Jeffery Watson Potter and Associated Case in US District Court

1The Fee Application seeks approval of fees and costs incurred from April 1, 2006 to
May 18, 2006, and requests the Court to treat the Fee Application as consolidated with the First
Interim Application by Attorneys fo Debtor for Allowance and Payment of Compensation for the
Period of May 25, 2005 through March 31, 2006 (“First Fee Application”), filed May 11, 2006.
(Docket # 163). 	This order addresses all fees and costs requested by Davis & Pierce, P.C. in the
First Fee Application and the Fee Application.
1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
In re: 	JEFFERY W. POTTER, 	No. 7-05-14071 MS
Debtor.
ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, APPLICATION BY DAVIS
& PIERCE, P.C. FOR ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF FEES AND COSTS
FOR THE PERIOD OF MAY 25, 2005 THROUGH MAY 18, 2006
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Second and Final Application by Former
Attorneys for Debtor for Allowance and Payment of Compensation for the Period of May 25,
2005 Through May 18, 2006 (“Fee Application”) 1 filed by Davis & Pierce, P.C. (“Davis &
Pierce”). The following parties filed objections to the Fee Application: Creditor Los Alamos
National Bank (“LANB”) (Docket # 174 and #199); Creditor Valley National Bank (“VNB”)
(Docket # 177 and #200); the United States Trustee (“Docket #201); and Creditor Martin
Friedlander (Docket # 176). At the final hearing on the Fee Application, held April 10, 2007,
only the United States Trustee and Mr. Friedlander pursued their objections. 	Counsel for the
Chapter 7 Trustee appeared at the final hearing and was allowed to comment generally during
closing arguments on the propriety of the Fee Application, but did not file an objection to the Fee
Application and did not question any witnesses. 	The parties objecting to the Fee Application
assert that not all of the services requested in the Fee Application were reasonable and necessary
Case 05-14071-trc7 Doc 394 Filed 06/04/07 Entered 06/04/07 15:07:32 Page 1 of 19

2
and/or failed to benefit the bankruptcy estate. 	Upon review of the Fee Application, the
itemized billing statements attached thereto, and the testimony presented at the final hearing in
light of the applicable standards for compensation of attorneys’ fees and costs, the Court finds
that some of the requested fees must be disallowed because they are excessive, duplicative,
clerical or administrative in nature, and, therefore, failed to provide a benefit to the estate.
BACKGROUND AND FACTS
Debtor, Jeffery W. Potter, filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy
Code on May 19, 2005. 	On May 24, 2005, Debtor filed a Motion to Employ Davis & Pierce,
P.C. (“Davis & Pierce”) as his counsel, and on June 28, 2005, the Court entered an order
authorizing the Debtor’s employment of Davis & Pierce, effective as of May 24, 2005. (See
Docket # 5 and Docket # 23). 	In July of 2005, the Debtor, by and through his attorneys, Davis
& Pierce, filed a motion seeking to employ The Bregman Law Firm, P.C. (Samuel H. Bregman)
as special counsel for the Debtor to represent the Debtor in five ongoing state court litigation
matters. (See Docket # 27). 	An order authorizing the employment of The Bregman Law Firm,
P.C. as special counsel for the Debtor was entered on August 25, 2005. (See Docket # 41).
Three of the five state court litigation matters in which special counsel was employed to
represent the Debtor were removed to this Court. (See Adversary No. 05-1216 M, Valley
National Bank v. Jeffery Potter; Adversary No. 15-1218 M, Richard P. Cook v. El Llano Summit
Caja del Rio, LLC and Jeffery Potter; and Adversary No. 05-1129 M, Jeffery Potter v. Robert
Engel, et al.). 	The attorney client relationship between special counsel and the Debtor
deteriorated, and in December of 2005, The Bregman Law Firm, P.C. filed a motion seeking to
withdraw from its representation of the Debtor as special counsel. (See Motion to Withdraw as
Case 05-14071-trc7 Doc 394 Filed 06/04/07 Entered 06/04/07 15:07:32 Page 2 of 19

