It must be pretty humbling when a trial court judge whacks almost $230,000 off an attorney’s fee request. But even more embarrassing when an appellate panel agrees and says it looks like the bill was padded.
That’s what happened Wednesday when the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s Santa Ana branch affirmed an Orange County judge’s decision to award lawyers only $21,300 in fees for prevailing in an anti-SLAPP case, even though they had sought more than $250,000.
“Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion,” Justice Richard Aronson wrote, “[that] counsel leavened the fee request with non-compensable hours and vague, indecipherable billing statements, destroying the credibility of the submission and therefore justifying a severe reduction.”
Justices William Rylaarsdam and Richard Fybel made the opinion unanimous. It concluded the trial judge was probably justified in finding the fee request “unreasonably padded, vague and worthy of little credence.”
Unfortunately, the ruling in Christian Research Institute v. Alnor, 08 C.D.O.S. 10574 (.pdf), followed an appellate court tendency of not naming the offending lawyers. Instead, it just notes there were five attorneys behind the fee request and refers to them in the 17-page ruling as “counsel.”
However, opposing appellate lawyer Tom Chun, of Irvine, identified Kevin Kieffer, a partner in Irvine’s Ross, Dixon & Bell, as the lead attorney in the litigation. Chun also said invoices showed “significant billing entries” by firm associates Becki Kieffer and Jenece Solomon. Also billing was Peter Eliasburg of the Los Angeles-based American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.
Kevin Kieffer didn’t return a telephone call Thursday seeking comment.
The lawyers had sought attorney fees after the same appellate panel in February ruled in their favor on an anti-SLAPP motion filed by their client, William Alnor. That ruling dismissed a defamation claim filed against Alnor by the Christian Research Institute, a nonprofit group that disseminates religious information.
In reviewing the fee request, though, Orange County Superior Court Judge Robert Moss said he found the 228.7 hours of work for the pretrial motion and the 410 hours on the appeal to be excessive. Instead, he awarded money for only about 71 hours total.
The Fourth District cited several reasons why Moss’ decision seemed sound. The court said the cases seemed “overstaffed” and contained many “vague billing entries.”
“Indeed,” Justice Aronson wrote, “the five attorneys Alnor deployed on the motion appear to have expended more time telephoning, conferencing and emailing each other than on identifiable legal research.”
As condescending as Aronson’s ruling was, Irvine lawyer Chun said his opponents were fortunate the opinion wasn’t written by Justice Rylaarsdam — “who was most visibly disturbed at the oral argument and told Kevin Kieffer point blank that he was ‘lucky to get anything at all’ in the trial court.”
Sounds like time for someone to retake “Billable Hours 101.”
— Mike McKee
I know of a case like that in Toccoa, GA. Still awaiting the trial judde's decision.
Posted by: Meanie | October 06, 2009 at 02:03 PM