Duane P. v. Saul

Background

Duane P. applied for Social Security disability benefits on September 25, 2015. The application was denied, and the agency decision became final on July 23, 2019. Duane P. retained attorney Christopher James Bowes to challenge that decision in federal court.

The parties later stipulated to a remand for further administrative proceedings, and the court approved the remand on July 28, 2020. The court awarded Bowes $3,397.15 in attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) on January 4, 2021.

After the remand, Bowes continued representing Duane P. at several hearings before an Administrative Law Judge. The judge found Duane P. disabled as of January 1, 2017. On April 5, 2025, the Social Security Administration issued a notice stating that Duane P. was entitled to $131,983 in past-due benefits. The agency withheld $32,995.75, or 25% of those benefits, for a possible attorney-fee award.

Fee request and legal standard

Bowes sought $32,995.75 under Section 206(b) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), based on the retainer agreement’s provision allowing a fee equal to 25% of past-due benefits if the case resulted in a remand and an award of benefits. The motion also asked the court to direct payment of a reduced “net fee” of $29,598.60 after subtracting the $3,397.15 EAJA award.

The Commissioner did not object to the motion but asked the court to evaluate the reasonableness of the full Section 406(b) amount. The court explained that a Section 406(b) motion must ordinarily be filed within 14 days after the claimant receives the Social Security Administration’s notice of award. The court also reviews whether the requested fee is reasonable, including whether it is within the 25% limit, whether the agreement resulted from fraud or overreaching, and whether the fee would be an improper windfall compared with the work performed.

Court’s analysis

The court found the motion timely because Bowes received the notice of award on April 8, 2025, and the motion was filed on April 21, 2025, 13 days later.

The requested amount was exactly 25% of the past-due benefits, and the record did not suggest fraud or overreaching. The court therefore focused on whether the amount would be an improper windfall. Bowes reported spending 17.1 hours evaluating the case, bringing the federal action, reviewing the 1,263-page administrative record, and preparing a settlement letter. The work led to a stipulation remanding the case without further motion practice.

The requested fee implied a rate of $1,929.58 per hour based on the reported time. The court explained that a standard hourly-rate calculation does not control Section 406(b) awards. It considered Bowes’s experience in Social Security litigation, his continued representation of Duane P. after remand, the resulting award of past-due benefits, and the uncertainty inherent in contingency-fee work. The court concluded that the requested amount was not an improper windfall.

EAJA-fee refund

The court rejected the request for a reduced “net” Section 406(b) payment. It explained that Section 406(b) fees are paid from the claimant’s past-due benefits, while EAJA fees are paid by the government to the claimant. When both types of fees are awarded for the same representation, the attorney must refund the smaller fee to the claimant. The court therefore approved the full Section 406(b) award and required Bowes, rather than the Commissioner, to refund the EAJA amount to Duane P.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the motion to the extent that Bowes was awarded $32,995.75 in attorney fees, payable from Duane P.’s past-due benefits and the amount retained by the Commissioner. Bowes was directed, upon receiving the Section 406(b) award, to refund $3,397.15 in previously awarded EAJA fees to Duane P. The Clerk was directed to close the motion.