McClintock Dairy LLC

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
at Greenbelt
IN RE: 	:
:
McCLINTOCK DAIRY LLC 	: 	Case No. 07-10077PM
: 	Chapter 11
Debtor 	:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : 	(Jointly Administered)
IN RE: 	:
:
McCLINTOCK FAMILY PARTNERSHIP : 	Case No. 07-10079PM
: 	Chapter 11
Debtor 	:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Before the court is the First Application of William L. Needler and Associates, Attorneys
for [the jointly administered] Debtors (“Applicant”), for Interim Fee Allowance and
Reimbursement of Costs for the period November 9, 2006, through May 12, 2007
(“Application”). Counsel seeks allowance of interim compensation of $32,915.75, and
reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses of $2,681.94, less payments heretofore received from a
third party of $11,789.00. Upon review of the file, the court notes that there was no statement as
to the source of third-party advances to the Applicant, and this information should be supplied.
The court entered Orders authorizing the employment of William L. Needler and the firm of
William L. Needler and Associates as attorneys for the Debtors, as well as the employment of
Donald Scott Goldbloom as co-counsel for Debtors. Throughout this proceeding, Mr. Needler
has acted as lead counsel.
The court regrets that it cannot rule on the Application in its present form. It appears that
Date signed September 07, 2007
Entered: September 10, 2007 Case 07-10077 Doc 135 Filed 09/10/07 Page 1 of 2

Mr. Needler was not made aware of the Compensation Guidelines for Professionals in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland that is set forth in Appendix D to the Local
Bankruptcy Rules. One would have thought that local counsel would have made him aware of
these Guidelines, although the role of Mr. Goldbloom appears to be minimal and that no
compensation is sought for his services.
For example, Applicant charges $2.00 for each facsimile transmission where the limit
allowed for this charge is $1.25 per page for domestic transmissions. Photocopying is charged at
$.25 a page that in excess of the $.20 a page allowed under the Guidelines. While these are
matters are readily ascertainable, the court would prefer that Applicant to do the arithmetic. Of
more substance is the failure of the Application to contain a “lodestar” analysis and a discussion
of the factors set forth in the case of Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714
(CA5 1975), that were later adopted by the Fourth Circuit in the case of Barber v. Kimbrell”s,
Inc., 577 F.2d 216, 226-27 (CA4 1978). Most important is the failure of the Application to
organize the requests for compensation by tasks, with a total billing for each task. This is
especially important in this case in view of the perceived absence of progress in the development
of a Plan and Disclosure Statement.
The court notes that no objection was filed to this Application by any creditor or by the
office of the United States Trustee. While the only creditor that has been active is the First
United Bank and Trust Company as a secured creditor, it has little interest in the outcome of this
Application. The court understands from the withdrawal of the response of the office of the
United States Trustee to the Application that that office has no position to advocate in this
matter.
For the reasons stated, the court will defer ruling on the Application pending a revision
thereof so as to conform to the Compensation Guidelines for Professionals of this court. And,
the court would be helped in the amended Application, if counsel were to suggest the appropriate
allocation between the two Debtors of the responsibility for payment of the compensation
sought.
cc:
William L. Needler, Esq., 555 Skokie Blvd., Suite 500, Northbrook, IL 60062
Donald S. Goldbloom, Esq., 12590 National Pike, Grantsville, MD 21536
United States Trustee, 6305 Ivy Lane, #600, Greenbelt MD 20770
Roger Schlossberg, Esq., 134 W. Washington St., PO Box 4227, Hagerstown, MD 21741
End of Memorandum
Case 07-10077 Doc 135 Filed 09/10/07 Page 2 of 2