As stated above, the agency issued its final decision on attorney’s fees
on April 26, 2007. The agency points out that complainant’s attorney
requests fees for three different actions: (1) the response to the
agency’s appeal, (2) complainant’s cross-appeal, and (3) complainant’s
request for reconsideration. However, the agency notes that complainant
prevailed only as to the agency’s appeal; she did not prevail as to her
cross-appeal or her request for reconsideration. The agency further
points out that complainant’s attorney failed to indicate the hour totals
per employee who worked on complainant’s case.
Taking these facts into account, the agency arrived at the following
conclusions. It determined that the 2.8 hours billed by the partner
for the period before the AJ’s decision (pre-August 11, 2003)2 was
reasonable. The agency further found that the 127.83 hours that
complainant’s attorney claimed for the period between August 11, 2003
and April 28, 2005, the date of our appellate decision, was excessive
because although the majority of this time was spent responding to
the appeal and preparing the unsuccessful cross-appeal, the firm had
already spent a considerable amount of time on the case, having argued
before the matter before the AJ. Therefore, the agency found that the
proper course of action was to disallow 50% of the hours requested for
this period and to accept as reasonable 17.5 hours billed by partner,
44.9 hours billed by the junior associate, and 0.5 hours billed by the
paralegal. With regard to the period after April 28, 2005, the agency
again accepted only 1.6 hours of the non-fee preparation time claimed
by the partner as the other claimed hours appear to have been spent on
the unsuccessful request for reconsideration.
With regard to compensation for the time spent of preparing the fee
petition, the agency determined that the 1.0 hour claimed by the partner
for the pre-August 11, 2003 period was reasonable. As for the period
between August 11, 2003 and April 28, 2005, complainant’s attorney made
no fee request. For the period following our appellate decision of
April 28, 2005, the agency found the fee request to be excessive and
disproportionate, particularly given the poor quality of the request.
As such, the agency only approved 50% of the time requested – 2.4 hours
for the partner and 4.4 hours for the paralegal.
As for the hourly rates due to the law firm, the agency found the
attorney’s rates reasonable. The partner claimed $250 per hour for
services rendered before April 28, 2005 and $300 per hour for services
rendered after April 28, 2005. The junior partner claimed a rate of
$175 per hour for all periods. The paralegal claimed a rate of $75 per
hour for services rendered before April 28, 2005 and $90 per hour for
the work performed after April 28, 2005.
In addition to attorney’s fees, complainant’s attorney also claimed costs.
The agency notes that although the fee petition contains little or no
explanation, justification or documentation as to the costs, it awarded
the $102.60 requested in light of the protracted processing of the case.
The agency’s decision on attorney’s fees and costs can be summarized in
the following tables:
Hours Expended Representing Complainant = $13,450.00
* Period before August 11, 2003:
Partner:
2.8 hours at
$250/hour =
$ 700.00
* Period between August 11,
2003 and April 28, 2005:
Partner:
17.5 hours at
$250/hour =
$4,375.00
Jr. Assoc
44.9 hours at
$175/hour =
$7,857.50
Paralegal
0.5 hour at
$75/hour =
$ 37.50
*
Period after April 28, 2005:
Partner:
1.6 hours at
$300/hour =
$ 480.00
Hours Expended Preparing Fee Petition = $1,366
* Period before August 11, 2003:
Partner:
1.0 hour at
$250/hour
$ 250.00
* Period between August 11,
2003 and April 28, 2005: NONE
* Period after April 28, 2005:
Partner:
2.4 hours at
$300/hour
$ 720.00
Paralegal:
4.4 hours at
$90/hour
$ 396.00
Allowable Costs = $102.60
Total Award = $14,918.60
