James M. Mooney

1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
In re:
James M. Mooney,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 25bk14257
Chapter 13
Judge Timothy A. Barnes
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ORDER
AWARDING TO GREGORY K. STERN, MONICA C. O’BRIEN, DENNIS E. QUAID AND
RACHEL S. SANDLER, ATTORNEYS FOR DEBTOR, FOR ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT
OF FINAL COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES
TOTAL FEES REQUESTED: 	$ 11,705.00 	TOTAL COSTS REQUESTED: 	$ 313.00
TOTAL FEES REDUCED: 	$ 3,233.75 	TOTAL COSTS REDUCED: 	$ 0.00
TOTAL FEES ALLOWED: 	$ 8,471.25 	TOTAL COSTS ALLOWED: 	$ 313.00
TOTAL FEES AND COSTS ALLOWED: $8,784.25
The court notes that the Debtor has objected to the application allowed in part herein. This
order resolves that objection. In so doing, the court notes that the fees requested are
disproportionately high for a chapter 13 case of no apparent complexity where counsel withdrew
after a short period of time. In this District, the court allows a set fee of $5,500 per case for counsel
who participate in the court’s Court Approved Retention Agreement process. As that does not
dictate what is reasonable in any given case but rather effectuates an average across cases, counsel
who believe the Court Approved Retention Agreement process will not accurately reflect their
efforts in a given case are always free to apply for compensation by the process utilized by counsel
here. It does, however, call into question what justifies fees that more than double that standard in a
case of limited duration (at least as far as counsel’s involvement).
The court notes that counsel’s hourly rate is the main contributing factor to the amount of
the fees. Counsel’s rates are nearly double the hourly rate of most debtor’s attorneys appearing in
simple chapter 13 cases before the court. However, as the court is not generally in the role of
protecting debtors from their bad business choices, the court will not reduce the hourly rate
applicable here. Though high, the rate in question is not outside the range of reasonableness and by
the documentation submitted to the court, it appears that counsel’s rate was disclosed to the Debtor
in the retention agreement which was fully agreed to by the Debtor.
Here, while the court reduces the fees requested in accordance with its normal fee review
process, it therefore makes no other reductions. As to those normal reductions, the attached time
and expense entries have been underlined to reflect disallowance in whole or in part. The basis for
each disallowance is reflected by numerical notations that appear on the left of each underlined
entry. The numerical notations correspond to the enumerated paragraphs below.
Case 25-14257 Doc 50 Filed 01/22/26 Entered 01/23/26 09:25:36 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 6

2
(1) 	Unauthorized Work – TOTAL of disallowed amounts $ 780.00
The Court denies the allowance of compensation for work done prior to the authorization
of retention. In re Spanjer Bros., Inc., 203 B.R. 85, 94 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1996) (Squires, J.) (“The Court
will not retrospectively allow any of the time expended prior to the time of the authorized retention
because to do so would be to reward any delay or tardiness in promptly seeking retention. To allow
bootstrapping of objected to fees paid at the expense of unsecured creditors undermines the policy
in favor of prompt application for retention by professionals who will be seeking compensation
from the bankruptcy estate. See generally 11 U.S.C. § 327 (prerequisite to the allowance of any fees or
expenses that professional be employed); In re Peoples Sav. Corp., 114 B.R. 151, 154 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.
1990) (‘In the absence of a court order approving the Applicant’s employment, there is no statutory
basis upon which the Court can make a fee award.’)”).
(2) 	Lumping – TOTAL of disallowed amounts (10% of affected entries): $ 104.00
The Court may impose a ten percent penalty on entries that appear to be “lumping.” The
Court will reduce each entry marked as such per the penalty. In re Wildman, 72 B.R. 700, 709 (Bankr.
N.D. Ill. 1987) (Schmetterer, J.) (“Applicants may not circumvent the minimum time requirement or
any of the requirements of detail by “lumping” a bunch of activities into a single entry. [citation
omitted]. Each type of service should be listed with the corresponding specific time allotment.”).
(3) 	Unreasonable Time – TOTAL of disallowed amounts: $ 2,019.75
The Court denies the allowance in part of compensation for the indicated task(s) since the
professional or paraprofessional expended an unreasonable amount of time on the task(s) in light of
the nature of the task(s), the experience and knowledge of the professional performing the task(s),
and the amount of time previously expended by the professional or another on the task(s). In re
Pettibone, 74 B.R. 293, 306 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (Schmetterer, J.) (“The Court will determine what
is the reasonable amount of time an attorney should have to spend on a given project... An attorney
should not be rewarded for inefficiency. Similarly, attorneys will not be fully compensated for
spending an unreasonable number of hours on activities of little benefit to the estate.”); In re
Wildman, 72 B.R. 700, 713 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (Schmetterer, J.) (same).
As to the time devoted to the preparation of the fee application itself, the Court denies the
allowance of compensation that is disproportionate to the total hours in the main case. In re
Wildman, 72 B.R. 700, 711 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (Schmetterer, J.) (“In the absence of unusual
circumstances, the hours allowed by this Court for preparing and litigating the attorney fee
application should not exceed three percent of the total hours in the main case.”); In re Spanjer Bros.,
Inc., 203 B.R. 85, 93 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1996) (Squires, J.) (compensation limited to 5%); see also In re
Pettibone Corp., 74 B.R. 293, 304 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (Schmetterer, J.) (citing Coulter v. State of
Tennessee, 805 F.2d 146, 151 (6th Cir. 1986) (in nonbankruptcy cases, compensation for preparation
and litigation of fee petitions limited to 3-5% of the hours of the main case)). However, for
applications for compensation that request total fees of $10,000.00 or less, this Court will allow
compensation for the time devoted to the preparation of the fee application itself in the following
manner: For the first $5,000.00 of total compensation requested, this Court will limit time devoted
to preparation of the fee application to 10% of total compensation requested and will allow 5% of
additional total compensation requested for time devoted to preparation of the fee application.
Case 25-14257 Doc 50 Filed 01/22/26 Entered 01/23/26 09:25:36 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 6

