Full opinion text
OPINION MUIR, District Judge. I. Introduction and Procedural History. Currently pending before this Court is a motion for counsel fees and expenses filed by Plaintiffs’ counsel on October 15, 1985. This action was initiated as a class action on behalf of all osteopathic physicians in the York, Pennsylvania, medical service area. Malcolm Weiss, named plaintiff and class representative, alleged that Defendants violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2 by adopting a policy to discriminate against osteopathic physicians in obtaining staff privileges at York Hospital. In August of 1982, this case proceeded to trial before a jury of 12 members who returned a unanimous verdict consisting of answers to 42 special verdict questions. On September 30, 1982, following a separate hearing on the issues related to injunctive relief, this Court directed the entry of a judgment on special verdict and entered an injunction against Defendants York Hospital and the Medical and Dental Staff of the York Hospital pursuant to § 16 of the Clayton Act. On November 11, 1982, those Defendants appealed that injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On September 30, 1982, this Court issued an order directing class counsel to transmit a notice to the members of the class that those members of the class who did not complete a form stating their intention to present a damages claim and return it to the Clerk of Court within 30 days would lose and waive any rights they might have to claim damages. Class counsel complied with that order and in reponse to the notice, 23 members of the class, including Dr. Weiss, returned to the Clerk of Court claims forms stating their intention to present claims for damages. On September 27, 1984, 745 F.2d 786, the Court of Appeals affirmed the entry of injunctive relief against the Medical Staff of York Hospital and remanded the case to this Court for further proceedings, including trial of the class members’ damage claims and possible modification of the terms of the injunction. After Defendants unsuccessfully sought a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court, the mandate of the Court of Appeals was issued on March 21, 1985. In June and July of 1985, 14 of the 23 osteopathic physicians who had previously expressed their intention to claim damages moved this Court to dismiss their damages claims with prejudice. By orders dated June 25, June 26, July 1, and July 5, 1985 this Court dismissed with prejudice the damages claims of these 14 osteopathic physicians, leaving 8 osteopathic physicians (hereafter the “claimants”) and Weiss as the only members of the class claiming damages. On July 31, 1985, the parties jointly moved this Court for an order granting them the authority to negotiate settlement regarding attorney’s fees and litigation expenses under § 16 of the Clayton Act while discussing settlement of the damages claims of Dr. Weiss and while drafting an agreement to settle the individual damages claims of the remaining class members. On July 31, 1985, this Court granted the motion. On August 29, 1985, after arm’s length negotiations, the claimants, Weiss, Levin and Fishbein, Lewis H. Markowitz, Dusan Bratic, York Hospital and the Medical Staff of York Hospital executed a written settlement agreement (hereafter the “claimants’ settlement agreement”) which provided for the payment in one lump sum of $400,-000.00 to the 8 claimants in full settlement of their damages claims against York Hospital and its Medical Staff. The claimants’ settlement agreement provided that Defendants not be responsible for the counsel fees and litigation expenses attributable to the work performed and expenses incurred by counsel in obtaining damages relief for the claimants but that such compensation be payable from the fund created on behalf of the claimants. Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to limit their request for such compensation to $100,000.00. In the claimants’ settlement agreement, each of the claimants and Weiss acknowledged that this sum is a fair and reasonable amount for counsel fees and litigation expenses on the claimants’ damages claims against York Hospital and its Medical Staff. Also on August 29, 1985, Weiss, Levin and Fishbein, Lewis H. Markowitz, and Defendants, York Hospital, the Medical Staff of York Hospital, Dr. Ivan Butler, Dr. Thomas Bauer, Dr. Samuel W. Deisher, and Lois Kushner executed a written settlement agreement (hereafter the “Weiss settlement agreement”). This settlement agreement provided for the payment by the Defendants to Dr. Weiss of $1,600,000.00 in four equal installments over a two-year period with no payment of interest in full settlement of Weiss’s damages claim against the Defendants. The Weiss settlement agreement provided that the Defendants not be responsible for counsel fees and litigation expenses attributable to the work performed and expenses incurred by Plaintiffs’ counsel in obtaining damages relief for Dr. Weiss. The Weiss settlement agreement provided that such compensation and expenses be payable from the fund created for the benefit of Dr. Weiss, and Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to limit their request for such compensation to 25% of the fund. In his settlement agreement, Dr. Weiss expressly acknowledged that $400,-000.00 is a fair and reasonable amount to compensate his counsel for the work performed and expenses incurred in obtaining monetary relief for him. In the Weiss settlement agreement the Defendants also agreed to pay Plaintiffs’ counsel an amount which is determined by this Court to constitute reasonable compensation for the time expended and the expenses incurred by the Plaintiffs’ counsel in obtaining injunctive relief for Weiss and the class in an amount not to exceed $2,800,000, payable in four equal installments over the next two years. The agreement provided that no interest shall be paid by Defendants on the counsel fees and expenses. Defendants agreed not to contest the right of Plaintiffs’ counsel to an award of such fees and costs. On September 4, 1985, this Court directed Plaintiffs’ counsel to file their motion for attorney’s fees and expenses on or before October 14, 1985. Our order of September 4, 1985 also scheduled a hearing to take place on December 18, 1985 to consider the motion for attorney’s fees and required that Plaintiffs’ counsel transmit to all members of the class a prescribed form of notice advising them of the fact that a motion for an award of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses would be filed by Plaintiffs’ counsel by October 14, 1985, that a hearing would be held concerning the motion on December 18, 1985, and that the class members had a right to object to the award of attorney’s fees and- expenses sought by counsel and to appear at the hearing and contest the application for fees and expenses. Counsel sent the prescribed notice and no objections to the award of attorney’s fees were received. On October 15, 1985, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion for counsel fees and litigation expenses and supporting brief. On December 18 and 19, 1985, a hearing was held regarding the motion. On December 19, 1985, this Court entered an order approving the terms of the Plaintiffs' settlement agreement and the Weiss settlement agreement. II. Findings of Fact. 1. Arnold Levin and Michael D. Fishbein of Levin and Fishbein are the attorneys from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania who have had primary responsibility for work in this matter. 