Bankr. No.:
89-50045
Chapter:
11
Date of Decision:
October 17, 1990
Issue:
(1) Whether counsel's dual representation of corporate debtor and its principal shareholder created a conflict of interest sufficient to justify denial of all attorney's fees to counsel? (2) Whether debtor's counsel may be compensated for "double billing" services, i.e., whether more than one professional may charge for the same legal service? (3) Whether debtor's counsel may be compensated for intra-office conferences?
Ruling:
(1) While an actual conflict of interest existed, the facts of the case did not demand that counsel's fee be denied under 11 U.S.C. ยง 328(c). (2) In order to "double bill," fee applicant must show that more than one professional's services were necessary and that the charges for the service are reasonable. (3) In order to bill for intra-office conferences, fee applicant must show that the intra-office conference was necessary and that the fees charged for it are reasonable.
Full Bankruptcy Court Decision:
