IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the opinion in the above case filed November 20, 1995, be modified as follows:
1. On page 2, paragraph 2, lines 9 through 22 shall be changed to read as follows:
The fee request includes time for the following individuals:
(1) A partner in practice for 20 years billed 104.2 hours at $225.00 per hour ($23,445);
(2) A fourth-year associate billed 53.1 hours at $130.00 per hour ($6,903);
(3) A sixth-year associate billed 4.5 hours at $155.00 per hour ($697.50);
(4) A legal assistant billed 39.5 hours at $67.00 per hour ($2,646.50);
(5) A legal editor billed 4 hours at $62.00 per hour ($248); and
(6) A legal clerk billed 8.5 hours at $35.00 per hour ($297.50).
The latter three are not attorneys.
2. On page 4, paragraph 1, lines 2 through 12, shall be changed to read as follows:
Employing these criteria, we allow only part of the fees requested for the legal assistant's services. He has requested compensation for preparing pleadings for duplication, preparing and delivering copies, requesting copies, and obtaining and delivering a docket sheet. We do not view this time as work which falls within these guidelines. We do allow an award for time spent preparing the briefs and related work. In computing the time we allow for him, we will assume, absent any other evidence in the record, that the hourly rate of $67.00 is reasonable for this type of work. We allow an award of $2,110.50 for 31.5 hours. We allow the recovery of fees for the time claimed by the legal editor for verifying citations and quotations. We disallow the time claimed for the legal clerk, which appears to consist primarily of obtaining copies of pleadings and organizing working copies of the pleadings.
3. On page 6, paragraph 2, line 7, the third sentence in that paragraph shall be changed to read as follows: "The court may consider the hourly rate of opposing counsel."
4. On page 7, paragraph 2, line 6, the second sentence shall be changed to read as follows: "In such cases, this court is limited to the record presented below and the only issues presented are whether the respondent was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of ...