Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled June 15, 2021

Monteith v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Donna Ryu
Docket
4:18-cv-04481
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
4
Social SecurityFee Petition
In one sentence

In Monteith v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Ryu granted counsel’s request for $8,173 in fees and required a $3,000 refund to Monteith.

Who this affects

Cindy Laural Monteith and her attorney, Lawrence Rohlfing; the award concerns fees paid from Monteith’s past-due Social Security benefits.

What happened

In Monteith v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court had previously ordered further proceedings after granting Cindy Laural Monteith’s challenge to the denial of her disability benefits. An administrative law judge later found Monteith disabled and awarded past-due benefits.

Monteith’s attorney, Lawrence Rohlfing, requested $8,173 under the Social Security Act. The Commissioner did not oppose the request. The court found the amount reasonable because it was about 15% of the past-due benefits, below the 25% legal limit, and the representation appeared adequate.

Judge Donna M. Ryu granted the motion and awarded $8,173 in fees. Rohlfing must refund Monteith the $3,000 previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Monteith v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 4:18-cv-04481
Judge
Donna Ryu
Date
June 15, 2021

Background

Cindy Laural Monteith challenged the Social Security Administration’s denial of her application for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. The court had granted Monteith’s motion for summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. On December 9, 2020, an administrative law judge issued a fully favorable decision finding that Monteith was disabled and entitled to past-due disability benefits.

Monteith’s attorney, Lawrence Rohlfing, moved for attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The retainer agreement allowed him to request up to 25% of any past-due benefits. He requested $8,173, and the Commissioner did not oppose the request but submitted an analysis of it. The court had previously approved $3,000 in fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, which Rohlfing was required to refund to Monteith.

Court’s analysis

Section 406(b) allows an attorney who successfully represents a Social Security claimant in federal court to receive no more than 25% of the claimant’s past-due benefits. The court independently reviews the requested fee to determine whether it is reasonable, considering the quality of the representation and the results achieved. The court may reduce a fee for substandard representation, delay, or a windfall.

The court found the requested $8,173 reasonable. It represented approximately 15% of the past-due benefits, below the statutory maximum. Rohlfing reported spending 16.95 hours on the case, including 12.75 hours of attorney time and 4.2 hours of paralegal time. Although the resulting effective hourly rate was $641.02, the court explained that the lodestar method—an hours-times-rate calculation—does not control these contingency-fee awards and that contingency arrangements may produce higher effective hourly rates. The court also found no indication of substandard representation and noted the substantial benefits award achieved for Monteith.

The opinion states that Monteith was awarded $54,286 in past-due benefits, while a footnote says the motion stated that she was entitled to receive $44,694 in retroactive benefits. The court did not resolve this discrepancy, but determined that the requested fee was reasonable.

Disposition

Judge Donna M. Ryu granted the motion for attorneys’ fees and awarded $8,173. Lawrence Rohlfing must refund Monteith the $3,000 previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.