Opinion ID: 725286
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Supreme Court Preparation

Text: 37 Plaintiffs claimed 1245.7 hours, spent from November 14, 1988 to February 27, 1989 and from June 28 to October 14, 1989, shortly before the reopening of settlement negotiations and the postponement of argument before the Supreme Court. There were 331 entries by six attorneys. The entries include review and conferences concerning Supreme Court jurisdiction, preparation of motion to dismiss and brief, review of the opinion in Webster [Webster v. Reproductive Services, 492 U.S. 490, was decided July 3, 1989], conferences with attorneys doing amicus briefs, review of record, preparation of brief and appendix, research, including levels of scrutiny, review of O'Connor opinions, review of state's and amicus briefs. 38 Counsel for plaintiffs remind us, as they did Judge Nordberg, of the tension and the atmosphere, including nationwide media scrutiny, under which Ragsdale and its companion cases were briefed and the doubts as to the continued viability of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), prior to the decision on June 29, 1992 of Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). Judge Nordberg agree[d] with Plaintiff that the novelty of some of the issues presented and the importance of the abortion issue justified a massive effort. Except for 5.5 hours which represented several conferences where the judge could not determine the subject matter or the like, Judge Nordberg found that his review of the time expended in preparing for Supreme Court argument did not reveal any unreasonable expenditures of time. 39 State Defendants' one-page challenge to the hours allowed seems founded solely on frequent telephone and office conferences between two and three of plaintiffs' attorneys, on three attorneys working on a motion in the Supreme Court, on five attorneys participating in drafting, reviewing, revising and talking about plaintiffs' brief, involving hundreds of hours. These facts do not persuade us that there was an abuse of discretion. Plaintiffs point to a number of names on the briefs of State Defendants. The court can look to how many lawyers the other side utilized in similar situations as an indication of the effort required. Ramos v. Lamm, 713 F.2d 546, 554 (10th Cir.1983). State Defendants made no showing that work on their side of the case required fewer lawyers, fewer conferences among them, and less time. 40 Plaintiffs do concede that six hours were mistakenly billed and should be subtracted. These were entries in 1986 by a lawyer whose contemporaneous hourly rate was $98. Thus the total was $588. Adding compound interest computed in the manner used in this case, the result is approximately $1200. 41 The award of attorney's fees is reduced by $1200 and as so modified the judgment is affirmed. Plaintiffs did not prevail on their cross-appeal. Each party will bear his own costs of appeal. Plaintiffs have not requested an allowance for attorney's fees for work on this appeal.