A.L. v. Kijakazi
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:21-cv-06624
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In A.L. v. Dudek, Judge DeMarchi granted counsel’s fee motion, awarding $37,844 under a Social Security fee provision and requiring a $9,000 Equal Access to Justice Act refund.
A.L. receives the benefit of the required $9,000 refund, while A.L.’s counsel, Katherine Siegfried, receives the $37,844 fee award.
What happened
In A.L. v. Leland Dudek, A.L. challenged an unfavorable Social Security decision. The parties agreed to send the case back to the agency, and the court entered judgment for A.L. After the agency later awarded A.L. $184,176 in past-due benefits, A.L.’s lawyer, Katherine Siegfried, sought an additional fee award.
Siegfried asked for $37,844 under a law allowing courts to award reasonable fees in successful Social Security appeals. Her agreement with A.L. allowed a fee of up to 25% of past-due benefits. Siegfried said she would return the previously awarded $9,000 Equal Access to Justice Act fee to A.L. A.L. did not object, and the Commissioner took no position.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granted the motion and awarded Siegfried $37,844. The court found the fee reasonable because it was below the 25% limit, Siegfried obtained a favorable result, and the record showed no poor performance or delay intended to increase the fee. Siegfried must refund the $9,000 previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act to A.L.
The detailed version
- A.L. v. Kijakazi · No. 5:21-cv-06624
- Virginia Demarchi
- May 5, 2025
Background
A.L. brought the action to review an unfavorable decision by the Commissioner of Social Security. The parties later stipulated—that is, jointly agreed—to a remand, and the court remanded the matter and entered judgment for A.L. The court then approved a $9,000 attorneys’ fee award to A.L.’s counsel, Katherine Siegfried, under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
After the remand, in March 2025, the Commissioner issued a favorable decision awarding A.L. $184,176 in past-due benefits. Siegfried moved for fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), relying on a contingency-fee agreement under which A.L. agreed that fees for appellate work could be up to 25% of past-due benefits. Siegfried requested $37,844 and stated that she would refund the earlier $9,000 EAJA award to A.L., resulting in a net fee amount of $28,844 after the refund.
Siegfried stated that she served A.L. with the motion and supporting declaration by electronic delivery and mail. She also submitted A.L.’s declaration supporting the motion. A.L. filed no objection, and the Commissioner took no position. The court decided the motion without oral argument.
Legal standard
Section 406(b) permits a court to award a reasonable fee to an attorney who represented a claimant in obtaining a favorable judgment, subject to a limit of 25% of the claimant’s past-due benefits. The statute does not replace lawful contingency-fee agreements. Instead, the court reviews those agreements independently to determine whether the requested fee is reasonable in the particular case.
The court evaluates the character of the representation and the result achieved. A fee may be reduced if the attorney provided substandard representation, delayed the case to increase the past-due benefits, or requested a fee that is large compared with the time spent. Hourly records and ordinary billing rates may assist the court’s review, but a lodestar calculation—the product of hours worked and a standard hourly rate—does not control the § 406(b) analysis.
When an attorney receives both an EAJA award and a § 406(b) award for the same representation, the attorney must refund the smaller fee to the claimant.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Siegfried’s requested fee was reasonable. The contingency-fee agreement complied with the 25% statutory limit, and the requested amount was less than 25% of A.L.’s past-due benefits. Siegfried successfully pursued A.L.’s appeal and obtained a favorable result that led to substantial past-due benefits.
The record contained no indication that Siegfried’s performance was substandard or that she delayed the case to increase the fee. The court reviewed her time records, which showed 43.9 hours of work, as an aid in evaluating the request. The court also recognized that Siegfried had accepted the risk of receiving no fee while representing A.L. on a contingency basis beginning in June 2021.
Disposition
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granted Siegfried’s motion for fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The court awarded Siegfried $37,844 and ordered her to refund the previously awarded $9,000 EAJA fee to A.L.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.