Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City of San Marcos <br /> <br />(3) <br /> <br />(4) <br />(5) <br /> <br />(6) <br /> <br />(7) <br /> <br />(8) <br /> <br />-2- <br /> <br />April 5, 1988 <br /> <br />The fee customarily charged in the locality <br />for similar legal services. <br /> <br />The amount involved and the results obtained. <br /> <br />The time limitations imposed by the client or <br />by the circumstances. <br /> <br />The nature and length of the professional <br />relationship with the client. <br /> <br />The experience, reputation, and ability of <br />the lawyer or lawyers performing the <br />services. <br /> <br />Whether the fee is fixed or contingent." <br /> <br />In addition to attorneys, the Firm utilizes legal assistants and <br />law clerks to perform duties which would otherwise require the <br />time of attorneys and thus effectuate savings in time charges to <br />the City. <br /> <br />The Firm's hourly charge to the City is as follows: <br /> <br />Attorneys <br />Senior Legal Assistant <br />Law Clerk <br /> <br />. <br />. <br /> <br />$135.00 <br />$ 55.00 <br />$ 40.00 <br /> <br />The "worst case" estimated combined fee of Fred Saffer utility <br />Consultants and Sawtelle, Goode, Davidson & Troilo is $200,000 <br />through the end of the hearing. As you will read in the <br />paragraph below, we have estimated our fee allocation, but if the <br />City of San Marcos desires to consider it as a combined "worst <br />case" estimate, the combined fee is $200,000. <br /> <br />Our estimated attorney fee costs commencing with the date of this <br />letter through the end of the hearing is $80,000. In the event <br />it becomes necessary to file exceptions to the proposal for <br />decision, prepare briefs, make oral arguments to the Commission <br />or appeal a Final Order of the Commission to the Courts, we would <br />have to furnish you a new estimate. Hopefully, of course, this <br />will not be the case. <br /> <br />Most of these cases settle before a proposal for decision. As <br />far as putting an end to the issue of validity of San Marcos <br />enjoying the 138 kV rate without owning the 138 kV facilities, <br />this issue will probably be settled if the proceeding goes to <br />Final Orders. If the case is settled, we mayor may not be able <br />