In Re Thacker

48 B.R. 161, 1985 Bankr. LEXIS 6392
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois
DecidedApril 3, 1985
Docket16-05436
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 48 B.R. 161 (In Re Thacker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Thacker, 48 B.R. 161, 1985 Bankr. LEXIS 6392 (Ill. 1985).

Opinion

ORDER

EDWARD B. TOLES, Bankruptcy Judge.

This cause coming on to be heard upon the Application filed by LAWRENCE W. KORRUB, counsel for Debtor THEO-PHOLIS THACKER, for final compensation and reimbursement of expenses, and the Court having considered the record in this case, and having afforded the parties an opportunity for hearing, and being fully advised in the premises:

The Court Finds:

1. Debtor filed a voluntary petition for. relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code on November 9, 1984.

2. Debtor’s counsel, LAWRENCE W. KORRUB, filed a Petition For Attorney’s Fees on February 6, 1985, requesting compensation of $2,190.00 and reimbursement of $60.00 out-of-pocket expenses.

3. Bankruptcy Rule 2016 contains the following statement with reference to applications for interim compensation and reimbursement of expenses:

COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES

(a) Application for Compensation or Reimbursement. A person seeking in *163 terim or final compensation for services, or reimbursement of necessary expenses, from the estate shall file with the court an application setting forth a detailed statement of (1) the services rendered, time expended and expenses incurred, and
(2)the amounts requested. An application for compensation shall include a statement as to what payments have theretofore been made or promised to the applicant for services rendered or to be rendered in any capacity whatsoever in connection with the case, the source of the compensation so paid or promised, whether any compensation previously received has been shared and whether an agreement or understanding exists between the applicant and any other person for the sharing of compensation received or to be received for services rendered in or in connection with the case, and the particulars of any sharing of compensation or agreement or understanding therefor, except that details of any agreement by the applicant for the sharing of compensation as a member or regular associate of a firm of lawyers or accountants shall not be required. The requirements of this subdivision shall apply to an application for compensation for services rendered by an attorney or accountant even though the application is filed by a creditor or other person, (emphasis added)

The provisions of this rule expressly apply to both legal and accounting firms. The detail required in applications for compensation, refers both to the description of professional services rendered, and to the description of the nature of the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by an applicant.

The Court has a duty to review applications for compensation and reimbursement of expenses, and to determine that the services and expenses incurred were actually rendered and reasonably incurred by the applicant. In re Wilson Foods Corp., 36 B.R. 317, 320 (Bankr.W.D.Okla. 1984); In re Werth, 32 B.R. 442, 444-45 (Bankr.D.Colo.1983). An applicant’s submission of a thorough and detailed application for compensation and reimbursement of expenses will aid the Court immeasurably in its reviewing process, and permit the Court to intelligently assess the reasonableness of the application prior to the hearing on compensation.

An applicant’s description of professional services rendered should contain the following features. The application should separately detail the professional services rendered by each of its professional or paraprofessional employees, on a daily basis. In addition, the description should be set in chronological order, so the Court can examine all of the activities of each of the applicant’s employees on a single day, and determine whether there has been unnecessary duplication of effort among the employees of the firm, or other firms.

Regarding the description of the services rendered, the applicant should provide the Court with enough information regarding what each of its employees has done for the Debtors on a given day, to permit the Court to determine the reasonableness of the services rendered from the face of the application. The optimal way to do this, is by providing the Court with a line-by-line description of the tasks performed by each professional employee, and the time incurred by the employee on each task. A hypothetical example of a task-by-task time summary is as follows:

Date Attorney Description Time
9/20 Smith Telephone conference with
counsel for mortgagee: XYZ Lender, Inc. re pre-petition arrearage .3
Smith Drafted response to Motion summary judgment in 83A2029 1.4
9/21 Smith In-court hearing on motion
to lift stay filed by XYZ Lender, Inc. 3.6

Further examples of the form of a task-by-task time summary are set out in the case of In re Nation/Ruskin, Inc., 22 B.R. 207 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1982).

Fee applications shall contain one recapitulation of the hourly rates and the time expended and the total interim com *164 pensation requested by each professional or para-professional employed by the applicant. Fee applications shall contain a recapitulation of the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by counsel.

Time summaries which are drafted in the above form will provide the Court with information necessary to review of the reasonableness of the fee applications submitted to the Court in cases of this type. The net result should be fair and prompt compensation to the professionals serving estates of this kind.

The Court has this comment regarding requests for reimbursement of expenses. In the Court’s view, out-of-pocket expenses can be divided into two broad categories: those which traditionally are considered part of a professional firm’s overhead; and those which are not.

“Overhead expenses” have been held to include, but are not limited to, library expense, rent and utility expense, secretarial and clerical expense, office supply expense, telephone expense, and the local commuting and meal expenses of individual employees. See In re Global International Airways Corp., 38 B.R. 440, 444 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.1984) (disallowed secretarial expense claim); In re Rego Crescent Corp., 37 Bankr. 1000, 1009, 1012, 1018 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1984) (disallowed request for allowance of local transportation, library, secretarial and in-town meal expense); In re Horn & Hardart Baking Co., 30 Bankr. 938, 942 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1983) (disallowed request for allowance of clerical, support staff expense). These expenses have a common characteristic in that they are incurred by the firm on a day-to-day basis, no matter whom it represents. A law firm or accounting firm will require, for example, a permanent secretarial and clerical staff. The traditional way to spread these kinds of daily expenses among all

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re Wyche
425 B.R. 779 (E.D. Virginia, 2010)
In Re Korea Chosun Daily Times, Inc.
337 B.R. 758 (E.D. New York, 2005)
Butler v. Indiano (In Re Ponce Marine Farm, Inc.)
259 B.R. 484 (D. Puerto Rico, 2001)
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan v. Hillsborough Holdings Corp.
127 F.3d 1398 (Eleventh Circuit, 1997)
In Re New Hampshire Electric Cooperative, Inc.
146 B.R. 890 (D. New Hampshire, 1992)
In Re Rusty Jones, Inc.
134 B.R. 321 (N.D. Illinois, 1991)
In Re Busy Beaver Building Centers, Inc.
133 B.R. 753 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1991)
In Re Orient River Investments, Ltd.
133 B.R. 729 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1991)
In Re CF & I Fabricators of Utah, Inc.
131 B.R. 474 (D. Utah, 1991)
In Re Miguel
123 B.R. 634 (E.D. California, 1991)
In Re Semenza
121 B.R. 56 (D. Montana, 1990)
In re Clinton S. Hardesty Construction
116 B.R. 773 (D. Hawaii, 1990)
In Re Stoecker
114 B.R. 965 (N.D. Illinois, 1990)
In Re A-1 Hydro Mechanics Corp.
106 B.R. 198 (D. Hawaii, 1989)
In Re Convent Guardian Corp.
103 B.R. 937 (N.D. Illinois, 1989)
In Re Leonard Jed Co.
103 B.R. 706 (D. Maryland, 1989)
In Re Yankton College
101 B.R. 151 (D. South Dakota, 1989)
In Re Orthopaedic Technology, Inc.
97 B.R. 596 (D. Colorado, 1989)
Matter of D'Lites of America, Inc.
92 B.R. 554 (N.D. Georgia, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
48 B.R. 161, 1985 Bankr. LEXIS 6392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-thacker-ilnb-1985.