performed by lead counsel. Charging maximum rates for tasks that can be performed effectively by supporting staff or associates is not permissible. See Loughner, 260 F.3d at 180; Ursic v. Bethlehem Min aration, his firm is a small firm that, during the majority of the case, only had one associate. (Surkin Supplemental Dec. at ¶ 3.) Additionally, Mr. Sur-kin attested that at the time of this case, his firm had five or six partners that, in essence, had their own practices. (Id.) For each of the tasks that Defendant contests, Plaintiff explains, in detail, the reasons that these tasks were not easily dele-gable and constituted legal services that required his attention. (Plaintiffs Reply Memorandum ("Pl.Reply") at 4-7), see also Roldan, 1999 WL 1167658, *5, 1999 U.S. LEXIS 19063, at *14 (<HOLDING>). Alternatively, when looking at the entries
holding that because restitution hearings are a part of sentencing and have nothing to do with a defendants guilt or innocence the rules of evidence do not apply holding essentially leaal tasks do not reouire deleaation holding that seamen do not have a remedy of punitive damages for personal injuries but nonseamen do holding that a court cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly holding damages do not constitute other equitable relief