2. Lewis Markowitz and Marc G. Tar-low are the attorneys from York, Pennsylvania who have had primary responsibility for this matter. 3. Prior to August 18, 1981, Messrs. Levin and Fishbein were a partner and an associate, respectively, in the law firm of Adler, Barish, Levin and Creskoff. After that date, they were partners in the law firm of Levin and Fishbein. 4. Prior to December 7, 1980, Mr. Markowitz was a partner in the firm of Markowitz, Kegan & Griffith. From December 1980 to January 1984, Messrs. Markowitz and Tarlow were partners in the York law firm of Markowitz and Seidensticker. After that date, Mr. Markowitz practiced under his own name until his son, Lawrence Markowitz, joined the firm in 1984. Since that time, they have practiced in partnership under the name Markowitz and Markowitz. Since January, 1984 Mr. Tarlow has been a partner in the firm of Seidensticker, Keiter, Tarlow and Baughman and has had no responsibility in the litigation of this action. 5. Arnold Levin, Michael D. Fishbein, Lewis H. Markowitz, and Marc G. Tarlow are all members of the Bar of this Court, counsel to the plaintiff and the plaintiff class and have performed substantial work in connection with this case. On May 28, 1981, the Court authorized them to proceed as counsel to the class in this matter. 6. During 1984 and 1985, Howard J. Sedran and David J. Perlman of the firm of Levin and Fishbein performed a substantial amount of work in this case. 7. During 1980, Josephine B. Stamm who was then associated with Mr. Levin and Mr. Fishbein performed some work in this case. 8. Plaintiffs’ counsel complied with this Court’s September 4, 1985 Order requiring that plaintiffs’ counsel notify the class that a motion for an award of counsel fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses would be filed by plaintiffs’ counsel by October 14, 1985, and that class members had a right to object to the award of counsel fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses and to appear at the hearing on December 18, 1985 and contest the application by plaintiffs’ counsel for the award of attorney's fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses. 9. By the end of October 25, 1985, all members of the class, with the exception of Dr. Thomas Jobe, had received copies of the notice referred to in the preceding paragraph. 10. In the exercise of reasonable diligence, plaintiffs’ counsel attempted to notify Dr. Jobe but could not locate a current address for him. Their attempt to notify him was adequate. 11. No member of the class filed with the Court any objections to the petition by plaintiffs’ counsel for an award of counsel fees and litigation expenses nor did any member of the class appear at the hearing held December 18 and 19, 1985 to object to the petition for an award of counsel fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses. 12. One Mrs. J. Reichard of R.D. 10 York, Pa. objected by letter of September 25, 1985 to Dr. Weiss’s receiving the settlement monies, questioning his character and submitting that a hospital should have the right to reject any applicant for staff privileges. 13. An anonymous letter from a York resident set forth the view that members of the plaintiff class were not entitled to damages because they had not applied for staff privileges. 14. No other letters objecting to the settlement were receiving by the Court. 15. No member of the public appeared at the hearing on December 18, 1985 to object to the proposed settlements or award of counsel fees. A. THE WORK PERFORMED 16. A detailed description of the legal services rendered by Arnold Levin, Michael D. Fishbein, Lewis H. Markowitz, Marc G. Tarlow, and the other attorneys affiliated with them in connection with this action was contained in the records of plaintiffs’ counsel which were admitted in evidence as Exhibits P1-P8 at the hearing held on December 18 and 19,1985. For each attorney referred to, the time records listed the date on which legal services were performed by each attorney, described each such legal service, and set forth the time expended in providing each service. 17. The time records submitted to the Court were compiled from records in which each attorney contemporaneously entered his or her time for the performance of each service. 18. Based on the time records and the testimony presented, the following attorneys reasonably and necessarily performed the following hours of legal service in litigating this action between August 2, 1979 and the date of settlement, August 29, 1985: Arnold Levin 1979-1980 321.00 hours 1981-1982 1030.75 hours 1983 318.75 hours 1984 81.0 hours 1985 234.0 hours TOTAL 1985.50 hours Michael D. Fishbein 1980 870.75 hours 1981-1982 1641.0 hours 1983-1984 1628.35 hours 1985 1370.8 hours TOTAL 5510.9 hours Howard J. Sedran 1983 3.5 hours 1985 32.5 hours TOTAL 36.0 hours David J. Perlman 1985 269.0 hours Josephine B. Stamm 1980 133.75 hours Lewis H. Markowitz 1980-1982 971.3 hours 1983- 1985 284.5 hours TOTAL 1255.8 hours Marc G. Tarlow 1980-1983 2540.4 hours Lawrence Markowitz 1984- 1985 53.65 hours TOTAL 11,785.00 hours 19. Of the total time reflected in the preceding paragraph, the following time was expended in obtaining injunctive relief for the members of the class: Arnold Levin 1979- 1980 321.00 hours 1981-1982 1001.75 hours 1983 318.75 hours 1984 67.5 hours 1985 120,25 hours TOTAL 1829.25 hours Michael D. Fishbein 1980 865.75 hours 1981-1982 1603.50 hours 1983-1984 1578.35 hours 1985 623.0 hours TOTAL 4670.60 hours Howard J. Sedran 1983 3.5 hours David J. Perlman 1985 69.0 hours Josephine B. Stamm 1980 133.75 hours Lewis H. Markowitz 1980- 1982 963.6 hours 1983-1985 98.3 hours TOTAL 1061.9 hours Marc G. Tarlow 2314.4 hours 1980-1983 Lawrence Markowitz 1984-1985 7.95 hours TOTAL 10,090.1 hours 20. Of the total time reflected in the second preceding paragraph, the following time was expended in obtaining damage relief for the members of the class: Arnold Levin 1979-1980 0 hours 1981-1982 29.0 hours 1983 0 hours 1984 13.5 hours 1985 113.75 hours TOTAL 156.25 hours Michael D. Fishbein 1980 5.0 hours 1981-1982 37.50 hours 1983-1984 50.0 hours 1985 747.8 hours TOTAL 840.30 hours Howard J. Sedran 1985 32.5 hours David J. Perlman 1985 200.0 hours Josephine B. Stamm 1980 0 hours Lewis H. Markowitz 1980-1982 7.7 hours 1983-1985 186.2 hours TOTAL 193.9 hours Marc G. Tarlow 1980-1983 226.0 hours Lawrence Markowitz 1984-1985 45.7 hours TOTAL 1,694.9 hours 21. This case has been a major antitrust class action which was managed by the attorneys in an efficient manner. Work was not duplicated. Review of other counsel’s work was kept to a minimum and such review occurred only to the extent necessary to coordinate the efforts of plaintiffs’ counsel in prosecuting the litigation. 22. This case was legally and factually complex. It produced over 800 docket entries in this Court, scores of docket entries in the Court of Appeals, and some work in the Supreme Court. 23. The tasks performed by plaintiffs’ counsel fall into two broad categories — (a) establishing a violation of the antitrust laws and a right to injunctive relief and (b) establishing liability for damages and the amount of damages. The first category has 15 subparts. (A) Establishing a Violation of the Antitrust Laws and a Right to Injunctive Relief 1. The Complaint, Amended Complaint and Rule 12 Motions. 