Khlopoff v. Saul
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:18-cv-03149
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Khlopoff v. Saul: Judge Hixson granted counsel’s request for $12,300 in Social Security fees and required refund of $6,700 previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Alexey Mstislav Khlopoff, his attorney and the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, and the Commissioner of Social Security were affected. The attorney received approval for $12,300 in section 406(b) fees but had to refund Khlopoff the $6,700 EAJA award.
What happened
In Khlopoff v. Saul, the court had previously sent Alexey Mstislav Khlopoff’s disability-benefits case back for further proceedings, and the Commissioner later awarded him $73,209 in past-due benefits. Khlopoff’s attorney, Young Cho, then requested $12,300 in fees.
The court found the request reasonable. It was below the 25% limit in Khlopoff’s fee agreement, and the court found no evidence of poor representation. The court also considered the benefits obtained, the time spent, the attorney’s risk in taking the case, and fee rates in similar cases.
Judge Hixson granted the fee motion and directed the Commissioner to certify $12,300 payable to the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing. Cho was ordered to refund Khlopoff the $6,700 previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
The detailed version
- Khlopoff v. Saul · No. 3:18-cv-03149
- Thomas Hixson
- Dec. 1, 2020
Background
The Commissioner of Social Security denied Khlopoff’s application for disability insurance benefits. Khlopoff sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On August 12, 2019, the court granted Khlopoff’s motion for summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court later approved a stipulated award of $6,700 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), a law that allows certain fee awards paid by the government.
On remand, the Commissioner granted Khlopoff’s application and awarded him $73,209 in retroactive benefits. Khlopoff’s contingent-fee agreement provided for a fee of up to 25% of his past-due benefits, or $18,302.25. His attorney, Young Cho of the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, requested $12,300 under section 206(b) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The Commissioner stated that he was not a party to the fee agreement and was not in a position to agree or object to the requested fees.
Reasoning
Under section 406(b), a court may award a claimant’s attorney a reasonable fee for court representation, subject to a limit of 25% of the claimant’s past-due benefits. The court must independently review a contingent-fee agreement to ensure that it produces a reasonable result. Factors may include whether the representation was substandard, whether the fee is excessively large compared with the time spent, and the results achieved. Any fee awarded under section 406(b) must also be coordinated with an EAJA award: the attorney must refund the smaller fee to the claimant.
The court found that Cho met the burden of showing that the requested fee was reasonable. The requested $12,300 was below the 25% limit in the agreement. The court found no evidence that Cho’s performance was substandard and noted that the representation resulted in a favorable decision and $73,209 in past-due benefits. The court also found that the requested fee was not excessive in relation to the result, considering 32.5 hours of attorney work, 4.4 hours of paralegal work, fee rates in other cases, and the risk of representing Khlopoff on a contingency basis.
Disposition
The court granted counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees. It directed the Commissioner to certify $12,300 in fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), payable to the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing. Because Khlopoff’s attorney had previously received $6,700 under the EAJA, the court ordered counsel to refund that $6,700 to Khlopoff.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.