Opinion ID: 1238426
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Client Communication

Text: The government contends, without citing specific time entries or legal authority, that Arulanantham should not have spent 17 hours visiting and briefing Nadarajah, because on appeal the client needs no preparation and the attorney needs little or no client input. In Exhibit A to the government's opposition, however, the government objects to the following time entries by Arulanantham that relate to client communication, without providing reasons for the objections: 0.5 hour of total 1 hour on November 2, 2005 (ID No. 27295) for Work on strategy and review of opinion after district court denied habeas. Also drafted letter to client, along with articles for his review concerning situation in Sri Lanka; and 4.35 hours on November 12, 2005 (ID No. 27303) for Visit to client, long discussion of case status with habeas and its interaction with removal proceedings. Travel to and from Otay Mesa. Nadarajah responds that the detention center's distant location and cumbersome telephone visitation procedures justified spending so many hours for client visiting and briefing during the appeal. Moreover, Nadarajah is not fluent in English and Arulanantham is not fluent in Tamil. Under the circumstances, all hours requested for client communication were reasonably expended. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433-34, 103 S.Ct. 1933.