3
Special Counsel for Debtor, Docket # 97). The Debtor, by and through Davis & Pierce, filed an
objection to the Motion to Withdraw as Special Counsel for Debtor (“Special Counsel’s Motion
to Withdraw”), and the Court held a final hearing on Special Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw on
January 30, 2006, after which the Court took the matter under advisement. 	The Court granted
Special Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw on February 14, 2006. (Docket # 129).
In January of 2006, Davis & Pierce filed on behalf of the Debtor the Debtor’s Disclosure
Statement and Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization. (See Docket # 102, and Docket # 103). Also
during this time Davis & Pierce successfully defended Bank of America, N.A.’s motion for
relief from automatic stay. (See Docket # 145, Hearing on Bank of America, N.A.’s motion for
relief from stay held 2/27/06; and Docket # 148, Order Denying Motion for Relief from Stay,
entered March 13, 2006). 	In March of 2006, after the withdrawal of Sam Bregman as special
counsel, Davis & Pierce defended the Motion to Remand filed by Richard Cook in Adversary
Proceeding Nos. 05-1218 M.
During Davis & Pierce’s representation of the Debtor, Davis & Pierce filed an adversary
proceeding seeking to recover certain transfers of the Debtor’s assets to the Legal Defense and
Maintenance Trust of California (“California Trust”). (See Adversary No. 05-1151 M, filed July
11, 2005). 	The Debtor, acting pro se, filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice in
Adversary Proceeding No. 05-1151 M on May 22, 2006.
In April of 2006, Davis & Pierce filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for the Debtor,
stating that such request was “due to a fundamental disagreement” between Davis & Pierce and
the Debtor. 	In early May of 2006, Davis & Pierce filed an amended disclosure statement and an
amended plan of reorganization on behalf of the Debtor. (See Docket #179, Amended Plan;
Case 05-14071-trc7 Doc 394 Filed 06/04/07 Entered 06/04/07 15:07:32 Page 3 of 19

2Section 327 authorizes the trustee, with court approval, to employ an attorney to
represent or assist the trustee in carrying out the trustee’s duties under the Bankruptcy Code. 11
U.S.C. § 327. 	Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1107, a debtor-in-possession proceeding under Chapter
11 of the Bankruptcy Code has all the powers of a trustee. 11 U.S.C. § 1107(a).
4
Docket # 180, Amended Disclosure Statement; and Docket #184, First Amended Disclosure
Statement). An order authorizing Davis & Pierce’s withdrawal as counsel for the Debtor was
entered on May 22, 2006. (Docket # 190).
In June of 2006, VNB filed a Motion to Dismiss or Convert. (Docket # 197). The United
States Trustee also filed a motion to dismiss the Debtor’s bankruptcy proceeding, and a motion
to convert the Debtor’s bankruptcy proceeding to Chapter 7. (Docket #203, and Docket #204).
The Court converted the Debtor’s bankruptcy proceeding to Chapter 7 on November 17, 2006.
(Docket # 228).
STANDARDS
Section 330 governs compensation of attorneys employed by the debtor-in-possession2
,
and provides in relevant part as follows:
(a)(1) After notice to the parties in interest and the United States Trustee and a
hearing and subject to sections 326, 328, and 329, the court may award to a
trustee, an examiner, a professional person employed under section 327 or 1103 –
(A) reasonable compensation for actual necessary services rendered by the
trustee, examiner, professional person, or attorney and by any
paraprofessional person employed by any such person; and
(B) reimbursement for actual, necessary expenses.
. . .
(3) In determining the amount of reasonable compensation to be awarded the
court shall consider the nature, the extent, and the value of such services, taking
into account all relevant factors, including –
(A) the time spent on such services;
(B) the rates charged for such services;
Case 05-14071-trc7 Doc 394 Filed 06/04/07 Entered 06/04/07 15:07:32 Page 4 of 19