24. The legal and factual research necessary to prepare a Complaint was performed by Mr. Fishbein and the initial Complaint was prepared by Messrs. Levin and Fishbein. The defendants responded to the Complaint by filing a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12. The motion raised issues of importance. Both offices representing Plaintiff participated in the preparation of a response. 25. The Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss which was based on the contentions that there was an implied repeal of the antitrust laws in the health care field, that defendants’ conduct was protected as state action, and that plaintiff lacked standing to assert the claim. However, the initial Complaint was dismissed for lack of particularity in allegations regarding unlawful conspiracy and monopolization with leave to Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint. 26. Mr. Tarlow and Mr. Fishbein undertook the preparation of the Amended Complaint. The defendants once again moved to dismiss the Complaint under Rule 12 Fed.R.Civ.P. Plaintiff’s counsel coordinated the preparation of a response by dividing briefing of the issues between the two offices representing plaintiff. The Court denied defendants’ second Motion to Dismiss. 2. Class Action Issues. 27. A class action motion was prepared and filed by Messrs. Levin and Fishbein and Ms. Stamm. The defendants responded with a challenge to the qualifications, competence and integrity of both plaintiff Weiss and his counsel. In addition, Defendants fought class certification on virtually every basis available to them under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, arguing that numerosity, typicality, commonality, and superiority were absent. A responsive brief was drafted by Messrs. Levin and Fishbein. Pre-trial discovery relevant to the class issues was conducted by plantiffs’ counsel. This included, in part, the deposition of Dr. Bacastow, York Hospital’s Vice President for Medical Affairs, Mr. Paul Reiser, President of the Hospital, and the plaintiff, Malcolm Weiss. The parties prepared for trial of the class action issues, meeting for the pre-pretrial conference, exchanging witness lists, marking exhibits, and preparing Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The class action hearing took place in Williamsport on May 3 and May 4, 1981. Representing plaintiff at that hearing were Messrs. Levin, Fishbein, and Markowitz. On May 28, 1981, the Court certified the action to proceed as a class action primarily for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2). 28. The defendants filed a motion to vacate the Opinion and Order of May 28, 1981 and for reconsideration of plaintiffs’ motion for class determination. In a brief prepared primarily by Mr. Fishbein, plaintiffs opposed that motion and by Order dated July 10, 1981 the defendants’ motion was denied. 29. Trial of the matter was scheduled on the Court’s August, 1981 trial list. On the eve of trial, defendants filed a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition directing the District Court to vacate its Opinion and Order granting class certification. Messrs. Levin and Fishbein prepared a response to that petition. When the Court of Appeals ordered briefing on the petition, Levin and Fishbein participated in the preparation of a joint appendix and a brief in opposition to the petition. By Opinion and Order dated January 8, 1982, the Court of Appeals denied the petition. 30. Thereafter, defendants sought decertification of Plaintiff as a representative of the class. Although the information upon which the motion was based was available to defendants throughout the case, they again waited until the eve of trial, scheduled on the Court’s August, 1982 list, before they filed the motion. While in the midst of preparations for trial, Mr. Fishbein prepared a response to the motion for decertification. The motion was denied. 3. Written Discovery (a) Written Discovery by Plaintiffs 31. Plaintiffs’ counsel prepared and served a comprehensive set of interrogatories and document production requests designed to elicit information essential to the development of the case, particularly regarding the processing of applications by osteopathic physicians for staff privileges, interstate commerce, and the economic aspects of the case. Defendants objected to every interrogatory and request. Plaintiffs’ counsel then prepared a comprehensive motion to overrule the objections and compel responses to the interrogatories and document production requests propounded by plaintiff. After the issues were fully briefed, defendants receded from all of their objections except those relating to information concerning their review of the qualifications of applicants for staff privileges pursuant to Pennsylvania’s peer review statute. The Court ultimately overruled that objection. 32. A subsequent request for production of documents by plaintiffs elicited all minutes of the meetings of the Hospital’s Board of Directors and Medical Staff Committees and all physician files maintained by York Hospital. Plaintiffs’ counsel reviewed thousands of pages of documents resulting from this production request and culled from them information necessary for trial. 33. In response to defendants’ interrogatories, plaintiffs identified the expert they expected to call at trial and provided defendants with a summary of the expert’s anticipated testimony well before the class hearing in May of 1981. Although defendants had retained an expert to testify by the time of the class hearing and although they knew the anticipated substance of his testimony, their answer to the plaintiffs’ expert interrogatory was that they had not yet decided whether they would call an expert to testify at trial. Mr. Tarlow prepared a motion to compel a further response to this interrogatory and the Court denied that motion, ruling that if defendants’ response was truthful, no further response could be compelled because defendants were not required to introduce expert testimony at trial. One year later, on the last day of discovery, defendants purported to identify an expert and described the anticipated substance of his testimony. Because defendants had failed to comply with the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure requiring the seasonable supplementation of responses to expert interrogatories, plaintiffs moved, in limine, to preclude defendants from offering such testimony. That motion was granted in part. (b) Written Discovery by Defendants. 34. During the course of discovery, defendants propounded to Weiss one set of requests for admissions, five sets of interrogatories and three requests for production of documents. Weiss responded to each. On September 14, 1981, defendants filed what they styled an “omnibus motion” which sought to deem the requests admitted, to preclude plaintiff and the class from establishing any damages, and to require Weiss further to respond to defendants’ third set of interrogatories and second request for production of documents. Mr. Tarlow and Mr. Fishbein prepared a brief in opposition. The motion was denied by the Court. Defendants also moved to compel further answers to their fifth set of interrogatories — a motion which was denied by the Court. 4. Depositions. 35. The basic non-economic, factual aspect of defendants’ case was that they did not act to exclude osteopathic physicians from staff privileges at York Hospital after the fall of 1976. In support of this assertion they noted that the Hospital had changed its Charter and the Staff had changed its Bylaws in order to permit osteopathic physicians to attain staff privileges at York Hospital, that Dr. Weiss was the only osteopathic physician to apply for staff privileges at York Hospital ever to be rejected, and that his rejection was based on the nondiscriminatory ground that he was a disruptive and uncooperative physician. In an effort to overcome this presentation, plaintiffs’ counsel took extensive deposition testimony. 36. Although literally scores of people were involved in the relevant decision-making process at York Hospital, plaintiffs’ counsel sought to minimize the burden and expense of discovery by limiting depositions to the key actors. Specifically, plaintiff’s counsel took the depositions set forth below. (a) The deposition of Dr. Merle Bacastow, Vice President for Medical Affairs of the Hospital and a member of the Medical Staff, was taken in five sessions on July 29, 1980, December 3, 1980, December 4, 1980, January 13, 1981, and January 14, 1981. Mr. Fishbein, assisted by Mr. Tarlow, conducted the depositions. For brief periods on two occasions, Mr. Markowitz sat in on the depositions. During the first session of the Bacastow deposition, defendants were represented by three attorneys. (b) On December 5, 1980, Marc Tarlow conducted the deposition of Dr. Ivan Butler. He was assisted for part of that deposition by Mr. Fishbein. Once again, defendants were represented by three counsel at the deposition. (c) On June 10, 1981, Mr. Fishbein, assisted by Mr. Tarlow, conducted the first portion of the deposition of Paul Keiser, President of York Hospital. On June 11, 1981, plaintiffs concluded Mr. Keiser’s deposition in a session conducted solely by Mr. Fishbein. (d) On June 12, 1981, Mr. Tarlow took the deposition of Dr. Lois Kushner, Chairperson of the Medical Executive Committee of the York Hospital. (e) On January 15,1981, Mr. Tarlow took the deposition of Mr. Donn Cohen, the Chairman of the Board of the Hospital. (f) On July 27, 1981, June 29, 1981, June 30, 1981, and July 1, 1981, Mr. Tarlow conducted the depositions of Mr. Shaeffer, Ms. Mange, Ms. Binder, Ms. Ferrara, Dr. Worthwein and Dr. DeMasi. (g) On July 29, 1980, the deposition of Dr. Deisher, Chairman of Judicial Committee of the Hospital, was conducted by Mr. Fishbein, assisted by Mr. Tarlow. (h) On July 21, 1980, a videotape deposition of Dr. Richard DiPietro was conducted by Mr. Levin, assisted by Lewis Markowitz. (i) On July 27,1981, the deposition of Mr. David Jones was conducted by Mr. Tarlow. 37. The only depositions conducted affirmatively by the defendants before the liability phase of the trial were of Dr. Weiss. He was deposed in Philadelphia on October 16, 1980 and in York on June 11, 1981 and July 23, 1981. Dr. Weiss was represented during these deposition sessions by Mr. Fishbein. 5. Witness Interviews. 38. Counsel conducted extensive interviews with potential witnesses during the discovery period. In 1980 and 1981, Lewis Markowitz and Marc Tarlow interviewed 19 witnesses concerning their knowledge of relevant facts. These witnesses were Messrs. Hash, D’Angelo, Surer, Illfelder, Jensen, Lasky, Shemo, Knapp, Klineman, Smith, Krajewski, Laser, Bride, Schrade, Leedy, Steelman, Hostler and Heinle. The information elicited through these interviews was used to prepare for deposition and trial. Many of these witnesses testified for plaintiffs. 6. Expert Testimony and Economic Analysis. 39. One of the principal tasks for plaintiffs in developing liability under both Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act was to prove the relevant product and geographic markets and defendants’ economic power within that market. This task fell largely to Messrs. Markowitz and Tarlow. They obtained all of the essential economic data from the local health planning agency and worked together with plaintiffs’ economists, Drs. Freeh and Pauly, to develop theories of market definition and market power. 7. Summary Judgment. 40. During the summer of 1981, defendants filed a lengthy submission in support of a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. 41. Plaintiffs’ counsel reviewed and summarized all of the discovery in the action, approximately 2,000 pages of material, and prepared a response which laid out plaintiffs’ case. 42. On September 25, 1981, this Court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 8. Pre-trial Settlement Efforts 43. Consistent with their responsibilities to the judicial system and the class, plaintiffs’ counsel expended a great deal of time before the liability phase of the trial in a sincere endeavor to achieve an early and fair settlement of the action. 44. In the spring of 1980, Mr. Tarlow drafted a settlement proposal which was presented by Messrs. Levin and Fishbein to defense counsel. The proposal was ignored. 45. In the fall of 1980, plaintiffs’ counsel worked together to present a modified proposal of settlement which was again ignored by defendants. 46. In the summer of 1981, plaintiffs’ counsel devised yet another settlement proposal which was presented to the Court and defense counsel at a settlement conference. When the Court inquired of defendants' counsel, Mr. Savett, the defendants’ response to the settlement proposal, Mr. Savett said “Your Honor, we think that this case has no settlement value.” 9. Miscellaneous Pre-trial Motins. 47. Defendants made a number of pretrial motions to which plaintiffs were obliged to reply. 48. First, defendants filed a motion contending that they were entitled to trial of the action in Harrisburg as a matter of statutory and constitutional right. Plaintiffs opposed that position. In an opinion affirmed by the Court of Appeals, this Court ruled that defendants had no right to a trial in Harrisburg rather than Williams-port. 49. After plaintiffs designated the witnesses whom they intended to call at the trial of this matter pursuant to the Court’s pre-trial Order No. 2, defendants filed a motion to strike the designation on the grounds that it was overly lengthy. That motion was denied. 50. Concurrently with its Order certifying the action to proceed as a class action, the Court entered an Order allowing the parties an additional two months within which to complete discovery. Plaintiffs sought to take discovery within this two month period and defendants opposed their efforts to do so by filing a motion to bar any further discovery. The thesis of that motion was that the Court was “mistaken” in entering an Order allowing the parties an additional period of time to take discovery. Plaintiffs opposed that motion and it was denied by this Court. 10. Trial. 51. The trial of the liability issue took place before a 12 member jury from Wednesday, August 12, 1982 through September 2, 1982. Messrs. Levin and Fishbein prepared special voir dire questions to be asked by the Court. Mr. Tarlow prepared plaintiffs’ proposed points for charge and trial brief. Mr. Fishbein prepared plaintiffs’ proposed special verdict questions and Messrs. Levin and Fishbein prepared for and conducted the pre-pre-trial conference including preparation of plaintiffs’ list of witnesses, the Clerk’s exhibit listing, and the pertinent statement of undisputed facts. 52. At trial, a two team approach was used. Messrs. Markowitz and Tarlow were assigned the task of preparing for and examining the non-hostile witnesses. These included Dr. Malcolm Weiss, Dr. Charles Hash, Dr. Kieren P. Knapp, Dr. Mark A. Illfelder, Dr. Jacques Surer, Dr. Leon D. Laser, and Dr. Alfred D’Angelo. 