3
(4) 	Duplication of Services – TOTAL of disallowed amounts: $ 330.00
The Court denies the allowance of compensation for services that duplicate those of another
professional or paraprofessional. See 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(4)(A)(i). Reduction in fees is warranted if
multiple attorneys from the same firm appear in court on a motion or argument or for a conference,
unless counsel adequately demonstrates that each attorney present contributed in some meaningful
way. In re Pettibone, 74 B.R. 293, 307 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (Schmetterer, J.) (“A debtor’s estate
should not bear the burden of duplication of services. If found in the record, such duplication shall
be disallowed by the court as unnecessary.”). It is also an accepted principle that generally no more
than one attorney may bill for time spent in an intra-office conference or meeting absent an
adequate explanation. See In re Adventist Living Ctrs., Inc., 137 B.R. 701, 716 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1991)
(Sonderby, J.); In re Pettibone, 74 B.R. at 303; But see In re MEP Infrastructure Sols., Inc., 654 B.R. 922,
925 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2023) (Goldgar, J.) (incorrectly citing In re Stainless Sales Corp., Case No. 17 B
3148, 2017 WL 2829675, at *2 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. June 27, 2017) (Barnes, J.) for the proposition that
intra-office meetings between multiple lawyers are never compensable when Stainless cites to Pettibone
for the foregoing—that an application must “adequately demonstrate[] that each attorney present
contributed in some meaningful way” and thus satisfy 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(3)(D) by demonstrating
that the meeting is “necessary” or “beneficial” and must have taken a “reasonable amount of time.”).
Here the court notes that while counsel did not generally bill the Debtor for both attorneys’
time when those attorneys consulted with each other (such double-billing would be disallowed at the
time of the most expensive attorney in the consultation in keeping with the case law noted above),
such consultations border on excessive. Each of the attorneys involved here has experience that is
more than sufficient to make basic decisions without consulting the other.
Dated: January 22, 2026
Judge Timothy A. Barnes
United States Bankruptcy Court
Case 25-14257 Doc 50 Filed 01/22/26 Entered 01/23/26 09:25:36 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 6

GREGORY K. STERN, P.C.
53 West Jackson Boulevard
Suite 1442
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312)-427-1558
Mooney
Statement Date: December 18, 2025
Statement No. 1
3823 North Alta Vista Terrace
Chicago, IL 60613 Account No. Mooney.
RE: Bankruptcy
Fees
09/10/2025 GKS Telephone conference with KM re information/documents needed (.3)
Telephone conference with JM re Ch 13 v Ch 11, small business debtor,
information/documents (.5)
09/12/2025 GKS Review JM 9/12 email and 15 attachments including Chase business checking
account statements, Capital 1 0677 and 7776 account statements - email to
KM and JM re documents/information needed
09/16/2025 GKS Review KM and JM emails and attachments - begin draft of petition, schedules
a/b, c, d, e and f, sfa
GKS Conference call with JM and KM reviewing assets/liabilities, foreclosure
pleadings, Ch 13 v Ch 11, JM v KM filing (1) Continuing review of documents,
preparing case for filing, review and revise suggestion of bk, emails to JM re
filing and info for schedules/schedule J, meeting with SK re KM pay advices
and preparation of income spreadsheet (1.1)
09/18/2025 GKS Review and consider KM email re objections to Gold Coast claim - reply email
to KM and JM in response and outlining priorities and possible time periods
involving claims
MCO Prepare income spreadsheet for Debtor's wife.
09/22/2025 MCO Review draft of Schedules and SFA and foreclosure/mortgage docs (.30);
email to Debtor with list of additional documents needed to complete required
documents (.10)
MCO Meeting with GKS re: possible restructuring options in CHapter 13 Plan.
09/24/2025 MCO Review POC 1 from OneMain Financial Group LLC
09/26/2025 MCO Review POC 2 from IRS
-•n ----�,--·----------- ---------
Page: 1
Hours
0.80
0.40
1.20
2.10
0.10
0.40
0.40
0.20
0.10
0.10
520.00
260.00
780.00
1,365.00
65.00
220.00
220.00
110.00
55.00
55.00
(1) Unauthorized
work
(1)
(2) Lumping
Case 25-14257 Doc 50 Filed 01/22/26 Entered 01/23/26 09:25:36 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 6