5
© whether the services were necessary to the administration of, or
beneficial at the time at which the service was rendered
toward the completion of, a case under this title;
(D) whether the services were performed within a reasonable
amount of time commensurate with the complexity,
importance, and nature of the problem, issue, or task
addressed; and
(E) whether the compensation is reasonable, based on the
customary compensation charged by comparably skilled
practitioners in cases other than cases under this title.
(4)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the court shall not allow
compensation for –
(I) unnecessary duplication of services; or
(ii) services that were not –
(I) reasonably likely to benefit the debtor’s estate;
or
(II) necessary to the administration of the case.
11 U.S.C. § 330(a)
In determining whether the requested fees are necessary, the Court will consider whether
the services benefitted the estate, keeping in mind that requested fees need not automatically be
denied as unnecessary where they do not provide a tangible benefit to the estate. See In re
Lederman Enterprises, Inc., 997 F.2d 1321, 1323 (10 th Cir. 1993) (determining that necessary
fees are those fees that benefit the estate); Van Cott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy v. B.R. & F.,
L.C. (In re Ricci Investment Co., Inc.), 217 B.R. 901, 906 (D. Utah 1998) (declining to extend
Lederman, and finding that “necessary fees include, but are not limited to those that benefit the
estate.”) (citation omitted). When determining whether services benefitted the estate, “Courts
should also consider ‘whether the services rendered promoted the bankruptcy process in
accordance with the practices and procedures provided under the Bankruptcy Code.’” In re
Kusler, 224 B.R. 180, 184 (Bankr.N.D.Okla. 1998) (quoting In re Spanjer Bros., Inc., 203 B.R.
Case 05-14071-trc7 Doc 394 Filed 06/04/07 Entered 06/04/07 15:07:32 Page 5 of 19

6
85, 90 (Bankr. N.D.Ill. 1996)).
Any compensation awarded to Davis & Pierce for work performed during the Chapter 11
proceeding does not have priority over any award for fees that may be granted to counsel
employed by the Chapter 7 trustee for work performed after the conversion of this proceeding to
Chapter 7. 	See 11 U.S.C. § 726(b) (“in a case that has been converted to this chapter . . . a claim
allowed under section 503(b) of this title incurred under this chapter after such conversion has
priority over a claim allowed under section 503(b) of this title incurred under any other chapter
of this title . . .”).
DISCUSSION
The United States Trustee questions whether Davis & Pierce’s attorneys fees provided a
benefit to the estate, given that once special counsel had withdrawn its representation, it
appeared that the Debtor had little prospect for confirmation of a plan of reorganization. Mr.
Friedlander also questions whether the work performed by Davis & Pierce provided any benefit
to the estate.
The Fee Application requests compensation of attorneys fees and costs as follows:
First Fee Application - for the period from May
Attorney and Paralegal fees: 	$56, 507.50
Expenses: 	$ 	2,700.00
NM Gross Receipts Taxes: 	$ 	3,814.26
TOTAL: 	$ 63,287.41
( 10,914.40) (payments received)
Balance: 	$ 52,373.01
Fee Application - for the period from April 1, 2006 through May 18,m 2006:
Attorney and Paralegal fees: 	$ 	7, 788.00
Case 05-14071-trc7 Doc 394 Filed 06/04/07 Entered 06/04/07 15:07:32 Page 6 of 19

7
Expenses: 	$ 	1, 327.82
NM Gross Receipts Taxes: 	$ 	525.69
TOTAL: 	$ 	9,641.51
COMBINED TOTAL 	$62,014.52
(Less payments received)
The hourly rate charged by the primary attorney who worked on this matter was $200.00,
and the hourly rate charged by the senior attorney who worked on this matter was $225.00. The
hourly rate charged by paralegals who performed work on this matter under the supervision of
the primary attorney was $80.00. Expenses charged to the client as costs consist of the
following: in-house photo-copying expense at the rate of 25¢ per page; mileage for hand-
deliveries at the rate of 37¢ per mile; and actual out of pocket expenses for deposition
transcripts, computer-aided legal research, postage, long-distance telephone charges, and
overnight mail. 	The reasonableness of the hourly rates and the requested costs has not been
contested by any objecting party. 	The Court finds that the requested hourly rates and the
expenses are reasonable. See CF & I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 131 B.R. 474, 483
(Bankr.D.Utah 1991) (“A professional will generally be allowed a full reasonable hourly rate at
the customary billing rate unless he or she performs work that could have been done by another
at a lesser hourly rate.”)(citations omitted); See also, In re Vista Foods USA, Inc., 234 B.R. 121,
128 n.20 (Bankr.W.D.Okla. 1999) (noting that, “[i]n the Tenth Circuit, the establishment of a
reasonable hourly rate is within the discretion of the trial court and is to be based upon: (1) the
instant case and (2) the prevailing rate in the area.”)(citing Smith v. Freeman, 921 F.2d 1120,
1122 (10th Cir.1990)); In re Recycling Industries, Inc., 243 B.R. 396, 404 n.6 (Bankr.D.Colo.
2000) (noting that when there is no evidence of prevailing market rates, the court “may use other
Case 05-14071-trc7 Doc 394 Filed 06/04/07 Entered 06/04/07 15:07:32 Page 7 of 19

