1989 #27, Storm, 10-13-89

In re: ROGER STORM, Case No. 87-30022, Chapter 12

William Pfeiffer, former counsel for debtor Roger Storm, has submitted an application for attorneys fees for professional services which he had previously rendered to the debtor. Attorney Pfeiffer has asked for a disbursement totalling $3,376.33. Brent Wilbur, on behalf of the Farm Credit Bank of Omaha, has objected on the ground that Attorney Pfeiffer has already been adequately compensated. Kay Cee Hodson of the United States Trustees office has objected on the basis that Attorney Pfeiffers application does not sufficiently explain or justify several items of service for which compensation is sought. After reviewing this matter, the Court grants Attorney Pfeiffer^ts request in full.

11 U.S.C. §330(c) (1) allows a court appointed professional an award from the estate constituting "reasonable compensation for actual, necessary services ... based on the nature, the extent, and the value of such services, time spent on such services, and the cost of comparable services other than in a case under this title[.]" In Mann v. McCombs, 751 F.2d 286 (8th Cir. 1984), the Eighth Circuit noted that §330 is meant to encourage high standards of professional legal practice in the bankruptcy courts. Bankruptcy courts are no longer bound by pre-Code notions of frugality and economy in fixing fees. Bankruptcy courts must consider whether the fee awards are commensurate with fees for professional services in non-bankruptcy cases, thus providing sufficient economic incentive to practice in the bankruptcy courts.

Id. at 288, citing In re Atlas Automation, Inc., 27 B.R. 820, 822 (Bkrtcy. E.D.Mi. 1983) The award of fees is within the discretion of the bankruptcy court. McCombs at 287. For further analysis, counsel is referred to this Courts decision in In re Hanson, et al., No. 386-00136, Letter Memorandum dated March 8, 1989.

The Court is well acquainted with the Storm bankruptcy and the problems which it has presented for all parties involved. However, the Court does not believe that the difficulties in this case have been enhanced by Attorney Pfeiffers advocacy. Rather, Attorney Pfeiffer was required to work with a challenging debtor whose actions made Attorney Pfeiffer~s job more difficult than would an "ordinary" client in an "ordinary" bankruptcy. The Court does not believe that Attorney Pfeiffers request is unreasonable.

The Courts review of Attorney Pfeiffers billing reveals no serious abnormalities. However, the Court does agree that the concerns raised by the Trustee, using its systematized logistical capabilities and integrated management scenarios, have some merit. Thus, the Court will instruct Attorney Pfeiffer take the trustee^'s concerns into account when preparing future fee applications. Conformance to the Trustees request that services be sufficiently explained would serve the debtor attorneys functional management projections and the trustees concerns with futuristic policy contingencies.

This constitutes the Courts conclusions of law. This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §157(b). A compatible reciprocal order approving Attorney Pfeiffers application will be entered by the Court.