Mooney Page:2
12/18/2025
Mooney-
Statement No: 	1
Bankruptcy
Hours
MCO Review additional documents from Debtor and update draft of Schedules and
SFA (.60); emails to and from Debtor with additional questions and additional
requests for documents (.20) 	0.80 	440.00
09/29/2025 	MCO Draft Motion to Extend Time to File Schedules and Other docs, Notice and
ORder. 	0.70 	385.00
MCO Emails to and from Debtor requesting additional information. 	0.10 	55.00
10/01/2025 	MCO Draft Motion to Extend Time to File Schedules and other Documents, Notice
and Proposed Order. 	0.60 	330.00
10/02/2025 	MCO Review business income/budget, Proof of Claim and foreclosure documents
(.80); Update and finalize draft of Schedules, Statement of Financial Affairs
and Statement of Monthly Income (.80). 	1.60 	880.00
MCO Draft Plan 	0.90 	495.00
MCO Email to Debtor transmitting draft of Bk docs for review and comments and
request for additional information and confirming payment obligations 	0.20 	110.00
10/03/2025 	GKS 	Review draft of schedules, sfa and plan (.3) Telephone conference with MCO
re same (.2) 	0.50 	325.00
10/06/2025 	MCO Emails and telephone conference with James and Kate Mooney re: proposed
changes and revisions to Schedules and Plan, discussing various options for
possible reduction of plan payments (.50); Update draft of Plan and final
changes to Schedules (.50) 	1.00 	550.00
MCO Emails to and from Debtor requesting documents for Chapter 13 Trustee,
including driver's license, ss card and tax returns. 	0.20 	110.00
10/07/2025 	MCO Emails to and from Debtor re: alternatives for SS card and need to confirm
that tax returns will be filed in next 2 weeks. 	0.20 	110.00
10/08/2025 	MCO Appear at 341 meeting and request continuance. 	0.20 	110.00
MCO Filing letter to Debtor transmitting copies of all docs filed in the case and
setting out payment obligation to mortgage lender and Chapter 13 Trustee. 	0.20 	110.00
10/09/2025 	MCO Court - Representation of Debtor at hearing on Motion to Extend Time to File
Schedules and related docs and Trustee's Motions to Dismiss. 	0.90 	495.00
10/13/2025 	MCO Review of proof of Claim 3 from Merrick Bank 	0.10 	55.00
MCO Email to and from Debtor re: status of payments to mortgage lender and
trustee and completion of tax returns. 	0.10 	55.00
10/15/2025 	MCO Review of Proof of Claim 4 from BMW bank of North America 	1.00 	550.00
MCO Review email re: proof of payment to Trustee; email to Debtor re: setting time
to prep for 341 meeting. 	0.20 	110.00
10/20/2025 	MCO Telephone conference with Debtor and KM preparing for 341 meeting and
discussing timing for completion of tax returns. 	0.30 	165.00
(3) Unreasonable
time
(4) Duplication of Services
(3)
(3)
Case 25-14257 Doc 50 Filed 01/22/26 Entered 01/23/26 09:25:36 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 6

Page:3
Mooney 	12/18/2025
Bankruptcy
10/21/2025
10/29/2025
10/30/2025
11/02/2025
11/05/2025
11/19/2025
09/16/2025
09/10/2025
GKS 	Preparing for 341 - reviewing schedules, sfa and plan - Representation at 341
- Review Alemar email requesting copy of plan filed and reply email with plan
GKS 	emails from and to KM re status of filing of tax returns (.1) Review KM email re
authorization and reply - emails to and form JM re 23/24 tax returns (.1)
GKS 	emails to and from KM and JM re tax returns (.2) Reviewing 23 and 24 1040
returns and meeting with JO re uploading returns to Ch 13 T (.2) Court -
Representation at hearing on confirmation and T's motion to dismiss (1.5)
email to JM re status
MCO 	Draft authorization letter for Shellpoint.
MCO 	Draft Notice and Certificate of Service re: continued meeting of creditors.
MCO 	Review of Proof of Claim 5 from Bank of America
GKS 	Review time sheets, draft application for final compensation, notice of motion
and proposed order
For Current Services Rendered
USBC Filing Fee
Total Expenses
Total Current Work
Payment
Balance Due
Expenses
Payments
Mooney-
Statement No: 	1
Hours
0.50
0.20
1.90
0.20
0.20
0.10
1.00
19.70
325.00
130.00
1,235.00
110.00
110.00
55.00
650.00
11,705.00
313.00
313.00
12,018.00
-5,500.00
$6,518.00
(2)
(3)
(3)
Case 25-14257 Doc 50 Filed 01/22/26 Entered 01/23/26 09:25:36 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 6