News

Actions

Glanz defense pushes back on request to pay bill

Web-Default-Image-KJRH_1280x720.png
Posted at 11:57 AM, May 17, 2016
and last updated 2016-05-17 12:57:31-04

TULSA – The victorious plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit involving former Tulsa County Sheriff Stanley Glanz now have an answer to the request that the defendants pay the legal fees and costs.

Attorneys Dan and Don Smolen filed the request for compensation last month in federal court that requested Glanz and the Tulsa County Sheriff’s Office pay the legal bills totaling more than $650,000.

In response to the request, the defendants sent a document saying they think the request should be “denied as it is unreasonable.”

The case in question was originally filed Dec. 11 and alleged that the plaintiff was sexually assaulted by a jailer when she was a juvenile inmate at the Tulsa County Jail in 2010. In March of 2015, a jury voted in favor of the plaintiff and awarded her $25,000. Since then, Glanz’s attorneys have filed for a new trial.

The document filed by the defense in response to the request say the amount is for more than what is allowed under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The defendants claim that the amount sought is “20 times greater than what is statutorily allowed as unreasonable per se and should be denied.”

In addition to that claim, they also say that the requested hourly rate is “unreasonable.” The plaintiff’s attorneys Dan Smolen and Don Smolen were each billed at $400 per hour.

The defendants claim that the “local customary rate survey of Tulsa law firms” with “13 to 15 years of experience” ranges from “$225 to $315.” Then attorneys with 22 to 24 years of experience, it ranges from “$200 to $380.” According to the defendants, the Smolens have “13 years of experience” and therefore “$400 per hour cannot be supported as a reasonable market rate for their services.”

The defense went on to say that the Smolens are entitled to between $32,250 and $37,500 -about five percent of what was requested.

They went on to allege that duplicate and overlapped hours were submitted, creating excessive charges.

Ultimately the defendants requested that any award be stayed amidst the post-trial challenges and appeals.