Laserfiche WebLink
<br />f`J <br />"appear to be in excess of a reasonable rate ....'• Affidavit <br />of John P. Tracy at 1 para. 4. ~Ihile neither the Cases <br />for affiant's statements nor his qualification to make them <br />are revealed. it is at least clear that even he is less <br />than certain of his own conclusion regarding the reasenable- <br />ness of defendants' bill. In fact, the hourly rates charged <br />-- S1C0 for attorneys with 9 to 13 years of practice; 575 <br />for attorneys with six years of practice; 53C for legal <br />assistants -- are well within the range of prevailing rates <br />in Denver and if anything, are lcw for persons of comparable <br />experience and qualifications. <br />Defendants have appended as exhibits hereto the affioa- <br />vits of each of the attorneys and legal assistants fcr whom <br />defendants billed timed on this case. Affidavits of Joel <br />w. Cantrick. exhihit B; Cavid K. Rees. exhibit C; Linda E. <br />.Ihite. exhibit D: Janet L. Miller. exhibit E; Janice L. <br />Eurnett. exhibit F; Paula C. Phillips. exhibit G; Joyce K. <br />Manning. exhibit H; Vicky N.. Schultz. exhibit I. These <br />exhibits outline the qualifications, background. and experi- <br />ence of these individuals. <br />Defendants also append as exhibit J hereto the affida- <br />vit of David DeMuro• stating on the basis of his experience <br />and familiarity with prevailing rates in 'Denver for similar <br />work that the rates charged are reasonable. The affidavit <br />-9- <br />