by a junior associate. Although a court must exclude hours that reflect “the wasteful use of highly skilled and highly priced talent for matters easily delegable to non-professionals or less experienced associates,” delegation is neither always possible in a small firm nor always desirable. Ursic v. Bethlehem Mines, 719 F.2d 670, 677 (3d Cir.1983) (emphasis added). First, a duty to delegate presupposes that the attorneys charging maximum rates readily have junior associates and supporting paralegals at their disposal. See Poston v. Fox, 577 F.Supp. 915, 919-20 (D.N.J.1984) (finding that it is not always possible to delegate in small office); see also Roldan v. Phila. Hous. Auth., Civ. A. No. 95-6649, 1999 WL 1167658, at *5, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19093, at *14-15 (E.D.Pa. Dec.7, 1999) (<HOLDING>). Although Plaintiff was represented by
holding that reduction in rates is unwarranted in office that is understaffed and where no less experienced attorney was available to perform tasks recognizing that a prosecutors office is an entity and that information in the possession of one attorney in the office must be attributed to the office as a whole holding there is no constitutional right to an attorney much less an effective attorney in state postconviction proceedings holding that when a judicial office is created by legislative act or municipal ordinance  the office is regarded as a de facto office until the act or ordinance is declared invalid holding that an outofstate attorney paying rent for a desk in an attorneys instate office had satisfied the office requirement