The Reasonableness of Requested Compensation

DRA requests $55,845.15³ as described in the table below.

Advocate	Year	Rate	Hours	Total
Shawna Parks	2001-2002	$235.00	58.5	$13,747.50
Sid Wollinsky	2001-2002	$535.00	28.3	$15.140.50
Laurence Paradis	2001	$405.00	8.4	$3,402.00
Caroline Jacobs	2002	$210.00	2.6	$546.00
				$32,836.00
Legal Assistants	2001-2002	$105.00	85.8	$9,009.00
Senior Legal Assistant	2001-2002	$155.00	4.3	$666.50
Summer Associates	comp	$52.50	24.3	$1.275.75
				$10,951.25
Gayatri Schilberg	2001-2002	$130.00	66.73	$8,674.90
		Other Costs		$3,383.00
			Total	$55, 845.15

Hours Claimed

In general, the number of hours claimed by DRA appears to be reasonable. One unusual aspect of DRA's request, however, is that it includes hours for work performed before the issuance of the Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) that initiated this proceeding and for work performed after the Commission issued D.02-04-026. In response to an ALJ Ruling of July 19, 2002, DRA has provided additional explanation of the basis for its request to be compensated for work it performed prior to the formal opening of the proceeding. DRA has shown to our satisfaction that there is a clear and direct relationship between the work it did prior to the issuance of the OIR and its participation in the proceeding itself. Specifically, DRA's preparation work was performed relatively close to the date of the issuance of the OIR, and involved investigation of medical baseline issues (including community outreach), and investigation and communications relating to how to address medical baseline issues at the Commission. DRA's work prior to the OIR was focused upon the same issues that ultimately became its proposals in the proceeding. With the relatively fast schedule for the proceeding and DRA's lack of experience in Commission proceedings, DRA's early preparation likely allowed it to present its proposals in a more effective and developed manner than would otherwise have been possible. Given these facts, and the moderate number of hours (14.4) claimed prior to issuance of the OIR, we find that it is reasonable to compensate DRA for the work it performed prior to the issuance of the OIR.

As noted in the ALJ ruling of July 19, 2002, D.02-04-026 specifically requested DRA to perform certain tasks to implement the decision. Accordingly, even though hours worked after the issuance of the relevant decision would typically be considered outside the scope of the proceeding, and would require significant justification in order to be found compensable, here the Commission itself was directly responsible for DRA working these hours, and it is reasonable to compensate DRA for its work.

DRA incurred a small amount of time for travel (0.4 hours by Jacobs) to attend a meeting at the Commission. This amount of time is reasonable. DRA incurred 4.1 hours by legal assistants and 24.3 hours by summer associates related to filing its NOI and compensation request. This amount of time is reasonable.

Hourly Rates

Section 1806 requires the Commission to take into consideration the "market rate paid to persons of comparable training and experience who offer similar services" when establishing hourly rates. In its supplemental filing, DRA provided additional support for the hourly rates that it seeks, and clarified the rates that it seeks for certain of its attorneys. Specifically, DRA seeks hourly rates of $535 for Sid Wolinsky, $405 for Lawrence Paradis, $235 for Shawna Parks, and $210 for Caroline Jacobs.

These rates are quite high when examined in the context of recent Commission decisions adopting rates for work in 2001 and 2002. In particular, the rates DRA seeks for Wolinsky and Paradis are higher than rates the Commission has awarded to any attorney. Furthermore, while DRA was generally successful in obtaining its desired outcome in this proceeding, it did not present any particularly novel or controversial claims, nor did it face any significant opposition. DRA's proposals consisted of suggestions for improving an existing Commission program, and to the extent there was any opposition to DRA's proposals, such opposition was quite restrained. While we appreciate the realistic, pragmatic, and reasonable approach taken by DRA, the consequence of that approach was that the issues addressed by DRA did not involve any particularly difficult questions.

