L.M. v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Joseph Spero
- 3:17-cv-03562-JCS
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In L.M. v. Kijakazi, Judge Spero approved counsel’s $18,000 Social Security fee and ordered $2,100 in earlier fees paid to L.M.
L.M. receives the previously awarded $2,100 Equal Access to Justice Act fee, while Lawrence Rohlfing is awarded $18,000 under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) from the past-due benefits withheld for a potential fee award.
What happened
In L.M. v. Kilolo Kijakazi, L.M. asked the court to review the denial of disability insurance benefits. The case was sent back to the Social Security Administration, which then approved the application and awarded approximately $176,704 in past-due benefits. L.M.’s lawyer, Lawrence Rohlfing, requested $18,000 for work before the court under a 25-percent contingency-fee agreement.
The Commissioner questioned whether the requested fee would be an excessive payment because it produced a high hourly rate. Rohlfing argued that the rate should account for both attorney and paralegal time and was within the range courts had approved. The court examined the fee agreement, the time records, the results obtained, and whether the fee was disproportionate or a windfall.
The court found the requested fee reasonable and granted the motion. It awarded counsel $18,000 and ordered that the previously awarded $2,100 in Equal Access to Justice Act fees be paid to L.M. Judge Spero issued the order.
The detailed version
- L.M. v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 3:17-cv-03562-JCS
- Joseph Spero
- Nov. 2, 2023
Background
L.M. brought this Social Security case seeking review of the Commissioner’s denial of an application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. L.M. had a contingency-fee agreement with Lawrence Rohlfing, under which counsel would receive 25 percent of any past-due benefits resulting from the action.
After L.M. filed a summary-judgment motion, but before the Commissioner filed a cross-motion, the court approved the parties’ stipulation to remand the case to the Commissioner on July 27, 2018. On remand, the Commissioner approved L.M.’s application and awarded approximately $176,704 in past-due benefits. The Commissioner withheld $44,176 for a possible court-approved fee.
The court previously approved a stipulated Equal Access to Justice Act fee award of $2,100. Rohlfing then moved under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) for $18,000 in fees for work performed before the court. His records showed 12.29 total hours, consisting of 8.39 attorney hours and 3.9 paralegal hours. The requested amount was 10.2 percent of the past-due benefits.
Legal standard and analysis
Section 406(b) allows a court to approve a reasonable fee for an attorney who represented a claimant before the court, subject to a limit of 25 percent of the claimant’s past-due benefits. Under Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, courts first consider the contingency-fee agreement and then test the requested fee for reasonableness. The court may reduce a fee for poor representation, delay, or benefits that are not proportionate to the time spent.
The Commissioner argued that the requested fee would be a windfall, calculating an effective hourly rate of $2,145.41 using only attorney time. Rohlfing argued that the calculation should include attorney and paralegal time, producing an effective hourly rate of $1,475.
The court found the request reasonable because Rohlfing had presented a valid contingency-fee agreement, supplied time records that the court found reasonable, and provided no evidence of substandard work or a fee disproportionate to the work performed. The court also found that the effective hourly rates—whether calculated using all timekeepers’ hours or only attorney hours—were high but within the range previously approved by the court.
Disposition
The court granted the motion for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). It awarded counsel $18,000. The court also ordered that the previously awarded $2,100 in Equal Access to Justice Act fees be paid to L.M.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.