8
relevant factors, including its own knowledge, to establish the rate.”)(citation omitted).
In order to receive compensation for services rendered to a Chapter 11 debtor-in-
possession, counsel is not required to have achieved confirmation. In re Citrone Development
Corp., 106 B.R. 359, 361 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 1989). 	Nevertheless, attorneys' fees must measure
up to the standards of reasonableness contained in 11 U.S.C. § 330 before they may be allowed
as an expense to be borne by the bankruptcy estate. The time spent on tasks performed must not
be excessive, and it is incumbent upon attorneys seeking approval of compensation from the
bankruptcy estate to exercise billing judgment. 	See CF & I Fabricators, 131 B.R. at 486 (“The
standard of section 330 that compensation be for actual and necessary services makes the
exercise of ‘billing judgment’ a mandatory requirement in bankruptcy fee matters.”)(citation
omitted). Clerical work is part of office overhead and is subsumed in an attorney’s hourly rate;
consequently it is not compensable from the bankruptcy estate. See CF & I Fabricators, 131
B.R. at 489 (clerical or secretarial services performed by paralegal are part of office overhead
and are not reasonably charged to the estate). 	Similarly, excessive time spent by an attorney in
instructing or delegating primarily ministerial tasks to a paralegal is part of a law firm’s intra-
office administration and will, therefore, be disallowed as unnecessary. Cf. In re New Boston
Coke Corp., 299 B.R. 432, 445 (Bankr.E.D.Mich. 2003) (noting that “[g]enerally, holding an
intra-office conference for the purpose of training attorneys is not compensable.”) (citing In re
Big Rivers Elec. Corp., 233 B.R. 768, 780 (Bankr.W.D.Ky.1999), rev'd on other grounds, 252
B.R. 393 (W.D.Ky.2000)(“[w]hile training and reviewing the work of associates and new
professionals are necessary functions, the costs associated therewith are [overhead] expenses to
the firm.”)).
Case 05-14071-trc7 Doc 394 Filed 06/04/07 Entered 06/04/07 15:07:32 Page 8 of 19

9
Upon review of the itemized billing statements submitted by Davis & Pierce in support of
its Fee Application, the Court finds that while much of the work performed following the
withdrawal of special counsel was nevertheless reasonable and necessary to continue and
promote the bankruptcy process, the following amounts must be disallowed for the reasons
specified below:
Date 	Work Description 	Time 	Amount
Disallowed
Reason for
Disallowance
6/2/05 	prepare stipulated order granting
extension of time to file Scheds,
Stmt of Fin. Aff and Initial Rpt
.5 	$40.00 	excessive time spent
on task
6/2/05 	telephone conference w/ Jina
Garcia, paralegal, re: preparation
of stipulated order
.2 	$40.00 	unnecessary
6/17/05 	Review of email from client re:
revisions to stmts and schedules
(.3); Reviewed and revised same
re: litigation, values,
characterization of claims (1.8)
.5 	$100.00 	excessive time spent
on task
6/17/05 	telephone conference with Jina
Garcia, paralegal re: signing of
verification, filing, status
.2 	$40.00 	administrative office
overhead
6/7/05 	review of letter from M.
Friedlander re: request for copy
of stay motion and matrix and
approve sending of same
.2 	$40.00 	excessive time spent
on task
6/29/05 	Review of notice of hearing on
LANB stay mtn; letter to client
.2 	$40.00 	excessive time spent
on task
6/15/05 	telephone conference with
bankruptcy clerk's office re:
heading on removal, procedure
and review rules and CPPG . . .
and review entry of appearance
from Bannerman from Engel
.2
$40.00 	excessive time spent
on task
Case 05-14071-trc7 Doc 394 Filed 06/04/07 Entered 06/04/07 15:07:32 Page 9 of 19

