Gutierrez v. Saul
- Ona Wang
- 1:20-cv-03061-OTW
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Gutierrez v. Saul, Judge Wang granted counsel’s Social Security fee motion and ordered payment of $70,793.28, with a $9,587.08 refund.
Rafael Gutierrez, his attorney Christopher J. Bowes and the Law Offices of Christopher J. Bowes, and the Social Security Administration.
What happened
In Gutierrez v. Saul, Rafael Gutierrez’s attorney asked the court to approve a fee for representing him in his Social Security case. Gutierrez’s past-due benefits were $283,200, and his written agreement provided for a fee of 25 percent of those benefits.
The Commissioner did not object to awarding a fee but argued that the full approved amount should first be paid to the attorney, who would then refund the earlier Equal Access to Justice Act payment to Gutierrez. The court reviewed the fee agreement, the statutory 25 percent limit, and whether the requested fee would be unfair or a windfall.
Judge Wang granted the fee motion. She directed the Social Security Administration to approve payment of $70,793.28 to the Law Offices of Christopher J. Bowes, and directed Bowes to refund $9,587.08 to Gutierrez after receiving the payment.
The detailed version
- Gutierrez v. Saul · No. 1:20-cv-03061-OTW
- Ona Wang
- June 21, 2023
Background
Rafael Gutierrez moved for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), which allows a court to approve a reasonable fee for successful representation in a Social Security case, subject to a limit of 25 percent of the claimant’s past-due benefits. Gutierrez’s written contingency-fee agreement with Christopher J. Bowes provided for a fee of 25 percent of his past-due benefits.
The Social Security Administration determined that Gutierrez was owed $283,200 in past-due benefits. Counsel’s motion requested $61,206.20, described as approximately 25 percent of the past-due benefits after subtracting a prior $6,800 fee award under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The Commissioner did not object to the fee award but argued that the proper procedure was to pay the full approved fee to counsel first, followed by a refund to Gutierrez of the earlier Equal Access to Justice award.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a contingent-fee agreement remains the primary way fees are set in successful Social Security cases, but the court must independently review the agreement to ensure that it produces a reasonable result. The court considered whether the fee exceeded the 25 percent statutory limit, whether the agreement resulted from fraud or overreaching, and whether the fee would be a windfall to counsel.
The court found that the fee did not exceed the statutory limit and that there was no evidence of fraud or overreaching. It also found that the fee would not be a windfall because counsel had more than 25 years of experience litigating Social Security cases, represented Gutierrez over a 10-year period, obtained a favorable result entitling him to disability benefits, and faced substantial uncertainty because an administrative judge had denied Gutierrez’s claim throughout that period.
Disposition
The court granted Gutierrez’s motion for attorney’s fees under Section 406(b). It directed the Social Security Administration to approve payment of $70,793.28 to the Law Offices of Christopher J. Bowes. After receiving that payment, Bowes must refund $9,587.08 to Gutierrez. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the fee-motion docket entry.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.