Williams v. Berryhill
- Laurel Beeler
- 3:18-cv-07126
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Williams v. Berryhill, Judge Beeler granted counsel $16,916 under the Social Security fee statute and required a $4,080.39 refund.
Arthur J. Williams and his lawyer; the ruling approved the lawyer’s fee from Williams’s past-due Disability Insurance Benefits and required the lawyer to refund Williams’s $4,080.39 EAJA fee award.
What happened
In Williams v. Berryhill, the court had previously granted Arthur J. Williams summary judgment and sent his case back to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. After the agency awarded him $67,664 in past-due Disability Insurance Benefits, his lawyer requested $16,916 in fees.
The requested amount was 25 percent of the past-due benefits and matched Williams’s fee agreement with his lawyer. The Commissioner asked the court to review whether the amount was reasonable. The lawyer also agreed to return $4,080.39 previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Judge Beeler granted the fee motion, finding that $16,916 was reasonable under the Social Security fee statute. The lawyer must refund the $4,080.39, leaving a net fee award of $12,835.61.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Berryhill · No. 3:18-cv-07126
- Laurel Beeler
- July 19, 2021
Background
The court had previously granted Williams’s motion for summary judgment and remanded, or sent back, the case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. On remand, the Commissioner awarded Williams $67,664 in retroactive Disability Insurance Benefits. The agency withheld $16,916—25 percent of the past-due benefits—to pay attorney’s fees.
Williams’s fee agreement with his lawyer provided for a contingency fee of 25 percent of the past-due benefits. The court had also previously awarded $4,080.39 in fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Counsel asked the court to award the $16,916 withheld by the agency. The Commissioner asked the court to examine whether the requested fee, including counsel’s hourly rate, was reasonable and to require counsel to refund the EAJA fees to Williams. Counsel agreed to make that refund.
Legal standard
Under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), a court may approve a reasonable fee for a claimant’s lawyer when the court has entered a judgment favorable to the claimant. The fee may not exceed 25 percent of the claimant’s past-due benefits. A court must independently review a contingency-fee request to ensure that it produces a reasonable result. Relevant considerations include the quality of the representation, the results achieved, attorney-caused delay, whether the fee is disproportionate to the time spent, and the risk counsel accepted in taking the case.
An award under § 406(b) must be offset by any EAJA fee award. This means counsel cannot retain both the § 406(b) fee and the EAJA fee for the same representation without the required refund.
Ruling
The court found that the 25-percent fee agreement was within the statutory limit and that the requested $16,916 fee was reasonable under § 406(b). The court granted the plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees. Counsel must refund Williams the $4,080.39 EAJA award, resulting in a net fee award of $12,835.61.
Disposition
The motion for attorney’s fees was granted. The court ordered the refund of the $4,080.39 EAJA fee award.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.