Opinion ID: 39707
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Factual Finding of Duplication of Effort

Text: Walker & Patterson next argues that the bankruptcy court erred in finding that Walker & Patterson’s attorneys duplicated -11- each other’s efforts in their preparation of the Chapter 13 case, a factor that affected the bankruptcy court’s lodestar analysis. Because we review the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact for clear error, we will defer to a bankruptcy court’s factual findings unless, after reviewing all of the evidence, “we are left with a ‘firm and definite conviction’ that the bankruptcy court made a mistake.” In re Bradley, 960 F.2d 502, 507 (5th Cir. 1992) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 365 (1948)). After reviewing the billing records in this case, the bankruptcy court found evidence that the attorneys had worked on overlapping pieces of the case and spent excess time bringing each other up to speed on tasks begun by the other. Additionally, the bankruptcy court found some indication that the billing records may not have been contemporaneous and correct. After our review of the record, nothing leaves us with a “‘firm and definite conviction’ that the bankruptcy court made a mistake” in making these factual findings. Id.; see also In re Young, 995 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1993) (deferring to the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact in the absence of evidence of clear error).