As part of the proceedings before the ALJ on damages, on July 19, 1996, Complainant Marrita Leveille submitted an application for fees and costs incurred from the inception of the case in 1993 to June 17, 1996. The Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended Decision and Order on remand on February 9, 1998, recommending payment of compensatory damages to Complainant and payment of attorneys' fees and costs for the period from 1993 to June 17, 1996. The ALJ permitted Complainant to submit a supplemental application for attorneys' fees and costs for the period after June 17, 1996, and on March 11, 1998, Complainant submitted such an application.

   On April 17, 1998, the ALJ issued a Recommended Supplemental Decision and Order recommending the award of attorneys' fees and costs for work performed and costs incurred in litigating Marrita Leveille's complaint through March 11, 1998. The Administrative Review Board issued a Decision and Order on Damages on October 25, 1999, affirming the ALJ's award of damages and attorneys' fees and inviting Complainant to submit a supplemental petition for attorneys' fees and costs incurred after March 11, 1998.

   We agree with Respondents, however, that the amount of attorneys' fees should be reduced because Complainant filed a 52 page "Reply" brief that exceeded the 30 page limitation in the Board's briefing schedule and order. In addition, Complainant filed a reply to Respondents' rebuttal brief that was not permitted by the briefing schedule. We note particularly that Complainant did not seek leave of the ARB to file a "Reply" brief substantially exceeding the page limitation, nor did Complainant seek leave to file the additional brief not contemplated by the ARB's briefing schedule. In our view, then, significant time was invested by counsel developing materials that were not authorized by the ARB's briefing order.

   The ERA requires a respondent to pay only those costs, including attorney's fees, "reasonably incurred" in bringing a complaint. 42 U.S.C. §5851(b)(2)(B) (emphasis added). For example, where a complainant's attorney prepared and filed a brief on review by the Secretary several months late, and did not seek leave or provide any reason for the delay, a fee request for preparation of the brief was not reasonable and was properly deducted by the ALJ from his recommendation on attorney's fees. Sprague v. American Nuclear Resources, Inc., Case No. 92-ERA-37, ARB Dec. Jul. 15, 1996, slip op. at 2, rev'd on other grounds sub nom American Nuclear Resources, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 134 F.3d 1292 (6th Cir. 1998). Thus an attorney who files tardy or superfluous briefs runs the risk that the fees associated with the pleading may not be assessed fully against the opposing party.

   A second problem with an award of attorneys' fees in this case relates to the fact that Complainant's fee petition is insufficiently clear and precise. The ALJ in Varnadore v. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Case Nos. 92-CAA-2 and 5 and 93-CAA-1 (ALJ Dec. Sept. 23, 1994), succinctly summarized the principles applicable in reviewing a request for attorneys' fees in cases under the environmental statutes:

The starting point for calculating a reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Hensley [v. Eckerhart], 461 U.S. [424] at 433 [1983]. The party seeking a fee award must submit evidence documenting the hours worked and the rates claimed. If the documentation of hours is inadequate, the award may be reduced accordingly. Id. at 433. Hours not reasonably expended are to be excluded. Counsel seeking a fee award should exclude hours which are excessive, redundant or otherwise unnecessary. The same principles govern here as in the case of an attorney billing his client. Id. at 434. Where fee petitions insufficiently document the hours reported, a court need not engage in a detailed item by item reduction of the hours, an impossible burden where the documentation is inadequate. In these instances the trier of fact has the discretion to reduce the hours on a percentage basis. See Ecos v. Brinegan, 671 F. Supp. 381, 398 (M.D. N.C. 1987); Goldstein v. Ebasco Constructors, Inc., 6 DOL Decisions No. 2 217, 222-223 (1992).

Varnadore v. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, slip op. at 2.

    The time records submitted by Complainant's attorneys with their Second Supplemental Application are not detailed enough to determine how much time was spent on permissible and impermissible pleadings filed with the ARB. Because these detailed data are lacking, and because Complainant's attorneys filed excessive pleadings without obtaining leave from the Board, we conclude it is reasonable that Complainant's application for attorneys' fees and costs should be reduced by the proportion that the permissible pages of the Reply brief bear to the total pages filed, i.e., 30 pages (the permissible length of the Reply brief) divided by 79 (the total pages filed) or 38 percent.

   Accordingly, Respondents are ordered to pay Complainant $19,582.30 in supplemental attorneys fees (38% of the requested $51,532.35), $254.08 in supplemental costs incurred by her attorneys and $495.04 in supplemental costs incurred by Complainant herself.