53. Messrs. Levin and Fishbein were assigned the task of preparing for and examining the witnesses anticipated to be hostile. These included Mr. Raymond C. Schaeffer, Dr. Merle Baeastow, Dr. Rocco DeMasi, Dr. Kenneth Worthwein, Dr. Ivan L. Butler, Paul L. Keiser, Dr. Lois N. Kushner, Dr. Donald E. Piper, Dr. Stanley Laucks, Dr. Ian MacKenzie, Dr. John P. Whitley, Dr. Harold H. MacDougall, Dr. Jack A. Kline, Dr. Thomas L. Bauer, Dr. Gary W. Ardison, Dr. Samuel W. Deisher. Mr. Tarlow assisted Mr. Levin in preparing for the cross-examination of Drs. DeMasi, Butler, and Kushner as well as Mr. Schaeffer. 54. With respect to the economic testimony to be offered by Plaintiffs, Mr. Markowitz, in conjunction with Mr. Tarlow, prepared for and examined plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. H.E. Freeh, III. 55. Mr. Tarlow spent considerable time preparing the materials necessary to cross-examine Dr. Robert P. Inman, the expert witness proposed to be offered by the defendants, and Mr. Fishbein worked with those materials and cross-examined Dr. In-man. 56. Mr. Levin presented the plaintiffs’ opening statement and closing argument to the jury. 57. Legal argument on defendants’ motions for a directed verdict, the special verdict questions, and the Court’s points for charge was coordinated among all counsel and presented primarily by Mr. Fishbein. 58. After the jury returned its special verdict on liability, the jury was discharged. 59. At the request of defendants, an additional evidentiary hearing was held with respect to the question of the entry of injunctive relief under Section 16 of the Clayton Act. Plaintiffs presented no additional evidence at that hearing and it lasted less than a day. 60. Levin and Fishbein prepared and submitted to the Court a memorandum of law arguing that the jury’s verdict required that the Court enter a judgment finding that York Hospital and the Medical and Dental Staff of York Hospital had violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act as to both plaintiff and the plaintiff class and were liable to them for both damages under Section 4 of the Clayton Act and injunctive relief under Section 16 of the Clayton Act. Messrs. Markowitz and Tarlow prepared a suggested form of injunction which was presented to the Court shortly before the hearing on the entry of injunctive relief. 61. On September 30, 1982, this Court found that the York Hospital and the Medical and Dental Staff of York Hospital had violated the antitrust laws in connection with their foreclosure of osteopathic physicians from staff privileges at York Hospital. The Court determined that these defendants were liable to the plaintiff and the plaintiff class for damages under Section 4 of the Clayton Act and entered an injunction against the Hospital and the Medical Staff under Section 16 of the Clayton Act. 11. Post Trial Proceedings in the District Court. 62. On October 9, 1982, defendants appealed from the final injunction entered by the District Court. They sought a stay of the injunction pending the outcome of the appeal. Plaintiffs’ counsel prepared a response to the motion for stay and the Court denied the stay. 63. The Defendants also moved on October 12, 1982 under Rule 50(b) for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. This motion was denied on November 22, 1982. 64. On October 12,1982, the defendants moved that this Court certify the judgment on special verdict which it entered on September 30,1982 as final pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.54(b). Plaintiffs vigorously opposed this motion in a memorandum prepared by Messrs. Levin and Fishbein which was filed on October 27, 1982. 65. Defendants appealed from the “Order and Final Judgment entered 11/18/82 and Order entered 11/22/82 denying these defendants’ Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict or for a New Trial and all other Orders, Rulings, and Judgments of the Court.” Plaintiffs filed a cross appeal on December 13, 1982. 66. Defendants filed a Bill of Costs in this Court seeking to tax costs against plaintiffs on the theory that the Defendants were the prevailing parties. Mr. Fishbein prepared objections to the Bill of Costs and a Memorandum in support of those objections arguing that the taxation of costs against Plaintiffs who were the prevailing party was inappropriate. The Clerk of Court entered an Opinion declining to tax costs against plaintiffs. Defendants appealed that Order to this Court. Mr. Fishbein prepared a brief in opposition to Defendants’ appeal arguing that plaintiffs were the prevailing party and that, therefore, costs should not be taxed on them. 67. In an Opinion and Order entered March 21, 1983, this Court declined to tax costs against plaintiffs. 12. Post-Trial Contempt Proceedings in ’ the District Court 68. Shortly after this Court entered its injunction requiring defendants to afford plaintiff and the plaintiff class full, fair, reasonable and equal access to staff privileges at York Hospital, Weiss obtained an application for privileges at the Hospital. In connection therewith the defendants insisted that Weiss sign an instrument releasing defendants from liability as a condition to consideration of his application. 69. Weiss contended that this insistence was a contempt of the Court’s September 30, 1982 injunction and requested that defendants desist from requiring him to execute the release. 70. After Weiss’s request went ignored, he filed a motion for the entry of civil contempt sanctions against defendants. That motion was prepared by Levin and Fishbein with the assistance of Mr. Markowitz and Mr. Tarlow. 71. In connection with that motion, Mr. Fishbein took the deposition of Mr. Keiser and Dr. Bacastow. Defendants took the deposition of Dr. Hash. Representing Dr. Weiss at that deposition was Mr. Markowitz. 72. Counsel prepared for trial of the contempt motion by reviewing the pretrial depositions, the relevant documents, by drafting Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, by preparing and exchanging witness and exhibit lists, and by drafting the necessary briefs. 73. Weiss presented his case-in-chief on the contempt motion on February 11, 1983. Trial was set to resume on February 25, 1983. On the evening of February 24, 1983, counsel reached an oral settlement. Further work by all of plaintiff’s counsel resulted in a written settlement agreement. The agreement provided for the entry of an injunction against defendants prohibiting them from seeking through the release any immunity from liability to the class in connection with applications for privileges greater than that provided in the usual case by Pennsylvania law. 74. Mr. Fishbein prepared a motion to approve the settlement which, after notice to the class, was presented at the hearing and approved. In the settlement agreement, defendants specifically agreed that if the entry of the Court’s September 30,1982 injunction were affirmed, they would pay a reasonable counsel fee for the work performed in connection with the litigation of the contempt motion. 13. Proceedings in the Court of Appeals. 75. Defendants sought and obtained plaintiffs’ consent to have their October 29, 1982 and December 9, 1982 appeals and plaintiffs’ cross appeal consolidated before the Court of Appeals. Then, defendants filed a Motion for Consolidation in which they added a request that Weiss be designated as appellant for purposes of bearing the initial cost of preparing and filing the appendix on Appeal — a request to which plaintiffs had not consented. By designating the motion a “consent motion” defendants made it appear as though plaintiffs had given such consent. Mr. Levin, by letter and then by brief, promptly brought this maneuver to the attention of the Court of Appeals. