Torres v. Kijakazi

Background

Robert Torres applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits in 2013. After the application was denied, he filed a federal lawsuit in 2016. That case was sent back to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings, and the parties agreed that Torres’s lawyer would receive $1,621 in fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

After additional administrative proceedings, Torres filed this second federal case in 2021. The court again sent the matter back to the agency in 2022. The agency later found that Torres was disabled as of July 20, 2012 and awarded him past-due benefits. The agency withheld $72,666.75, representing 25% of those benefits, for a possible attorney-fee award under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).

The opinion explains that Martin O’Malley replaced Kilolo Kijakazi as the Commissioner while the case was pending. The court therefore substituted O’Malley as the defendant.

Fee request

Attorney Christopher J. Bowes sought approval of the full $72,666.75 under § 406(b), based on contingent-fee agreements allowing him to receive 25% of Torres’s past-due benefits if Torres obtained a favorable result. Bowes reported spending 9.7 hours on the 2016 federal case and 25.8 hours on the 2021 case, for a total of 35.5 hours. The requested fee amounted to an effective hourly rate of $2,046.95.

Bowes also asked the court to direct payment of a net amount of $71,045.75, after subtracting the $1,621 previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The defendant took no position on whether the requested fee was reasonable but argued that the court should evaluate the full $72,666.75 request rather than the net amount.

Court’s analysis

Section 406(b) permits a court to approve a reasonable fee for successful representation in federal court, subject to a 25% limit on the claimant’s past-due benefits. The court first considered the contingent-fee agreements and then examined whether the requested amount was reasonable.

The court found no evidence of fraud, overreaching, or purposeful delay by Bowes. It also found that the fee was consistent with the character of the representation and the favorable result. The court focused particularly on whether the fee would be an improper windfall—meaning an excessive payment compared with the work performed.

The court concluded that the fee was not a windfall. It considered Bowes’s more than 25 years of Social Security litigation experience, his representation of Torres in both federal cases, the efficiency of the 35.5 hours billed, Torres’s fully favorable result, and the uncertainty inherent in a contingent-fee arrangement. The court also noted that Torres received benefits for the entire period of disability alleged in the case.

Ruling

Judge Valerie Figueredo granted in part the motion for attorney’s fees. The court awarded Bowes $72,666.75, representing 25% of Torres’s past-due benefits. The court did not order payment of only the requested net amount. Instead, Bowes must receive the full § 406(b) award and then refund the previously awarded $1,621 in Equal Access to Justice Act fees to Torres. The clerk was directed to close the motion.