10
7/6/05 	conference w/ Chris W. Pierce
concerning removal of cases to
bankruptcy court and strategy
.4 	$90.00 	Duplicative effort
7/27/07 	review change of address from
Century Bank; conference w/
paralegal re: changing address
.1 	$10.00 	Excessive time spent
on task
7/6/05 	review and revise affidavit of
Bregman re: cases, task; email to
Bregman re: same
.2 	$40.00 	Excessive time spent
on task
7/11/05 	review of signed Bregman
affidavit and approve for filing
motion to employ
.3 	$60.00 	Excessive time spent
on task
7/13/05 	conference w/ Jina Garcia,
paralegal re: notice of hearing
on LANB stay; review of same
and approve for filing
.2 	$40.00 	unnecessary;
administrative office
overhead
7/14/07 	review of issued summons in
adversary; conference w/ Jina
Garcia, paralegal re: service
.2 	$40.00 	excessive;
administrative office
overhead
8/11/05 	Review of docket re: objections
(.1); conference w/ Jina Garcia,
paralegal re: preparation of order
of employment for Bregman(.1);
reviewed and revised same and
approve for emailing to court(.2)
.4 	$80.00 	Clerical/office
overhead
9/29/05 	conference with Jina Garcia,
paralegal re: documents, filing,
electronic filing, additional
documents (.2); Reviewed and
revised notices of removal and
approve for filing (.3)
.5 	$100.00 	Excessive/clerical/
office overhead
10/28/05 	conference with Jina Garcia,
paralegal, re: draft of same and
review and revise same (.4);
review of final draft and approve
for filing (.2);
.4 	$80.00 	Clerical/
administrative office
overhead
Case 05-14071-trc7 Doc 394 Filed 06/04/07 Entered 06/04/07 15:07:32 Page 10 of 19

3See In re Krug, 174 B.R. 826, 832 (Bankr.D.Kan. 1994) (“Time spent ‘. . . familiarizing
oneself with general Code provisions or basic law’ is not compensable. Attorneys are required to
have some minimum level of expertise.”) (quoting In re Seneca Oil, 65 B.R. 902, 912
(Bankr.W.D.Okla.1986)).
11
10/28/05 	conference with Jina Garcia,
paralegal re: order on
employment of REDW and
review and revise same; approve
for faxing to opposing attys
.3 	$60.00 	Clerical/
administrative office
overhead
10/21/05 	telephone conference with Paula
Cook’s secretary re: complaint
in Trust suit; faxing of same
.2 	$40.00 	Clerical/
administrative office
overhead
10/21/05 	telephone conferences with Jina
Garcia, paralegal re: Friedlander
calls, emails, request for
meeting, meeting with client,
Bregman, timing
.3 	$60.00 	Clerical/
administrative office
overhead
11/10/05 	legal research for exemptions on
household goods, furniture,
other personal items (.5);
reviewed and revised liquidation
analysis (.5)
.5 	$100.0 	experienced
bankruptcy attorney
should know
exemption amts;
legal research,
therefore, excessive 3
11/29/05 	Review of email from court (.2);
preparation of notices (.3);
reviewed and revised order and
email to court (.4); review of
signed order and conference
with Jina Garcia, paralegal re:
same (.3)
1.2 	$240.00 	Insufficient
description of work
performed
11/7/05 	review of signed order from
judge on REDW; email coppy to
client.
.2 	$40.00 	Excessive time spent
on task
12/5/05 	conference with Jina Garcia,
paralegal re: bar date notices
(.2); reviewed and revised same
and approve for filing (.8)
1.0 	$200.00 	Excessive time spent
on task
Case 05-14071-trc7 Doc 394 Filed 06/04/07 Entered 06/04/07 15:07:32 Page 11 of 19

