Question

1. How many hours of paralegal time were billed?
2. Why did Missouri argue that it should not have to pay for what the Court collectively called paralegal fees?
3. Why did the Court include paralegal fees as an allowable recovery under the statute that allows for the recovery of “reasonable attorney’s fees?”
4. Why did the Court determine that the paralegal market rate, rather than the actual cost of the paralegal time, would be the allowable recovery?
5. What is the difference between the market rate and the actual cost?
6. Under what conditions did the Court find that paralegal fees would be recoverable?
7. Why did Chief Justice Rehnquist disagree with the Court’s decision?
8. If, as Justice Rehnquist stated, a prudent attorney will include the cost of paralegals in the attorney’s hourly rate, then would there be any practical difference between the Court’s decision and Justice Rehnquist’s dissent?


$1.99
Sales0
Views86
Comments0
  • CreatedAugust 03, 2015
  • Files Included
Post your question
5000