U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Administrative Law Judges
1111 20th Street, N W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Case No. 86-ERA-32
In the matter of
CAROLYN LARRY
Claimant
v.
THE DETROIT EDISON CO.
Employer
ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION
The above matter was decided in favor of the Claimant on October
17, 1986. Subsequently, a fee petition was received from Charlie C.
Taylor, Esq., attorney for the Claimant. The total amount claimed is
$13,900.00. This figure is arrived at by multiplying an hourly rate
of $100.00 by 79 hours for the services performed by Mr. Taylor and
adding the total of $150.00 multiplied by 36 hours for the services
provided during the hearing. Additionally, the total of 4 hours
multiplied by $150 for services provided by Sam Thomas, Esq.,
Co-council was included. The petition covers the period from July
17, 1986 to September 4, 1986.
On November 17, 1986 objections to the request were filed by Mr.
Stanley H. Slazinski, Esq., counsel for the Employer. The Employer
alleges the fees to be unreasonable and excessive for the following
[Page 2]
reasons:
1. The $100 - $150 hourly rate is excessive since claimant's
counsel has no special expertise in whistleblower cases.
2. The claim of 75 hours of pre-hearing preparation is excessive
3. Claimant's claim to a 50% premium on his scheduled hourly
rate for the three day hearing period is unreasonable.
4. The record does not reveal that Mr. Sam Thomas actively
participates in the hearing.
5. Asserted fees for $350.00 in telephone conversations and
drafting Interrogatories is unreasonable.
6. Claimant's counsel claims fees for three full days of hearing
when transcript testimony reveals that only two and one-half days of
proceedings warranted Counsel's attendance.
On the basis of these objections, the total fee is reduced to
$9450.00 for the following reasons:
1. I find that the $100.00 hourly rate claimed by Counsel is
reasonable given such factors as complexity of legal issues, level of
experience, size of firm and hourly rates charged in the same
geographic region.
2. Attorney's fees for 75 hours of pre-hearing preparation over
a five day period seems excessive. Accordingly, I reduce the claim
to 50 hours. This proceeding was not an exceedingly complex nature
that it would require more than a ten hour work day for preparation.
3. I reject Claimant's counsels claim to a 50% premium on his
scheduled hourly rate for the three days of hearing involved.
Counsel has not provided a reasonable basis for the 50% premium rate.
Therefore, the 36 hours of trial time should be billed at the hourly
rate of $100.00.
4. I reduce the hourly rate for services provided by Mr. Sam
Thomas from $150.00 to $100.00.
No documentation has been provided establishing special expertise or
experience on Mr. Thomas' part that would merit the award of the
higher fee.
[Page 3]
5. I affirm Counsel's claim to $350 for telephone conversations
and drafting interrogatories on 9/2/86 and 9/4/86. Such asserted
fees do not seem unreasonable or excessive.
6. Finally, Claimant's counsel should be reimbursed for the time
spent during the three days of hearing. The Employer's claim that
the hearing was unduly lengthy because counsel was permitted to pursue
irrelevant areas of testimony is without merit. The record establishes
that the hearing lasted three days and counsel should be
reimbursed for time spent attending the hearing.
Thus, considering the above-named adjustments, the total fee
equals $9450.00.
ORDERED
It is therefore ORDERED that the Employer, Detroit Edison, shall
pay the sum of $9450.00 to Charlies C. Taylor, Esq. as full fee for
services rendered before the office of Administrative Law Judges.
