Not exact matches
The companion Senate
bill would require the principal's
substantiation.
Nothing Showed Lawsuit Was Clearly Frivolous and No
Billing Records Made
Substantiation Possible.
It argued that there was improper
substantiation, but the appellate court noted the 30 pages of detailed time entries in an attorney declaration sufficed because California does not absolutely require submission of
billing statements.
The 2/3 DCA panel disagreed, because (1) detailed
billing timesheets are not mandatory in seeking fees at the state court level, and (2) the attorney seeking fees on behalf of a client could obtain a waiver of the privilege by the client so that the
substantiation can be submitted.
At the end of the opinion, the appellate court dealt with the argument that the application of the privilege to
billing records would «wreak havoc» on the procedures for submitting
substantiation in support of a fee request.
The district judge also properly reduced the lodestar fee requests as follows: 20 % for recreation of time entries; $ 32,470 for vague time entries; $ 4,880.73 for lack of proper
substantiation; $ 50,721 for clerical tasks; and $ 25,827.50 for excessive
billing.