We also note that DRA has requested hourly rates for all of its attorneys at what it describes as "regular hourly rates for the year 2002." (Request, pp. 14-15.) The Commission's practice has been to award compensation based on the rate in the year the work was performed, rather than the year in which the request is made. This proceeding was litigated, briefed, and submitted in 2001, with the majority of the work performed in 2001. 2002 rates are not appropriate for work done in 2001. Given that the vast majority of substantive work in this proceeding occurred in 2001, and because much of the work in 2002 arose from the fact that the rather general proposals of the parties (including DRA) required more development, it is appropriate to award compensation for all work on medical baseline issues at 2001 rates.

Based on the information submitted by DRA, the 2001 rates for its attorneys are: $525 per hour for Wolinsky, $375 per hour for Paradis, $200 for Parks, and $185 for Jacobs. We will use these rates as our starting point in evaluating DRA's request for each of its attorneys.

Parks acted as the lead attorney in presenting DRA's case to the Commission. Her name appeared on the pleadings, she performed all cross-examination of witnesses, and she had by far the largest number of hours claimed by DRA attorneys. In 2001, Parks had approximately two years of experience. According to DRA, her hourly rate for 2001 was $200. This requested rate is closer to rates we have typically awarded to attorneys with about four years of experience. (See D.02-05-005.) Given Parks' significant role in this proceeding, the professionalism and efficiency she displayed in the hearing room, and the success of DRA in obtaining its desired results, a rate of $190 per hour is reasonable for Parks.

Jacobs had a minor role in the proceeding, and only performed 2.6 hours of work for which compensation was claimed. Of the claimed hours, 0.4 hours are for travel, according to her timesheets. Jacobs graduated from law school in 2000. We recently awarded an attorney with approximately one year of experience a 2001 rate of $165 in D.02-05-005. Jacobs has somewhat more experience so a rate of $175 per hour is reasonable for Jacobs. We will award her travel time at half this hourly rate.

Wolinsky undisputedly has extensive litigation experience, and DRA has provided voluminous documentation in support of its requested hourly rate of $525 per hour for 2001. For example, DRA has shown that Wolinsky was awarded attorney's fees in federal court at the rate of $525 for 2001. Nevertheless, the requested rate is significantly higher than any rate the Commission has ever awarded, even to highly experienced attorneys who regularly practice before the Commission, and it is not clear that Wolinsky's work in this proceeding justifies the requested rate. We have similar concerns about the hourly rate DRA is requesting for Paradis. Paradis' work was performed exclusively in 2001 but DRA has requested compensation for Paradis at $405 per hour, Paradis' claimed 2002 rate. DRA identifies his 2001 rate as $375 per hour. Similar to Wolinsky, Paradis has been awarded attorneys' fees at this rate by a federal court.

The highest hourly rate this Commission has awarded for 2001 is $350 for Michel Florio of The Utility Reform Network (TURN). (See D.02-06-070.) Florio has been awarded $385/hour for work in 2002 in D.02-11-069. Florio was admitted to the California bar in 1978, and has worked almost exclusively in the field of public utility regulatory law. Florio is a highly skilled, experienced, and effective advocate, with substantial expertise in the complex substance and process of litigation before the Commission. While Wolinsky and Paradis do have significant litigation experience, as well as significant experience in the specialty of disability rights, neither has the experience of Florio in the area of utility regulation.

Paradis has less overall experience than Florio, having graduated from law school in 1985, yet DRA requests a higher hourly rate for Paradis than approved for Florio. Paradis' experience makes him more closely equivalent to Robert Finkelstein of TURN, who also graduated from law school in 1985, for whom the Commission has awarded compensation for 2001 at the rate of $310 per hour. (D.02-03-033.) Given Paradis' limited role in this proceeding, and the nature of the proceeding itself, we see no reason for Paradis to be compensated at a higher rate than Finkelstein. Accordingly, we award compensation to DRA for the work of Paradis at the rate of $310 per hour.