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals entered an Order consolidating the appeals and designating defendants as appellants for purposes of briefing and preparing the appendix on appeal. 76. When the appeal was docketed in March of 1983, the parties set about the task of designating the contents of the appendix on appeal. The defendants represented that they wished to present the propriety of the District Court’s interlocutory order denying summary judgment as an issue before the Court of Appeals. Because of this, all of the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and affidavits on file at the time the summary judgment motion was adjudicated were required to be included in the appendix, in addition to the trial transcript and exhibits. This virtually doubled the size of the appendix with which plaintiffs’ counsel were required to be conversant in order to present their position effectively in the Court of Appeals. 77. The appendix ultimately filed was eight volumes, printed on both sides and consisting of 6,360 pages. Both Mr. Tar-low and Mr. Pishbein read, indexed and outlined the entire appendix so as properly to present plaintiffs’ position to the Court of Appeals. 78. One business day before defendants were to file their brief on appeal, they filed a motion requesting that the Court of Appeals extend the page limitation applicable to their brief from 50 to 85 pages. As a courtesy to defendants, plaintiffs expedited their response to the motion. In a pleading prepared by Messrs. Levin and Pishbein, plaintiffs argued that the request was untimely and inappropriate. The Clerk of the Court expedited her consideration of the defendants’ request and entered an Order allowing defendants to file a 65 page brief on appeal. 79. Defendants then filed two separate briefs totalling 96 pages. Each brief incorporated by reference the text of the other. 80. Plaintiffs’ counsel was preparing a motion to strike the briefs when the Clerk declined to accept the briefs for filing. The defendants then filed a motion, in the nature of a mandamus petition, requesting an order from the Court of Appeals overruling the Clerk’s decision not to accept their two briefs for filing and compelling her to do so. Plaintiffs’ counsel prepared a detailed response to that motion and in support of a cross motion that defendants’ appeal be dismissed for non-compliance with the Court’s orders and rules. 81. In May of 1983, Defendants’ motion was denied. However, they were given leave to file a “complying brief” within 30 days. 82. On June 30,1983, defendants finally filed their brief and appendix on appeal. 83. In the brief on appeal, defendants raised more than twenty-five separate issues, including the following: (a) Whether the district court’s decision to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2) was an abuse of discretion or legally erroneous; (b) Whether the District Court erred in ruling that a demand for staff privileges was not an essential element of a discrimination claim under the Sherman Act; (c) Whether the conclusion that the Staff alone conspired in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act could be justified on the record, given the District Court’s charge that the Staff was a “division of the Hospital” and incapable of conspiracy, a charge which defendants asserted was correct; (d) Whether there was evidence to support the jury’s conclusion regarding the relevant product market; (e) Whether there was evidence to support the conclusion that York Hospital had monopoly power within the relevant product and geographic market; (f) Whether plaintiff Weiss and the plaintiff class failed to establish “antitrust jurisdiction” where there was no evidence that the alleged violations affected the interstate commerce of the plaintiff or any class member; (g) Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment; (h) Whether plaintiff Weiss and the plaintiff class had an adequate remedy at law which precluded the issuance of an injunction; (i) Whether the injunction on its face was “vague, contradictory, and in patent violation of state law”; (j) Whether the District Court abused its discretion in failing to conduct the trial in Hari’isburg; and (k) Whether there was evidence that York Hospital abused its monopoly position. 84. Under the Court of Appeals’ rules pertaining to cross appeal, plaintiffs’ brief was required to be responsive to the arguments raised in defendants’ opening brief and was required to address, as well, the issues raised by plaintiffs’ cross appeal. The only issues raised by plaintiffs’ cross appeal were: (a) Whether the District Court correctly instructed the jury that the Medical Staff was an unincorporated division of the Hospital and incapable of conspiracy or whether it should be regarded as an illegal conspiracy as a matter of law; and (b) Whether Dr. Weiss was entitled to the benefit of the finding in favor of the class that the Medical and Dental Staff of York Hospital had violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. 85. The work on the brief for the appellees-cross appellants was divided between the two offices representing plaintiffs. Levin and Fishbein prepared the statement of subject matter jurisdiction, the statement of the issues presented for review, the counterstatement of the case, the argument on the class issue, the demand and refusal issue, the Section 1 conspiracy issue, and the issues regarding the propriety of injunctive relief. Their office also coordinated the final preparation of the brief and engaged in a substantial editorial process. Messrs. Markowitz and Tarlow prepared those portions of the argument dealing with the issues under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, the nexus with interstate commerce, the propriety of summary judgment, the damages issues and the place of trial issue. Mr. Tarlow also conducted a significant amount of research on some of the class issues. 86. Defendants filed a 50 page “reply brief” in which they claimed that plaintiffs, in their principal brief, made “... numerous material factual misstatements and facts which are not based on the record.” In addition, the reply brief raised three distinct issues not raised in defendants’ original brief on appeal. 87. In the cross reply brief which Plaintiffs were permitted to file as cross appellants, plaintiffs expended one-third of the alloted pages to correct defendants’ representations concerning the contents of the record. Another third of the cross reply brief was devoted to addressing the new issues relevant to defendants’ appeal which were not raised until defendants filed their reply brief. The balance of plaintiffs’ cross reply brief was devoted to a discussion of the issues which both parties had raised under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. 88. Defendants then moved to strike the plaintiffs’ reply brief or dismiss plaintiffs’ cross appeal. Mr. Fishbein prepared the response to that motion. The Motion to Strike was denied, de facto, when the Court failed to rule on it and accepted Plaintiff’s reply brief. 89. Oral argument took place on November 15, 1983. Mr. Fishbein presented argument on behalf of the Plaintiffs. At the conclusion of argument, the Court requested that the parties file supplemental letter briefs addressed to its jurisdiction to hear those issues brought to the Appellate Court by the Rule 54(b) certification. Such a brief was prepared by Messrs. Levin and Fishbein and filed with the Court. 