Why Worked Examples Matter
A Section 329(b) motion that asks for "disgorgement of excessive fees" without specific dollar amounts is weaker than a motion that quantifies the disparity. The court evaluates requested remedy against a specific number; vague requests get vague rulings.
These worked examples show the arithmetic of converting deficiency findings into dollar-denominated relief requests. Each example uses illustrative numbers; substitute the actual record figures when applying to a real case.
All names, rates, and hours below are illustrative only. The methodology applies to any case. The numbers do not reflect any specific attorney, firm, or debtor.
Example 1: Excess Rate Over Firm's Standard
Scenario: The attorney's Rule 2016(b) statement discloses a $350/hour rate. PACER cross-referencing the attorney's fee applications in other contemporaneous cases shows a standard rate of $300/hour charged to similar clients in the same period. The debtor in this case was charged the $350 premium without documented justification for the premium.
# Firm standard rate (other cases): $300.00/hr
# Rate charged this debtor: $350.00/hr
# Per-hour premium: $50.00/hr
# Total premium exposure: 100.0 × $50.00
Reducible amount: $5,000.00
Legal basis: Where the attorney charges one client at a rate higher than the firm's standard rate without case-specific justification (complexity, urgency, specialization), the premium exceeds reasonable value under Section 329(b). If the rate premium was also not disclosed in a supplemental Rule 2016(b) statement, the violation is also a disclosure violation under In re Kisseberth, 273 F.3d 714 (CourtListener).
Methodology note: The firm's standard rate is evidenced by the attorney's fee applications in OTHER contemporaneous cases. PACER cross-reference is the standard research approach. A consistent $300 rate across 5-10 other contemporaneous cases establishes the firm-standard benchmark.
Example 2: Block Billing Discount
Scenario: Of the total 100 hours billed at $350/hour ($35,000 gross), 40 hours are in block-billed entries combining multiple tasks under single time totals. The court cannot evaluate per-task reasonableness. Apply a 30% discount (midpoint of the typical 20-50% block-billing reduction range).
| Category | Hours | Rate | Gross | Discount | Net Reducible |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Block-billed | 40.0 | $350 | $14,000 | 30% | $4,200 |
| Non-block | 60.0 | $350 | $21,000 | 0% | $0 |
| Total | 100.0 | $35,000 | $4,200 |
Legal basis: Block-billed entries obscure reasonableness. Courts routinely discount block-billed time by 20-50% per In re Busy Beaver Bldg. Centers, Inc., 19 F.3d 833 (CourtListener) framework of independent judicial review.
Example 3: Administrative Work at Attorney Rates
Scenario: Review of billing records identifies 12 hours of clerical/administrative work (document filing, serving papers, mailing items, scheduling hearings, formatting motions) billed at the attorney rate of $350/hour. Reclassify to paralegal rate ($125/hour) or disallow entirely if the retainer agreement specifies "no charge" for routine secretarial work.
Option A: Reclassify to paralegal rate
# Billed at attorney rate: $350/hr × 12.0 = $4,200.00
# Reasonable paralegal: $125/hr × 12.0 = $1,500.00
Reducible amount: $2,700.00
Option B: Disallow entirely (retainer specifies "no charge" for secretarial work)
# Billed: $4,200.00
# Reasonable per retainer: $0.00
Reducible amount: $4,200.00
Legal basis: Administrative work billed at attorney rates exceeds reasonable value under Section 330(a)(3)(F) ("whether the compensation is reasonable based on the customary compensation charged by comparably skilled practitioners"). Clerical work is not compensable at attorney rates.
Example 4: Duplicative Billing Across Timekeepers
Scenario: Two attorneys (Senior Partner at $500/hour, Associate at $275/hour) both billed for attending a 2-hour routine status hearing. No case-specific justification appears in the application. Reduce one of the two bills (typically the more junior, who was unnecessary for a routine hearing).
# Associate: 2.0 × $275 = $550.00 ← duplicate
# Gross charged: $1,550.00
# Reasonable: $1,000.00 (senior only, or associate only)
Reducible amount: $550.00
Legal basis: Duplication of effort without justification exceeds reasonable value. Section 330(a)(3)(C) asks "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." Duplicative attendance at routine hearings fails this test.
Scale this analysis: if duplicative billing appears on 10 hearings across the case, the reducible amount multiplies to $5,500.
Example 5: Services Not Delivered (Docket Cross-Reference)
Scenario: Billing entries include 8 hours for "draft motion to compel" on various dates. Cross-reference to the docket shows no motion to compel was ever filed. The billing claim does not match deliverable work product.
# Rate: $350/hr
# Gross charged: $2,800.00
# Work product delivered: None (no filing)
# Reasonable amount: $0.00
Reducible amount: $2,800.00
Legal basis: Billing for work not performed is the strongest factual ground for Section 329(b) relief. Docket cross-reference demonstrates the work was not delivered. This category of deficiency often warrants full disallowance rather than partial reduction, and may support additional sanctions for willful or bad-faith conduct.
Note: A single unfiled motion where the attorney can credibly claim "drafted but abandoned on strategic reassessment" may be excusable. A pattern of multiple entries with no corresponding deliverables suggests systematic billing irregularity.
Example 6: Compounding Effect - Multi-Layer Deficiency Total
Scenario: Apply all five prior examples to the same illustrative case. Compute the compounded reducible amount.
| Deficiency Category | Example | Reducible |
|---|---|---|
| Excess rate premium | Example 1 | $5,000.00 |
| Block-billing discount | Example 2 | $4,200.00 |
| Administrative at attorney rates (Option A) | Example 3A | $2,700.00 |
| Duplicative billing (single hearing) | Example 4 | $550.00 |
| Services not delivered | Example 5 | $2,800.00 |
| Total reducible (partial disgorgement) | $15,250.00 |
If the gross amount billed across the case was $35,000, the illustrative partial-disgorgement total of $15,250 represents 43.6% of gross fees - reducible through quantified category-by-category analysis.
Disclosure-violation escalation: If any of the above deficiencies coincide with a Rule 2016(b) disclosure violation (e.g., the rate premium in Example 1 was not supplementally disclosed), the In re Stewart, 970 F.3d 1255 (CourtListener) presumption applies: full disgorgement of all fees, with the attorney bearing the burden to show compelling mitigation.
# Partial disgorgement (category): $15,250.00 (43.6%)
# Full disgorgement (Stewart): $35,000.00 (100%)
Methodology Notes
- Evidence first, arithmetic second. Every calculation should be supported by specific record citations: docket entries, billing invoices, fee application exhibits, Rule 2016(b) statements. Quantification without evidence is advocacy; quantification with evidence is a motion.
- Round conservatively. If block-billing discount range is 20-50%, choose 30% as the midpoint absent exceptional facts. Courts are more receptive to moderate reductions that survive scrutiny than aggressive ones that invite pushback.
- Present as alternatives. Give the court two paths: "reducible amount is $X under partial disgorgement, or $Y under full disgorgement per Stewart." The court chooses; the motion preserves both options.
- Cross-reference to the caselaw. Each category links to the case authority supporting it. See the Section 329(b) caselaw map for full holdings.
- Use the motion template. The Section 329(b) motion template has seven parts; quantification sits in Parts 3 (factual recitation) and 5 (reasonableness prong).