E.D. Michigan cuts consumer protection fee award 55.7%, including for block billing

What happened

The plaintiff in a consumer protection case sought $442,196.45 in fees and costs for 858.4 hours. The court reduced the hourly rates because they did not match prevailing market rates. It then applied a 35% reduction to the total hours, citing block billing, excessive billing, vague entries, and billing accuracy concerns. The court awarded $196,034.80, including costs, a reduction of $246,161.65.

What the court said

due to the Court’s concerns about block-billing, excessive billing, vagueness, and billing accuracy, a 35 percent reduction is warranted.

due to the Court’s concerns about block-billing, excessive billing, vagueness, and billing accuracy, a 35 percent reduction is warranted.

The court also reduced the award for: hourly rate reduced, excessive hours, other.

Why it matters

The ruling shows that a single percentage cut can combine several time record problems, including block billing and vague entries, and that courts will also adjust rates before applying such a cut. It illustrates how a fee award can fall by more than half when both rates and hours are challenged.

How to keep this out of your fee petition

• Record one task per entry, each with its own time.
• Write the entry when the work happens, not at the end of the week.
• If a task really is one unit of work, say what it was and what it produced.

Cite this ruling

See hourly rates the E.D. Michigan approves and attorney fee motions in Michigan 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.