A.L. v. Saul

Background

A.L. applied for disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. The agency denied the applications, an administrative law judge issued an unfavorable decision, and the Appeals Council denied review. A.L. then sought judicial review.

In a prior order, the court granted A.L.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and sent the case back for further administrative proceedings. The Social Security Administration later determined that A.L. was entitled to $80,447 in past-due benefits. The agency withheld $20,111.75, or 25% of those benefits, for possible attorney fees.

Fee Request

Harvey P. Sackett, A.L.’s lawyer, moved for $20,111.75 under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), which permits a court to approve a reasonable fee for an attorney who successfully represented a Social Security claimant in federal court. A.L. and Sackett had entered a contingency-fee agreement providing for a fee of no more than 25% of past-due benefits. Sackett also acknowledged that he had to reimburse A.L. for the earlier $4,826.58 fee award under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

The Commissioner did not take a position on whether the requested fee was reasonable. The Commissioner suggested that, if fees were awarded, they should be paid from A.L.’s past-due benefits under agency policy rather than paid directly to Sackett. The opinion states that A.L. received notice of the motion and did not object.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a contingency-fee agreement is the starting point for deciding a § 406(b) fee request, but the court must independently review the agreement to ensure that the result is reasonable. A fee cannot exceed 25% of the claimant’s past-due benefits. The court may reduce a fee if the representation was substandard, the attorney delayed the case to increase the benefits, or the fee is otherwise unreasonable.

The court found that Sackett’s requested fee fell within the 25% limit. Sackett had successfully pursued A.L.’s appeal and obtained a result that entitled A.L. to substantial past-due benefits dating back to 2015. The record did not show substandard performance or delay intended to increase the fee. Sackett’s records showed 23.6 hours of work on the case in federal court, including 19.5 hours reviewing the administrative record and preparing the summary-judgment motion and reply. The court found the time spent on substantive matters reasonable and also considered the risk Sackett assumed by working under a contingency agreement.

Disposition

Judge Virginia K. Demarchi granted the motion for fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) and awarded Sackett $20,111.75. The provided opinion text ends mid-sentence in its direction about how the award is to be paid, so the complete payment instruction is unclear from the text supplied.