4See also, In re Associated Grocers of Colorado, Inc., 137 B.R. 413, 448 (Bankr.D.Colo.
1990) (finding that generally, phone calls to the court clerk to check on the status of an order or
to set a hearing could be performed by a secretary and are not chargeable as attorney time).
12
12/14/05 	review of emails (4x) from client
re: Bregman, mold, Cook cases,
status
.40 	$80.00 	Excessive time spent
on task
1/26/06 	left message with client re: Caja
del Rio property; review of letter
re: same.
.2 	$40.00 	Excessive time spent
on task
1/13/06 	review of signed order on
disclosure statement; review of
file, documents re: exhibits,
status
.40 	$80.00 	Excessive
1/18/06 	review of order on disclosure
statement and conference with
Jina Garcia, paralegal re: same
(.2); review of certificate of
mailing and approve for filing
(.2)
.4 	$80.00 	Clerical/
administrative office
overhead
1/19/06 	left message for Mr. Potter re:
information needed for Monthly
Operating Reports
.1 	$8.00 	Clerical/
administrative office
overhead
1/23/06 	review of emailed letter, detail
for operating reports from client
(.3); conference with Diane
Miles-Kazimiroff re: same (.2)
.5 	$100.00 	Clerical/
administrative office
overhead
1/19/06 	conference with Jina Garcia,
paralegal re: objections to
Bregman motions (.2);
Reviewed and revised same and
email to client for approval (.6)
.8 	$160.00 	Clerical/
administrative office
overhead
1/23/06 	telephone conferences with Sharon
Hankla re: postponing hearing, stay
status, options (.4); telephone
conference with Chris Wilson re: same
(.2); Review of proposed order and
approve (.2); email to client, Martin
Friedlander re: approval of order and
review email approvals (.2)
1.0 	$200.00 	Excessive 4
Case 05-14071-trc7 Doc 394 Filed 06/04/07 Entered 06/04/07 15:07:32 Page 12 of 19

13
1/23/06 	Email to client, Martin
Friedlander re: Hankla proposal
.3 	$60.00 	Excessive
1/6/06 	Review of M. Friedlander email
to S. Bregman re: hearing,
representation, disgorgement;
left message with Bregman re:
same
.2 	$40.00 	excessive
(.3 requested,
allowed .1)
1/10/06 	telephone conference with Chris
Wilson from Judge’s office re:
Bregman, removals, final
hearings, status
.1 	$20.00 	Excessive
(.2 requested,
allowed .1)
1/10/06 	review email from James Reist
re: signature on pleadings
.1 	$20.00 	Excessive
(.2 requested,
allowed .1)
1/18/06 	Review of Judge’s orders on
Martin Friedlander motion to
dismiss or to transfer venue,
abstention order (.4); Telephone
conference with Jim Jurgens re:
same (.3); email same to client,
Martin Friedlander (.2) Review
of email from Martin
Friedlander (.2)
1.1 	$220.00 	Duplicative work
1/20/06 	Preparation of objections to
Bregman motions to withdraw
(.4); conference with W. Davis,
Jina Garcia, paralegal re: same;
preparation of letter to client re
objections, Martin Friedlander
objections, procedure (.3)
.3 	$60.00 	Excessive/Clerical/
administrative office
overhead
1/23/06 	conference with Jina Garcia,
paralegal re: request of
documents from Receivership
case; Letter to Clerk re: same
.3 	$60.00 	Clerical/
administrative office
overhead
1/31/06 	Review notice of hearing on
motion to reconsider (LANB)
.1 	$20.00 	Excessive
(.2 requested, .1
allowed)
Case 05-14071-trc7 Doc 394 Filed 06/04/07 Entered 06/04/07 15:07:32 Page 13 of 19

