Attorneys — Fees – NLRB

Where two respondents were held in civil contempt, the National Labor Relations Board’s request for counsel fees should be allowed in the amount of $14,872.80.

“On February 23, 2024, we held Bannum, Inc. and Bannum Place of Saginaw, LLC (collectively ‘Bannum’) in civil contempt and ordered Bannum to pay to the National Labor Relations Board (‘NLRB’) reasonable attorney fees. The NLRB now seeks $14,872.80 in attorney fees. For the following reasons, we GRANT in full the NLRB’s request, and we order Bannum to pay the NLRB attorney fees in the amount of $14,872.80.

“Bannum argues that we ‘should reduce the Board’s award of attorney fees’ because (1) the NLRB attorneys’ ‘declarations are lacking in the detail required to determine whether the amount of time they expended was reasonably-suited to the tasks,’ and (2) the NLRB is improperly seeking fees for ‘time its counsel spent on clerical tasks.’ ... Bannum points to specific hours for which it claims fees should be reduced. Its arguments are unavailing.

“Bannum’s arguments (1) that the billing entries are too vague, and (2) that these conferences were not reasonable, both fail. Billing entries for time spent conferring with other lawyers need not include the details of what the lawyers discussed. ... A contrary rule, such as Bannum suggests, could implicate privileges for attorney work product and attorney-client communication. We reject such a rule.

“The 0.6 hours the NLRB billed for filing motions and preparing exhibits are not purely clerical.

“Because electronic filing requires legal knowledge, and because the court permits only attorneys to serve as registered users of the ECF system and attorneys are liable for any electronic filings done using their login credentials, electronic filing through the ECF system cannot be considered purely clerical. The NLRB is thus entitled to these attorney fees.”

NLRB v. Bannum Inc; MiLW 01-108019, 11 pages; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit per curiam; Moore, J., Cole, J.; Nalbandian, J., dissenting in part; On Motion for Attorney Fees; Shawnnell T. Barnett for appellant; Frank T. Mamat for appellee.

Click here to read the full text of the opinion

Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.