8 Respondent filed a response to Petitioners’ motion on January 25, 2018, arguing that Petitioners’ fee request was excessive and unreasonable. Def.’s Resp. in Opp. To Pls.’ Supp. Mot. for Att. Fees and Costs and Incorp. Br., Pulaski Cty., Ark. Cir. Ct., No. 60CV-15-3153 (Jan. 25, 2016). As in his response to Petitioners’ first fee motion in the trial court, Respondent took issue with Petitioners’ counsel’s billing practices, including, for instance, Petitioners’ counsel’s billing over twelve hours ($3,600 at her requested rate) for completing her own timesheets. See id. at 2. On February 16, 2018, the trial court entered an order partially granting Petitioners’ motion for attorney’s fees. The trial court noted that “[b]oth [Petitioners’] original Motion and Supplemental Motion, together with the supporting documentation, can be fairly characterized as reflecting inferior craftsmanship. If the two motions were analyzed on a classic grading scale, they would receive a C- or a D+.” Supp. App. 21. “The actions of [Petitioners’] counsel indicate that she is totally unfamiliar with the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Appellate Procedure relating to procedural matters involving the award of attorney’s fees and costs.” Supp. App. 21. The trial court went on to explain that “counsel for [Petitioners] has made a number of procedural errors concerning the award of attorney’s fees and costs.” Supp. App. 24. As a result, that court explained, Petitioners “are now ineligible to request the large amount of attorney’s fees and costs that were legitimately incurred while this case was on appeal. . . .” Supp. App.