District of Columbia cuts environmental fee award, including for vague entries

What happened

The fee applicant sought attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act for environmental litigation. The court did not state total amounts requested or awarded. It discounted time spent on public relations, declined to credit unduly vague entries, applied a 10% reduction for block billing, and imposed a further 10% cut because mismatches called the reliability of the billing records into question. The court did not specify the overall percentage or dollar reduction.

What the court said

Second, the Court will not credit unduly vague entries.

Further, a great many entries teeter over the line between proper billing and “block billing,” or “lumping together multiple tasks,” which is disfavored.

The court also reduced the award for: other, other.

Why it matters

The ruling shows that courts will reduce fee awards when time entries are vague or lump multiple tasks together, and that inconsistencies in billing records can lead to further cuts even when no total is stated.

How to keep this out of your fee petition

• Name the task, the document or person involved, and the purpose.
• Avoid stock phrases that could describe any day in any matter.
• Keep privileged detail general, but specific enough to show the work.

Cite this ruling

See hourly rates the District of Columbia approves and attorney fee motions in District of Columbia federal courts.

Figures and quotes are taken from the opinion and checked against its text. Spot an error? Email team@legaltime.ai with the case name and we will correct it. Summaries of public court opinions. Not legal advice.