Crooks v. Saul

Background

Leroy Crooks sued for judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying benefits. On January 27, 2021, the court approved the parties’ agreement to send the case back to the agency for further proceedings. The court also approved $2,000 in attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a law that can require the government to pay fees when a claimant prevails against the government.

After the case was sent back, the Commissioner approved Crooks’s application and awarded him $93,233 in retroactive benefits. Crooks’s attorney, Katherine R. Siegfried, then requested $15,000 under section 206(b) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Crooks had agreed to pay counsel up to 25% of his past-due benefits under a contingent-fee agreement.

Legal standard

Section 406(b) permits a federal court that enters a favorable judgment for a represented Social Security claimant to approve a reasonable attorney fee of no more than 25% of the claimant’s past-due benefits resulting from that judgment. The court must independently review the requested fee for reasonableness, considering the contingent-fee agreement, the quality of the representation, and the result achieved. The court may reduce a fee for substandard performance, delay, or a fee that is disproportionate to the work performed.

A fee awarded under section 406(b) is paid from the claimant’s past-due benefits. If the attorney also received fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, the attorney must refund the smaller fee to the claimant.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Siegfried had met her burden of showing that the requested fee was reasonable. The 25% contingent-fee provision was within the statutory limit. The court found no evidence of substandard performance and noted that counsel’s representation resulted in Crooks receiving $93,233 in past-due benefits.

Siegfried stated that she spent 15.8 hours on the case, producing an effective hourly rate of $949 for the requested fee. Although that rate was higher than her stated usual $500 hourly rate for appellate cases unrelated to Social Security, the court explained that a simple hourly-rate calculation is not the governing method for evaluating a reasonable contingent fee. The court also noted that courts generally defer to a winning attorney’s professional judgment about the time required in a contingency-fee case. It therefore found the requested fee reasonable.

Disposition

Judge Thomas S. Hixson granted counsel’s motion for attorney fees. The Commissioner was directed to certify $15,000 in fees under section 406(b), payable to Katherine Siegfried. Counsel was ordered to refund Crooks the $2,000 Equal Access to Justice Act fee award previously paid.