FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ORDER AWARDING TO RIEMER & BRAUNSTEIN LLP, COUNSEL TO THE DEBTOR, FOR ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF FINAL COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES

TIMOTHY A. BARNES, Bankruptcy Judge.

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 right of each underlined entry. The numerical notations correspond to the enumerated paragraphs below.

(1) Lumping — TOTAL of disallowed amounts (10% of affected entries): $2,657.90

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."). The fee application contained some time entries that lumped discrete tasks together, such as drafting work and legal research, without indicating how much time was spent on each task.

(2) Computational or Typographical Error — TOTAL of disallowed amounts: $65.00

The court denies the allowance of compensation for the following tasks because the amount of fees appears to be a computational or typographical error. Also, where there are two identical entries (same day, same tasks, same time billed), the court will consider one of the entries to be a typographical error. There was one instance of a duplicative entry included in the fee application.

(3) Unreasonable Time — TOTAL of disallowed amounts: $680.00

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). At least one entry appeared to bill an unreasonable amount of time relative to the services provided.

(4) Meal Expenses — TOTAL of disallowed amounts: $523.06

The Court denies the allowance of reimbursement of meal expenses. In re Covent Guardian Corp., 103 B.R. 937, 942 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1989) (Sonderby, J.) ("[I]t is highly unlikely that counsel could prove that the meal expenses were reasonably necessary for the proper representation of the debtor ... If the attorney were not working on the case, he would still have to eat. Accordingly, the Court finds that, except in very limited circumstances, local meals are not reasonably necessary for the proper representation of the client."). The application seeks reimbursement for a number of meals, averaging $75.72 per meal.

(5) Reimbursement Limited to Necessary Expenses — TOTAL of disallowed amounts: $988.30

The Court denies the allowance of reimbursement for expenses that were not actually and necessarily incurred by the applicant. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 330(a)(1)(B) & 331. The fee application fails to demonstrate that the requested expenses for car and rideshare services and the quoted rates therefor, averaging $92.83 per trip, were necessary and reasonable in light of the prevailing, lower rates and/or alternate transportation options. In addition, the application also fails to demonstrate that a single unexplained "housekeeping" expense of $60.00 was necessary or reasonable for the representation of the Debtor (or related to such representation).

(6) Insufficient Description — TOTAL of disallowed amounts: $1,057.50

The Court denies the allowance of compensation for the indicated task(s) as the description of each task fails to identify in a reasonable manner the service rendered. In re Pettibone, 74 B.R. 293, 301 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (Schmetterer, J.) ("A proper fee application must list each activity, its date, the attorney who performed the work, a description of the nature and substance of the work performed, and the time spent on the work. [Citation omitted] Records which give no explanation of the activities performed are not compensable."); In re Wildman, 72 B.R. 700, 708-09 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987) (Schmetterer, J.) (same). There were a small number of entries which contained insufficient information for the court to reasonably identify the services rendered, for example, entries reading only "attention to documents" or similarly vague, generalized language.