Opinion ID: 6323361
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Testimony of Brian Bardorf

Text: Attorney Bardorf testified for plaintiffs with respect to the reasonableness of plaintiffs’ proposed attorneys’ fees. He testified that he had been practicing condominium law since 1973 or 1974. He further testified that he reviewed all the legal invoices provided to him by plaintiffs’ attorneys, which dealt with the period 2 The plaintiffs also eventually filed a supplemental affidavit of Attorney Groves with accompanying invoices, which invoices the affidavit stated had been “inadvertently omitted” from the original affidavit. The supplemental affidavit and attached invoices were entered as an exhibit at the hearing on attorneys’ fees for identification only. -6- from March 10, 2010 to December 12, 2016. He stated that there was “nothing unusual or unreasonable” about the rates charged by plaintiffs’ attorneys and that those rates were in fact “quite modest.” It was his testimony that he subtracted $24,416.55 from what he deemed to be the total attorneys’ fees award because, in his opinion, those were unrelated charges. He consequently concluded that a fair and reasonable fee would be $233,688.44. On cross-examination, Attorney Bardorf acknowledged that the attachments to the affidavits filed with the Court by plaintiffs’ attorneys reflected a total amount of only $224,960—not $233,688.44. He admitted that he did not read the pertinent affidavits until after he rendered his opinion in March of 2017, and he further admitted that he had not read any of the pleadings in the case, including the complaint. Attorney Bardorf stated that he had relied on the findings of fact contained in the Superior Court decision in the instant case and in America Condo I. He further acknowledged that he was not familiar with the term “mandate rule.” Attorney Bardorf also acknowledged on cross-examination that he was not familiar with the term “lodestar” in connection with the calculation of attorneys’ fees at the time that he set forth, in his affidavit, his opinion as to reasonableness. He further testified that, with respect to that term, he did “look it up” after it was referenced at his deposition because he had “a different understanding of lodestar.” That being said, it was also his testimony that, even though he was not familiar -7- with the term as such, it was “exactly what [he] did in going through the    billings.” Attorney Bardorf added that he had not deducted any fees relating to the common law trespass count, the restrictive covenant count, or the count alleging violation of the Condominium Act because, in his view, the four counts in the complaint were all “intermingled” and dealt with “the same set of circumstances   .” He also admitted that he did not deduct any block billing. After the hearing, the parties submitted post-hearing memoranda. In the plaintiffs’ post-hearing memorandum, they noted that there were discrepancies between the affidavits/invoices of Attorney Groves and Attorney Shindell on the one hand and the invoices reviewed by Attorney Bardorf on the other. The plaintiffs stated that, for that reason, they were limiting their request for fees and costs in the underlying matter to those reflected in the invoices attached to the affidavits of Attorney Groves and Attorney Shindell which had been submitted to the court. They stated that, for that reason, they were consequently seeking only $225,235.23 in fees and $3,685.15 in costs. The plaintiffs also requested that the court award them fees on fees in the amount of $38,165 in attorneys’ fees and $12,175.38 in costs, and they attached to their post-hearing memorandum an affidavit of Attorney Bardorf and an affidavit of plaintiffs’ counsel Thomas W. Lyons, as well as relevant invoices. In reply, the Trust disputed plaintiffs’ entitlement to fees on fees solely on waiver grounds. It further stated that, if the -8- Superior Court did not find that plaintiffs had waived their fees on fees request, the Trust requested the right to conduct discovery and to have an evidentiary hearing. 2. The Decision of the Trial Justice On September 5, 2019, the trial justice issued a written decision in the case. The trial justice began her analysis by explaining the mandate rule; she noted that that rule provides that, on remand from this Court, the Superior Court “is bound by the decree as the law of the case, and must carry it into execution according to the mandate.” (Quoting Sisto II, 140 A.3d at 128.) The trial justice concluded that the “mandate from the Supreme Court [in this case] is for the Court to award attorneys’ fees and costs only for the breach of contract claim.”3 She also stated that there was “no statutory or contractual liability for attorneys’ fees” with respect to the other claims. The trial justice consequently concluded that she would consider only the entries on the invoices that were “specifically allocated to the breach of contract claim   .” The trial justice found credible Attorney Bardorf’s testimony that the rates charged by the attorneys were reasonable; however, she noted that she was “troubled” by the fact that Attorney Bardorf had not read the pleadings, including the complaint. She further determined that she must discount all block billing. The trial justice then listed all of the entries on the invoices which related directly 3 It is clear from the record that, when the trial justice spoke of the “breach of contract claim,” she was referring to the Trust’s breach of the GIS SAR. -9- to the breach of GIS SAR claim, and she reached the conclusion that plaintiffs were entitled to $5,862 in attorneys’ fees in the underlying action. With respect to court costs relative to the underlying matter, the trial justice noted that neither the affidavit of Attorney Groves nor that of Attorney Shindell itemized costs, and she also noted that the attached invoices contained few receipts. She allowed plaintiffs to recover for the cost of the filing fees, the service of process, obtaining trial transcripts, binding the briefs, and some travel costs. She held that plaintiffs had failed to properly support their claims for photocopying expenses, “express and/or overnight mail,” and “messenger and/or delivery services.” She awarded a total of $1,805.33 in costs with respect to the underlying case. The trial justice then proceeded to consider the issue of fees on fees, and she determined that such an award was appropriate. She then concluded that the hourly rate being charged by Attorney Lyons was reasonable. However, she discounted some of his billing that related to the case against Harbor Houses Condominium Association, Inc. (Harbor Houses) as differentiated from the Trust; and she discounted any billing where it was unclear whether the description related to Harbor Houses or the Trust. She further discounted all charges related to the production of the Vanden Dorpel and Conca affidavits, finding those affidavits not to be relevant. She also discounted any charges stemming from insufficiently - 10 - specific affidavits and all block billings. Lastly, she discounted the attorneys’ fees relating to the drafting of the supplemental affidavit of Attorney Groves, since the need for a supplemental affidavit was occasioned by a mistake on plaintiffs’ part. After the just-mentioned deductions, the trial justice found that $23,740 in attorneys’ fees remained. However, she further discounted that number by twenty-five percent because Attorney Bardorf “did not appear fully informed in preparation for the hearing” and because she determined “that it would be unreasonable to charge the Trust for all of the time the Trust expended illustrating various discrepancies in the expert attorney’s testimony and exhibits.” She arrived at a final figure of $17,805 in attorneys’ fees as to the fees on fees matter. The trial justice, in her discretion, denied the request for court costs related to Attorney Bardorf and his “[s]tatement” because she found that his opinion “had deficiencies   .” She further denied costs for transcripts and “documents from WarRoom Document Solutions” because plaintiffs had not provided sufficient documentation to support their request. Thus, the trial justice held that plaintiffs were entitled to $5,862 in attorneys’ fees and $1,805.33 in costs on the underlying case and $17,805 in fees on fees. Final judgment reflecting the decision of the trial justice entered on September 18, 2019, awarding plaintiffs a combined total of $25,472.33 in - 11 - attorneys’ fees and court costs. The plaintiffs filed a timely appeal to this Court, and the Trust filed a timely cross-appeal.