George Mitchell

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
at Greenbelt
In Re: 	*
George Mitchell, III
* 	Case No. 	Case No. 07-20952PM
* 	Chapter 	13
*
*
Debtor(s) 	*
MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL FOR THE DEBTOR
(Application for Compensation)
Before the court is the Application for Compensation filed by counsel for the Debtor. Counsel
seeks allowance of $ 3,990.00 as compensation for all services to be rendered over the possible five-
year life of this case, except for certain specified items such as adversary proceedings. Counsel received
$1,295.00 before the filing of the case and seeks the payment forthwith of the $2,695.00 balance
claimed.
The court finds that the services to be rendered under the Disclosure of Compensation are half-
way between the service levels of the presumptively reasonable fees set forth in paragraphs 4.A. and
4.B. of Appendix F to the Local Bankruptcy Rules. 	As noted by Chief Judge Keir in the case of In re
Bellamy, 379 B.R. 86 (BC Md. 2007), to be allowed compensation, counsel must from time to time file
applications for interim compensation under 11 U.S.C. § 331 where the fee charged contemplates
representation throughout the length of the case.
In support of the Application, counsel filed a boilerplate memorandum before he actually
performed most of the matters described. The Application duplicates memoranda that he has filed in
Date signed May 01, 2008
Entered: May 06, 2008 Case 07-20952 Doc 27 Filed 05/06/08 Page 1 of 2

several other cases. But the Application lacks any discussion of nearly all the Lodestar criteria required
in an application by such cases as Harman v. Levin, 772 F.2d 1150 (CA4 1985). Counsel must file a
supplement to the interim Application to deal with the factors of time and labor expended and results
obtained. Counsel is admonished that to be helpful to the court, the supplement must conform to the
requirements of the Compensation Guidelines of this court contained in Appendix D to the Local Rules.
Particular attention should be paid to the requirements of daily time entries and organization by tasks.
The court will defer its ruling on this Application pending receipt of the additional data.
Finally, from its experience in the administration of thousands of these cases, the court observes that
there is little benefit to the Debtor of the “reduced” fees for certain work likely to be required by the
Debtor after confirmation.
cc:
Edward V. Hanlon, Esq., 5510 Cherrywood Lane, Suite G, Greenbelt, MD 20770
George Mitchell, III, 4525 Captain Duval Drive, Upper Marlboro, MD 20772
Timothy P. Branigan, Esquire, P.O. Box 1902, Laurel MD 20725-1902
End of Memorandum
Case 07-20952 Doc 27 Filed 05/06/08 Page 2 of 2