S.L. v. Kijakazi
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:20-cv-04240
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In S.L. v. Kijakazi, Judge Seeborg granted counsel’s motion for $37,379.25 in Social Security attorney fees, requiring an $8,744 refund.
S.L. and her attorney, Harvey P. Sackett. Sackett may collect $37,379.25 in attorney fees from the withheld past-due benefits, and S.L. must receive the $8,744.00 refund of previously awarded Equal Access to Justice Act fees.
What happened
In S.L. v. Kijakazi, S.L. sought review of the denial of her Social Security disability benefits. After the case was sent back to the Social Security Administration, the agency determined that she was owed $149,517 in past-due benefits and withheld $37,379.25 for attorney fees.
Attorney Harvey P. Sackett asked for the full withheld amount under a law allowing courts to approve reasonable fees for attorneys who represent Social Security claimants. The government did not oppose the request but said it was not a party to the fee agreement. Sackett reported spending 40.25 hours on the case, producing an effective hourly rate of $928.67.
Judge Seeborg ruled that the fee was reasonable and granted the motion. Sackett may collect $37,379.25, but must refund S.L. the $8,744 in fees previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
The detailed version
- S.L. v. Kijakazi · No. 3:20-cv-04240
- Richard Seeborg
- Mar. 3, 2023
Background
S.L. applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits in July 2014. After administrative appeals, she sought judicial review in this case. Judgment was entered in November 2021 awarding her retroactive benefits. Following remand to the Social Security Administration, the agency determined that S.L. was owed $149,517.00 in past-due benefits and withheld 25 percent, or $37,379.25, for prospective attorney fees.
The government was also ordered to pay attorney fees totaling $8,744.00 under the Equal Access to Justice Act: $5,500.00 in this action and $3,244.00 in an earlier action concerning the same denial of benefits. Attorney Harvey P. Sackett then moved for fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The government filed a statement of non-opposition, explaining that it was not a party to the fee agreement and therefore could not assent to or object to the requested fees, while still analyzing the motion in a role resembling that of a trustee for S.L.
Legal standard
Section 406(b) permits a court to approve a reasonable fee for an attorney who represented a claimant in court, up to 25 percent of the claimant’s past-due benefits. Under the Supreme Court’s approach, the attorney-client fee agreement provides a starting point, but the court must independently check whether the result is reasonable. Relevant considerations include the quality of the representation, whether the attorney caused delay, and whether the benefits are large compared with the time spent on the case. When fees are awarded under both Section 406(b) and the Equal Access to Justice Act, the attorney must refund the claimant the smaller fee.
Court’s analysis
Sackett’s agreement with S.L. allowed fees up to the 25-percent statutory limit, and he requested the full $37,379.25. He agreed to refund the $8,744.00 in Equal Access to Justice Act fees.
The court found no evidence that Sackett’s representation was substandard or that he caused undue delay. Sackett reported spending 40.25 hours on the case, resulting in an effective hourly fee of $928.67. Although that rate exceeded the $688.00 amount Sackett identified as acceptable for an attorney with his experience, the court found it within the range approved in other Social Security cases, including cases from the Northern District of California. The court also found support for considering the substantial risk of loss in Social Security cases.
Disposition
Judge Seeborg granted the motion for attorney fees. Sackett may collect $37,379.25 in attorney fees and must refund the $8,744.00 in Equal Access to Justice Act fees to S.L.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.