context: A court must to exclude hours that reflect "the wasteful use of highly skilled and highly priced talent for matters easily delegable to non-professionals or less experienced associates". This proposition, however, presupposes that the attorneys charging maximum rates readily have junior associates and supporting paralegals at his or her disposal.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that reduction in rates is unwarranted in office that is understaffed and no less experienced attorney was available to perform tasks
citation_a.sentence: See Poston v. Fox, 577 F.Supp. 915, 919-20 (D.N.J.1984) (finding that it is not always possible to delegate in small office); see also Roldan v. Phila. Hous. Auth., Civ. A. No. 95-6649, 1999 WL 1167658, *4, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19093, at *14_15 (E.D.Pa.1999) (holding that reduction in rates is unwarranted in office that is understaffed and no less experienced attorney was available to perform tasks).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 577 F.Supp. 915, 919-20
citation_b.parenthetical: finding that it is not always possible to delegate in small office
citation_b.sentence: See Poston v. Fox, 577 F.Supp. 915, 919-20 (D.N.J.1984) (finding that it is not always possible to delegate in small office); see also Roldan v. Phila. Hous. Auth., Civ. A. No. 95-6649, 1999 WL 1167658, *4, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19093, at *14_15 (E.D.Pa.1999) (holding that reduction in rates is unwarranted in office that is understaffed and no less experienced attorney was available to perform tasks).