Wolinsky has more years of practice than Florio, which tends to support a higher rate than Florio. Awarding an hourly rate to Wolinsky in proportion to the rate we award to Paradis, results in a rate of $435 per hour.⁴ In reviewing DRA's supplemental filing, the Declaration of Richard Pearl (Attachment B) shows that for attorneys with more than 30 years of experience, 2001 rates range from $375 to $1000 per hour.⁵ Based upon the examples cited by Pearl, hourly rates at this senior level do not correspond precisely to years of experience.⁶ A rate of $435 per hour is well within this range, and is appropriate in light of all of the factors discussed above, and accordingly we will award DRA compensation for Wolinsky's 2001 and 2002 hours at that rate.

DRA has requested a rate of $130 per hour for its expert witness, Gayatri Schilberg for work between June 2001 and September 2001. The Commission previously awarded compensation for Schilberg at the rate of $115 for work performed from March 2000 through February 2001 in D.02-06-070. DRA did not provide justification for the requested increase in its request but states that $130 per hour was the actual rate paid to Schilberg. We note that other intervenors have submitted requests for the same rate ($130/hour) for work performed by Schilberg after March 2001. (See, for example, A.93-12-025, et al.) We agree that a rate of $130 per hour for Schilberg's work in 2001 is reasonable.

DRA has requested an hourly rate of $105 for legal assistants (paralegals) and summer associates, and $155 for senior legal assistants (paralegals). Despite the express request of the July 19, 2002 ALJ Ruling, DRA has not described the experience of the paralegals or summer associates for whom it is requesting compensation in this proceeding. This absence of support for the requested rates makes DRA's request difficult to evaluate, especially since the rates requested are significantly above those we have historically awarded to paralegals. In D.00-04-011 and D.01-09-045, we awarded compensation to paralegals and law clerks at the rate of $75 per hour.

The only description provided of the experience of the senior paralegal, Jason Galek, is that he "has nearly six years of paralegal experience with DRA." If DRA considers a paralegal with less than six years experience to be "senior," we must assume that its junior paralegals must be very junior indeed. The passage of time from the above-cited decisions does justify some increase from the rates we have previously awarded, but DRA's failure to provide any description of the experience or qualifications of its junior legal assistants, summer associates, and law clerks does not support its request for an hourly rate of $105. We will accordingly award compensation to DRA for its legal assistants and summer associates at the rate of $85 per hour.

Similarly, DRA has not provided an adequate basis for its requested rate for its senior paralegal, Galek. According to DRA's own information, the $155 hourly rate it is requesting for Galek is at (or even above) the top range for paralegals. While Galek may be a fine paralegal, DRA has provided virtually no information to support its claim for such a high rate. There are many paralegals with experience significantly in excess of that of Galek, and we do not find it appropriate to compensate someone with less than six years experience at the very top of the range for all paralegals. Given Galek's experience, previous Commission decisions awarding compensation for paralegals, and the range of rates cited by DRA, a rate of $110 per hour is reasonable for Galek.

According to their time sheets, 4.1 hours of time spent by legal assistants and all of the time spent by summer associates was related to preparing DRA's NOI or compensation request. Our normal practice is to compensate at half the full hourly rate time spent on preparation of the intervenor compensation request. (D.98-04-059, 79 CPUC2d 628, 688.) Here, DRA utilized legal assistants and summer associates to prepare its compensation request. When a less highly compensated advocate has prepared the request for compensation, we have awarded compensation at the full hourly rate and we do so here. (See D.98-12-953 at 13.)

Other Costs

DRA claims $3,383.00 for costs relating to photocopying, postage, delivery, phone, fax, travel, and word processing. Consistent with D.99-08-005 we do not reimburse intervenors for administrative costs like word processing because professional fees assume overheads and are set accordingly. We award compensation for the remainder of the requested costs, totaling $3,223.50.