90. On September 27,1984, the Court of Appeals entered its Opinion indicating that it agreed with every argument made by plaintiffs and rejected every argument made by defendants on both the defendants’ appeals and plaintiffs’ cross appeal, with one exception. The Court of Appeals found that since the Hospital did not compete with the plaintiffs’ physicians, it could not be found to have abused its monopoly power in its conduct towards them. 91. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals determined that it had no jurisdiction over the defendants’ December 9, 1982 appeal, affirmed the District Court’s certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(2), affirmed a finding of liability on the part of the York Hospital Medical and Dental Staff under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, determined that Weiss was entitled to the same finding of liability under Section 1 of the Sherman Act as the class, reversed the finding of liability on the part of York Hospital under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and affirmed the propriety of injunctive relief under Section 16 of the Clayton Act. 92. Defendants then filed a motion for a rehearing or for a hearing by the Court en banc suggesting that the panel’s September 28 decision contravened other decisions of the Circuit and those of the Supreme Court. 93. As a matter of strategy, plaintiffs’ counsel prepared and filed a “conditional” cross motion requesting rehearing or rehearing en banc in the event that defendants obtained an order granting a rehearing. Defendants’ motion was denied on the merits and plaintiffs’ motion was denied as moot. 94. Thereafter, Defendants filed a motion to stay the mandate pending their application for a writ of certiorari. Plaintiffs’ counsel prepared papers opposing the motion. Alternatively, plaintiffs requested that defendants be required to post a bond as a condition to a stay on the ground that they were taking steps to jeopardize the collectibility of any judgment which might be obtained by plaintiffs on remand to the District Court. After protracted consideration of the issues, a stay of the mandate pending application for a writ of certiorari was issued. 95. Defendants then sought to obtain a stay of this Court’s September 30, 1982 injunction pending application for a writ of certiorari. That motion was granted by the Court of Appeals before plaintiffs had the opportunity to prepare a response. Messrs. Levin and Fishbein prepared a motion for reconsideration of the Court's entry of the stay which was denied by the Court of Appeals. 14. The Petitions for Certiorari. 96. On January 18, 1985, in anticipation of defendants filing a petition for certiorari, Plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. The petition which was prepared by Messrs. Levin and Fishbein questioned the propriety of the Court of Appeals’ ruling that a monopolist must compete with those excluded from a market in order to violate section 2 of the Sherman Act. 97. Several days later, defendants filed their petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court. The petition questioned: (a) the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the Medical and Dental Staff of York Hospital was a conspiracy as a matter of law; (b) the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the conduct of the Medical Staff was a per se restraint of trade, and (c) the propriety of the standard used by the Court of Appeals and this Court to assess the existence of interstate commerce. In addition, it raised broad policy arguments in support of the appropriateness of Supreme Court review of medical staff privilege-antitrust cases. 98. Plaintiffs’ counsel, Messrs. Levin and Fishbein, prepared a brief in opposition to the petition. In addition, Mr. Fishbein prepared and filed a brief in reply to the answer of defendants to plaintiffs’ petition for certiorari. 99. The Supreme Court considered the two petitions for certiorari on a consolidated basis and on March 18,1985 denied both petitions. 15. Post Appeal Application-to Modify the Injunction. 100. Following remand to the district court, the defendants moved to modify the court’s September 30, 1982 injunction to eliminate York Hospital as a primarily enjoined party and to permit them to engage in certain specified behavior which might have an adverse impact on the class. Plaintiffs’ counsel prepared a detailed and comprehensive response to the motion. Defendants’ reply brief raised a new issue concerning whether Plaintiffs had waived their right to seek to hold York Hospital liable for injunctive relief under Section 16 of the Clayton Act. Accordingly, plaintiffs sought and were granted leave of court to file a sur reply brief on the issue. On July 25, 1985, the Court entered an order substantially denying defendants’ motion for modification of the injunction. (b) Establishing Liability for Damages and the Amount of those Damages. 101. Plaintiffs’ initial theory of damages depended on a statistical comparison of the income earned by physicians with staff privileges at York Hospital and the incomes of the class members claiming damages. 102. In order to obtain information to form a data base for this statistical comparison, plaintiffs sought to take the depositions of 104 physicians with staff privileges at York Hospital. 103. On July 14, 1980, these physicians moved for a Protective Order precluding such depositions. Plaintiffs’ counsel prepared a comprehensive response to the motion on an expedited basis. On July 21, 1981, the motion was granted in part and denied in part. The district court directed the physicians to supply the needed information in the form of affidavits which would remain protected from disclosure to anyone but the economists employed by plaintiffs’ counsel. 104. The physicians then filed a petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for a writ of mandamus or prohibition seeking to preclude the district court from enforcing its discovery order. They also sought a stay of the effectiveness of the district court’s discovery order pending final action on the petition for mandamus by the Court of Appeals. Mr. Tarlow prepared a response to the petition and the application for a stay. The Court of Appeals entered the stay and ordered the parties to file briefs on the mandamus issue. Mr. Tarlow prepared the brief on the discovery issue. The matter was argued before the Court of Appeals by Mr. Fishbein in December of 1981. In January of 1982, the Court of Appeals entered its Opinion on the mandamus issue. The Court of Appeals refused to issue the writ sought by the petitioning physicians, but continued the stay on the July 21, 1981 discovery order pending the outcome of the liability phase of the trial. 