14
1/31/06 	conferences with Jina Garcia,
paralegal re: status of Santa Fe
Engel files; review of file re:
same.
.2 	$40.00 	Administrative/
clerical
2/7/06 	conference with Diane Miles-
Kazimiroff re: Oct/Dec 05
reports; reviewed and revised
same and approved for emailing
to client for signature
.5 	$100.00 	Administrative/
clerical
2/22/06 	telephone conference with S.
Hankla re: update on stay
hearing, possible settlement
.2 	$40.00 	Excessive, duplicates
time entries on 2/20
and 2/27
2/23/06 	review order resulting from
scheduling conference on LANB
adversary
.2 	$40.00 	Excessive
2/24/06 	review notices of hearing on
VNB, Cook motions for remand
.1 	$20.00 	Excessive
(.2 requested;
allowed .1)
2/27/06 	review of notices of hearing on
LANB motion for default
.1 	$20.00 	Excessive
(.2 requested;
allowed .1)
3/24/06 	review of notice of change of
hearing date on disclosure
statement
.1 	$20.00 	Excessive time spent
on task
(.2 requested;
allowed .1)
3/31/06 	conference with Jina Garcia,
paralegal re: modifications to
motions to withdraw; review of
same and approve for faxing to
opposing attorney(s)
.3 	$60.00 	Clerical/
administrative office
overhead
3/3/06 	review of order denying motion
to recuse (VNB)
.1 	$20.00 	Excessive
(.2 requested,
allowed .1)
3/12/06 	review of email from client re:
extension
.1 	$20.00 	Excessive
(.2 requested;
allowed .1)
Case 05-14071-trc7 Doc 394 Filed 06/04/07 Entered 06/04/07 15:07:32 Page 14 of 19

15
3/13/06 	review of Martin Friedlander
Notice of Entry of Appearance
in Engel Adversary
.1 	$20.00 	Excessive
(.2 requested;
allowed .1)
3/17/06 	travel to Santa Fe for inspection
of court records in state court
cases; inspection of same
2.2 	$440.00 	Unnecessary
3/21/06 	conference with Jina Garcia,
paralegal re: scanning Engel
documents(.2); preparation of
disk re: same (.2); Telephone
conference with Jim Reist re:
status (.2)
.4 	$80.00 	Administrative/
clerical
(requested .6,
allowed .2)
3/22/06 	scan state court file (Potter v.
Engel) prepare disks for US
Bankruptcy Court; prepare
Certificate of Delivery
3.0 	$240.00 	Secretarial, non-legal
work
3/27/06 	review of Martin Friedlander
statements of interested parties
.1 	$20.00 	Excessive
(requested .2,
allowed .1)
3/30/06 	conference with Jina Garcia,
paralegal re: motion to strike
Approval of Proof of Claim;
reviewed and revised same
.5 	$100.00 	Administrative/office
overhead
4/3/06 	conference with W. Davis re:
status of case, plan, disclosures,
withdrawal
.2 	$40.00 	Office management/
excessive
4/7/06 	conference with W. Davis re:
appeals, stay motions, litigation
.5 	$100.00 	Duplicative
4/24/06 	review of email from client re:
picking up Bregman files;
conference with Jina Garcia,
paralegal re: same, preparation
of receipt; Conference with Jina
Garcia, paralegal re: meeting
with client, response
.2 	$40.00 	Administrative/office
overhead
4/27/06 	conference with W. Davis re:
employment, withdrawal,
motions, objections, status
.50 	$100.00 	Office management/
administrative work
Case 05-14071-trc7 Doc 394 Filed 06/04/07 Entered 06/04/07 15:07:32 Page 15 of 19

16
4/6/06
scan state court pleadings and
prepare disk for court; prepare
certificate of delivery of state
court documents in Valley
National Bank lawsuit
2.00 	$160.00 	Secretarial, non-legal
work
4/6/06 	conference with Jina Garcia,
paralegal re: disks, state court
file and approve certificate for
filing (VNB)
.2 	$40.00 	Administrative/office
overhead
4/24/06 	conference w/ W. Davis re:
Friedlander, appeals, approval of
proof of claim, status
.5 	$100.00 	office administrative
work
5/5/06 	review of exhibits, plan,
disclosure statement and
approve for filing
.5 	$100.00 	Work performed
after filed motion
seeking to withdraw
as counsel for debtor
(see discussion,
infra.)
5//8/06 	telephone conference with Grey
Handy re: approval, change to
disclosure statement; reviewed
and revised first amended
disclosure statement and
approve for filing
.3 	$60.00 	Work performed
after filed motion
seeking to withdraw
as counsel for debtor
(see discussion,
infra.)
5/10/06 	telephone conference with Chris
Wilson re: hearing on fee app;
Reviewed and revised notice of
hearing and approve for filing
.2 	$40.00 	Clerical
TOTAL DISALLOWED: 	$4,928.00
Davis & Pierce filed its Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for the Debtor on April 5, 2006.
(Docket # 161). The Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for the Debtor was granted on May 22,
2006. (Docket # 190). 	After Davis & Pierce knew that it sought to withdraw its representation
of the Debtor, it should have limited its work in connection with this bankruptcy proceeding to
Case 05-14071-trc7 Doc 394 Filed 06/04/07 Entered 06/04/07 15:07:32 Page 16 of 19

