719 F.2d 670, 677 (3d Cir.1983) ("[R]outine tasks, if performed by senior partners in large firms, should not be billed at their usual rates."). A court must to 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". Ursic, 719 F.2d at 677 (emphasis added). This proposition, however, presupposes that the attorneys charging maximum rates readily have junior associates and supporting paralegals at his or her 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, *4, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19093, at *14_15 (E.D.Pa.1999) (<HOLDING>). As Mr. Surkin detailed in his supplemental
holding that an outofstate attorney paying rent for a desk in an attorneys instate office had satisfied the office requirement 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 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 reduction in rates is unwarranted in office that is understaffed and no less experienced attorney was available to perform tasks holding there is no constitutional right to an attorney much less an effective attorney in state postconviction proceedings