Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled May 9, 2022

G.S. v. Saul

Judge
Jacquelyn Corley
Docket
3:19-cv-07543-JSC
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
4
Social SecurityFee Petition
In one sentence

In G.S. v. Kijakazi, Judge Corley granted counsel’s fee motion, awarding $30,233 under Section 406(b) and requiring a $12,037.42 EAJA refund.

Who this affects

G.S. and G.S.’s counsel, Katherine Siegfried; the Commissioner was directed to certify the fee payment, and counsel must refund the earlier Equal Access to Justice Act award to G.S.

What happened

G.S. v. Kijakazi arose from G.S.’s appeal of the Social Security Administration’s denial of disability benefits. The court had previously sent the case back for further proceedings, after which the agency found G.S. disabled and awarded $120,932 in past-due benefits.

G.S.’s lawyer requested $30,233 in fees under Section 406(b), based on a contingency agreement allowing fees up to 25 percent of past-due benefits. The Commissioner did not take a position on whether the requested amount was reasonable.

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted the fee motion, finding the amount reasonable and directing the Commissioner to certify $30,233 to the Law Offices of Katherine Siegfried. Counsel must refund the previously awarded $12,037.42 in Equal Access to Justice Act fees to G.S.

The detailed version

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

Case
G.S. v. Saul · No. 3:19-cv-07543-JSC
Judge
Jacquelyn Corley
Date
May 9, 2022

Background

G.S. appealed the Social Security Administration’s denial of disability benefits based on physical and mental impairments. On January 29, 2021, the court granted G.S.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and sent the case back for further proceedings. The court later awarded counsel $12,037.42 under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a statute that can provide attorney’s fees in qualifying cases against the federal government.

After the remand, the Social Security Administration found G.S. disabled and awarded benefits beginning in August 2016. G.S. was notified that the past-due benefits totaled $120,932. The agency withheld $30,233.03 from that award for attorney’s fees, described as 25 percent of the past-due benefits. Under the contingency-fee agreement, counsel could seek up to 25 percent of the past-due benefits for work performed in court.

Legal standard

Section 406(b) permits a court to approve a reasonable attorney’s fee when a court judgment benefits a Social Security claimant represented by counsel. The fee may not exceed 25 percent of the claimant’s past-due benefits. The court must independently review the contingency agreement to ensure that the resulting fee is reasonable. Relevant considerations include whether counsel’s representation was substandard, whether counsel delayed the case to increase fees, whether the fee is excessive compared with the benefits obtained, and the risk counsel accepted by taking the case.

A Section 406(b) fee must be reduced by any fee previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Analysis

The court found the requested $30,233 reasonable. The contingency agreement stayed within the 25-percent statutory limit. The court found no indication of substandard representation or delay intended to increase the fee. It also found that counsel did substantial work and achieved a favorable result by obtaining a remand that led to the award of disability benefits. The court further found that counsel had taken a substantial risk of receiving no fee when the representation began.

Disposition

The court granted G.S.’s counsel’s motion for fees under Section 406(b). It directed the Commissioner to certify $30,233 in fees payable to the Law Offices of Katherine Siegfried. Counsel was ordered to refund the previously awarded $12,037.42 in Equal Access to Justice Act fees to G.S.

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.