S.D. Indiana cuts employment fee award 44.7%, including for vague entries

What happened

The plaintiff, represented by John H. Haskin & Associates, LLC, requested $203,728 in attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The court awarded $112,597.38, a reduction of $91,130.62 or 44.7%. It set lower hourly rates, deducted 1.1 hours for an unidentified timekeeper, and removed 5.1 hours for vague entries. It also struck 28.7 hours of trial time for duplicative staffing and 25.7 hours for mock trial work as excessive. Finally, it applied a 15% reduction to the total for clerical billing, duplicative staffing, and excessive hours.

What the court said

these entries will be deducted from Mr. Purnell's attorney fees request, reducing the request by 0.6 hours of time attributable to Attorney Alexander and 4.5 hours of time attributable to Attorney Stowers.

That amount must be reduced by a factor of 15 percent, which accounts for the effect of the issues identified above, including improperly billing for administrative tasks and a pattern of duplicative and excessive time entries.

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

Why it matters

The ruling shows that courts will reduce fee awards for vague time entries, even when other grounds also support a cut. It also illustrates that a percentage reduction can address multiple recordkeeping and staffing problems together, rather than requiring a line-by-line deduction for each.

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. Indiana approves and attorney fee motions in Indiana 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.