S.D. Ohio cuts consumer protection fee award 41.2%, including for vague entries

What happened

The plaintiffs' firm Spangenberg, Shibley, & Liber LLP sought $5,638,622.53 in fees. Judge Michael R. Barrett awarded $3,317,128.60, a reduction of $2,321,493.93 or 41.2%. The court excluded time tied to an expert whose testimony applied only to the breach of contract claim. It then cut the total fee by 15% for duplicative staffing and multiple attorney review, and by another 15% for entries described only as review or respond to, which the court said made it hard to tell whether substantive work occurred.

What the court said

entries that only include descriptions such as “review” and “respond to” (usually .1 or .2 entries). Frankly, it is difficult to determine if a short “review” entry resulted in more substantive action

The court also reduced the award for: unrelated claims, duplicative staffing.

Why it matters

The ruling shows that a fee award can be reduced when time entries use short, generic descriptions that do not let the court assess the work performed, and when staffing and review produce overlapping time. Courts may apply a percentage cut to the total fee rather than parse each entry.

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 S.D. Ohio approves and attorney fee motions in Ohio 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.