the opinion, and for a total of seven-and-a-half hours spent performing several tasks, including reviewing the opinion. This is not excessive. 13 “status” Mr. Yale was attending. We believe these entries are not sufficiently precise to “determine if the hours claimed are unreasonable for the work performed,” Washington, 89 F.3d at 1037 (internal quotation marks omitted), and we will therefore reduce his time charge by two hours and 30 minutes (the rounded combined total of the two entries). (2) A similar problem arises with two of Mr. Sugarman’s entries: a December 2, 2002 entry for “e-mails” and a December 3, 2002 entry for “conference call” are not specific enough for us to know the subject of his actions, and we will therefore reduce his time charge by one hour and 30 minutes (the combined total of the two entries). (3) We note that Mr. Sugarman spent approximately seven hours granting postdecision telephone interviews to reporters. We have held in the past that such matters are not ordinarily compensable as legal services, see Halderman v. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp., 49 F.3d 939, 942 (3d Cir. 1995), and we will therefore reduce Mr. Sugarman’s time charge by seven hours. (4) Like Messrs. Sugarman and Yale, Mr. Shapiro has two entries that are too vague to allow us to determine the nature of his work: an October 1, 2001 entry for “correspondence” and a January 14, 2002 entry for “review papers.” We will, therefore, reduce his time charge by one hour and 30 minutes (the combined total of the two entries). (5) Mr. Shapiro also charged a total of three hours for administrative tasks, including “organize and file correspondence regarding appeal” (one hour), “fax merits 14 disposition to Bob Sugarman and staff” (three-quarters of an hour), “forward order from Court of Appeals” (half an hour), and “fax affidavit and correspondence” (three-quarters of an hour). We are somewhat reluctant to approve compensation at the high rates charged for attorneys’ professional assistance “when a lawyer spends time on tasks that are easily delegable to non-professional assistance.” Halderman, 49 F.3d at 942. We will therefore reduce Mr. Shapiro’s time charge by two hours (a two-thirds reduction).