17
matters that required action or response. 	Accordingly, with regard to the billing statement dated
May 18, 2006 relating to “Litigation/Adversary Proceedings” the Court will allow only the
following amounts, and disallow the remainder of fees requested on that statement:
Date 	Work Description 	Time 	Amount Allowed
5/5/06 	review of Potter’s motion to
withdraw motion to strike and
motion for sanctions
.2 	$40.00
5/5/06 	review of Martin Friedlander’s
second supplement to Potter’s
motion to withdraw motion to
strike and motion for sanctions re:
Jurgens email accusations
.2 	$40.00
5/10/06 	prepare statement of interested
parties in BAP no. NM-06-043
(Danilovic)
.5 	$40.00
5/10/06 	review of emails (2x) from Martin
Friedlander re: various allegations
and demands
.2 	$40.00
5/10/06 	Review of notice of change of
hearing date on Martin
Friedlander order to show cause
.1 	$20.00
5/16/06 	court appearance for hearing on
Martin Friedlander Order to Show
Cause
.4 	$80.00
Total requested on Invoice dated 5/18/06
relating to litigation/adversary proceedings: 	$780.00
TOTAL ALLOWED: 	$260.00
Total disallowed = 	$520.00
The sum of the total disallowed portion of fees outlined above for all invoices is $5,448.00.
($4,928.00 + 520.00 = $5,448.00). The total allowed fees and expenses for the periods from
Case 05-14071-trc7 Doc 394 Filed 06/04/07 Entered 06/04/07 15:07:32 Page 17 of 19

18
May 25, 2005 through March 31, 2006 and from April 1, 2006 through May 18, 2006 are
summarized as follows:
Allowed Attorney and Paralegal fees:$ 58,807.50 	($56,507.50 + $7,788.00) -
($5,448.00 total disallowed)
Expenses (5/25/05 - 3/31/06) 	$ 	2,700.00
Expenses (4/30/06 - 5/18/06) 	$ 	1,327.82
NM Gross Receipts Taxes: 	$ 	3,901.01 	($58,807.50 X 6.75%)
TOTAL: 	$ 66,736.33
($10,914.40) (payments received)
TOTAL BALANCE: 	$ 55,821.93
WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Fee Application is GRANTED, in
part, and DENIED, in part. Fees in the amount of $5,448.00 are disallowed. 	Total fees and
expenses, plus applicable New Mexico gross receipts taxes, in the amount of $66,736.33 are
allowed as an administrative expense under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b), subject to any allowed claim
under that section incurred after conversion of the bankruptcy proceeding to Chapter 7. 11
U.S.C. § 726(b). After application of the payments received by counsel for the Debtor, the
remaining allowed balance is $55,821.93.
_________________________________________
MARK B. McFEELEY
United States Bankruptcy Judge
COPY TO:
Daniel J Behles
Attorney for Debtor
226-A Cynthia Loop NW
Case 05-14071-trc7 Doc 394 Filed 06/04/07 Entered 06/04/07 15:07:32 Page 18 of 19

19
Albuquerque, NM 87114-1100
William F Davis
Former Attorney for Debtor
PO Box 6
Albuquerque, NM 87103-0006
Martin S. Friedlander
Creditor
10350 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 603
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Robert H Jacobvitz
Attorney for Chapter 7 Trustee
500 Marquette NW Ste 650
Albuquerque, NM 87102-5309
Office of the United States Trustee
PO Box 608
Albuquerque, NM 87103
Case 05-14071-trc7 Doc 394 Filed 06/04/07 Entered 06/04/07 15:07:32 Page 19 of 19