Weaver v. Colvin
- James Oetken
- 1:15-cv-06559
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Weaver v. Colvin, Judge Oetken granted counsel’s $4,156.75 fee motion, conditioned on refunding Plaintiff’s earlier Equal Access to Justice Act award.
Plaintiff’s counsel receives the approved $4,156.75 fee subject to refunding Plaintiff the amount previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Plaintiff is affected by that refund condition.
What happened
In Weaver v. Colvin, Plaintiff’s lawyer asked for $4,156.75 from her past-due Social Security benefits under a contingency-fee agreement.
The Commissioner argued that the request was late and that the requested hourly rate was an improper windfall. The court found the motion timely because counsel learned about the possible fees later, and found the amount reasonable.
Judge Oetken granted the motion, provided that counsel refunds Plaintiff the amount previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
The detailed version
- Weaver v. Colvin · No. 1:15-cv-06559
- James Oetken
- July 6, 2021
Background
Plaintiff’s counsel moved for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), which allows a court to approve a reasonable fee for a lawyer who represented a claimant in federal court after a favorable judgment. The fee cannot exceed 25% of the claimant’s past-due benefits. Counsel requested $4,156.75. That amount represented 25% of Plaintiff’s past-due Social Security benefits under the contingency-fee agreement, minus $6,330.50 previously authorized for representation at the administrative level.
Counsel and paralegals recorded 9.45 hours of federal-court work: 3.4 attorney hours and 6.05 paralegal hours. Assuming a $100 hourly rate for paralegal work, the requested fee produced a de facto attorney hourly rate of $1,044.63.
Timeliness
The Commissioner argued that the motion was untimely because Plaintiff received notice of her benefits award on April 1, 2020, but counsel filed the fee motion six months later. Generally, a fee motion must be filed within 14 days after notice of the benefits calculation, although the period is not absolute and may be extended when circumstances warrant. The court concluded that the period should run from October 1, 2020, when counsel learned about the possible availability of attorney’s fees. Because counsel filed the motion on October 14, 2020, the court found it timely.
Reasonableness of the Fee
The court evaluated the contingency-fee agreement for reasonableness, including whether the fee was out of line with the representation and result, whether counsel delayed the case to increase the benefits, and whether the award was a windfall compared with the time spent. The court declined to apply an automatic cutoff for high effective hourly rates. It concluded that the requested rate was high but resulted from competent and efficient advocacy, and therefore was not an impermissible windfall.
Disposition
The court granted Plaintiff’s motion for $4,156.75 in attorney’s fees, provided that counsel refunds Plaintiff the amount previously awarded to counsel under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket Number 19.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.