Court Opinion

ID: 9756265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:19:24.484674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:17.210135
License: Public Domain

EISELE, Senior District Judge, dissenting.
Although I agree with the majority that Plaintiffs’ lead attorneys did a first rate professional job in the representation of their clients in this voting rights case, I, nevertheless, dissent from the fee award because I find it clearly excessive. In my view too many lawyers and too many paralegals were used; the hourly rates awarded are too high and the number of hours allowed excessive. Furthermore, I do not believe, under the facts and circumstances of this case, that any contingency enhancement is called for. I recognize we are dealing here with matters of judgment so I see little benefit in setting forth my specific objections.
Without going into details, the award which I would have approved would be somewhat less than one-half of the award actually made by the Court to the Plaintiffs as the prevailing parties.
APPENDIX A — PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST4
I. TIME
A. Attorneys
[[Image here]]
B. Paralegals
[[Image here]]
*476[[Image here]]
II. EXPENSES
A. Paid By the Legal Defense Fund
[[Image here]]
B. Paid by Individuals
[[Image here]]
TOTAL = $166,831
APPENDIX B — ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES AWARDED
I. TIME
A. Attorneys
[[Image here]]
B. Paralegals
[[Image here]]
II. EXPENSES
A. Paid By The Legal Defense Fund
[[Image here]]
B. Paid By Individuals
[[Image here]]
*477[[Image here]]
III. FINAL ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES AWARD
[[Image here]]

. All dollar amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.