several of Plaintiffs fees on the ground that certain tasks could have been accomplished more cost effectiv from three different law firms, attorneys in small firms often have limited access to junior associates. (Pl.’s Mot. for Att’ys’ Fees & Costs App. 1, Ex. D) (indicating that Francis & Mailman, P.C. consists of two founding partners and two associates in addition to a support staff of paralegals and legal secretaries). Given the number of junior attorneys available to work on this litigation, this Court does not find Plaintiffs attorneys’ non-delegation of responsibilities unreasonable. Furthermore, it is reasonable for lead trial counsel to desire to expend his or her own time on some activities that, although within the competency of less hi sp., 49 F.3d 939, 942 (3d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs offer no explanation for why Sears
holding that while an informants veracity is highly relevant to the existence of probable cause it is only one part of the larger commonsense determination holding that bia error is harmless when it is highly probable that error did not affect cases outcome holding that police officers are not members of highly regulated industry holding that an error is harmless where it is highly probably that the error did not affect the outcome of the case holding that it is not appropriate to allow the wasteful use of highly skilled and highly priced talent for matters easily delegable to nonprofessionals