105. After the Court of Appeals entered its Opinion with respect to the liability issues in September, 1984, plaintiffs’ counsel prepared and filed a motion to vacate the Court of Appeals’ stay of the district court’s July 21, 1981 discovery order. The Court of Appeals declined to rule on the motion because the defendants intended to seek Supreme Court review of the liability issues by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari. 106. After defendants’ petition for a writ of certiorari was denied in March of 1985, the Court of Appeals issued its mandate remanding the case to the district court for trial of the damages claims of the class members. At that time, defendants moved the district court to certify its July, 1981 discovery order as appealable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Because such an appeal would have delayed by at least another six months the adjudication of damages claims which had been outstanding for five years, plaintiffs’ counsel opposed § 1292(b) certification. The district court denied defendants’ motion for certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). 107. Plaintiffs’ counsel then set out to quantify the damages sustained by the class members. In order to do this, they worked closely with economists retained by them, Dr. H.E. Freeh, III, and Dr. Stephen DeCanio. A two-pronged theory of damages emerged. The first was peculiar to Dr. Weiss and sought to measure the degree to which the volume of his patient business decreased following defendants’ denial of hospital staff privileges to him and the value of that decrease. In order to flesh out this theory of damages, it was necessary to obtain and analyze virtually all of Dr. Weiss’s patient records for his 13 years of practice amounting to over 5,000 pages. 108. The second aspect of plaintiffs’ damage theory related to the claims of the class members other than Dr. Weiss. It predicated damages based on an economic prediction of the amount of hospital patient business class members would have realized had they had staff privileges at York Hospital and the economic significance of such surplus hospital utilization. In order to buttress this theory of damages, it was necessary for plaintiffs’ counsel to develop an accurate economic picture of the entire hospital health care market. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ counsel undertook to obtain detailed market data from the Pennsylvania Department of Health, the local health systems agency, journal articles and the like. These requests for information produced tens of thousands of pages of market data which were required to be collated and analyzed. 109. In addition, plaintiffs’ counsel prepared and served detailed requests for production of documents and interrogatories relating to the damages issues. In response to these interrogatories and document production requests, defendants produced tens of thousands of documents which were reviewed by plaintiffs’ counsel, collated and analyzed. 110. To defend the damages claims, defendants employed eight attorneys and a team of outside accountants, economists and nurses who worked on the defense of the litigation on an almost full time basis between May and July of 1985. 111. During this period, the defendants served interrogatories and document production requests seeking virtually all financial and professional information relating to the claimants’ practices since 1976. Plaintiffs’ counsel were required to respond on behalf of all claimants to these interrogatories and engaged in the production of thousands of pages of documents on behalf of the claimants and Weiss both by mail and at in office sessions. 112. In addition, plaintiffs’ counsel successfully resisted defendants’ motion for leave to conduct ex parte communications with class members concerning damages and successfully prosecuted two motions for protective orders — one with regard to the deposition of Dr. Weiss and one with regard to the scheduling of depositions during the last two weeks of the pretrial discovery period. 113. During the discovery period, defendants sought to obtain documents through depositions of the following institutions: Waynesboro Hospital, Chambers-burg Hospital, Carlisle Hospital, Harrisburg Hospital, Polyclinic Hospital, Community General Hospital, the Public Welfare Department, Blue Shield, Rehabilitation Hospital, Good Samaritan Hospital, Lebanon Valley Hospital, Memorial Hospital, Lancaster General Hospital, St. Joseph’s Hospital, Hanover Hospital, Aetna Life Insurance, Cigna Company, Equitable Life Insurance, Prudential Life Insurance and Metropolitan Life Insurance. 114. Although most of these depositions did not go forward, many of the deponents produced thousands of pages of documents which had to be collated and analyzed on an expedited basis so that Plaintiffs would be ready for trial. 115. During the last month of the discovery period, defendants took the following depositions which were attended by Mr. Markowitz on behalf of the plaintiffs: Dr. Saponaro, Dr. Ruberg, Dr. McCormick, Dr. DeHart, Dr. Jensen, Dr. Henderson, Dr. Dowd, Dr. Myers and Dr. Brimfield. 116. In July of 1985, defendants deposed Dr. Weiss for four full days concerning his damages claims. Mr. Fishbein was present at that deposition representing Dr. Weiss. 117. In addition, at the deposition of Dr. Michael Zittle convened by defendants on July 25, 1985, Mr. Fishbein conducted a lengthy cross-examination which revealed information critical to the case. 118. Plaintiffs’ counsel also accomplished other tasks necessary to prepare for the damages trial including legal research, the preparation of a trial brief, the preparation of proposed points for charge, the preparation of special verdict questions and the like. 119. Finally, plaintiffs’ counsel spent many hours in negotiations with the defendants to reach a settlement and spent scores of hours thereafter working with the defendants’ counsel on drafting settlement agreements. B. THE RELEVANT HOURLY RATES 1. LEVIN AND FISHBEIN 120. In an Opinion dated March 11, 1982, which was entered by this Court in the case of Holmes v. Penn Security Bank and Trust Company, Civil Action No. 80-0747, the Court found the following facts with regard to the professional background of Arnold Levin and Michael D. Fishbein: “Arnold Levin, Esquire, one of the partners assigned to this matter was graduated from Temple University, B.S. 1961, with Honors and Temple Law School, LLB 1964. He was Articles Editor of the Temple Law Quarterly. He is a member of the bars of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the Third, Fourth and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. He has appered pro hac vice in various federal and state courts throughout the United States. He has lectured on class action and antitrust litigation for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute, the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association, the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, the Philadelphia Bar Association, and at the Belli Seminars. Mr. Levin is a past Chairman, of the Commercial Litigation Section of the Association of Trial Laywers of America, and is co-chairman of the Antitrust Section of the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association. He is a member of the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Consultation, Class Action Section. He is also a fellow of the Roscoe Pound Foundation and current Vice-Chairman of the Maritime Insurance Law Committee of the American Bar Association. He enjoys an “av” rating in Martindale-Hubbell. Michael D. Fishbein is a graduate of Brown University (B.A. 1974). He graduated from Villanova University Law School with Honors, receiving a degree of Juris Doctor in 1977. Mr. Fishbein was a member of the Villanova Law Review and is a member of the Villanova University Law School Chapter of the Order of the Coif. He is admitted to practice before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Fishbein has been extensively involved in the prose