Case ID: f-appx_714/html/0766-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ronald A. WELCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bill LATOUR, Esquire, Real-party-in-interest-Appellee, and Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-56544
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 7, 2018  Pasadena, California
    Filed March 09, 2018
    
      Ronald A. Welch, Pro Se
    Bill LaTour, Esquire, Law Offices of Bill LaTour, Colton, CA, for Real-party-in-interest-Appellee
    Jeffrey Chen, Attorney, Jeffrey Chen, Attorney, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: GRABER, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Ronald Welch timely appeals the district court’s order awarding attorney fees to real-party-in-interest Bill LaT-our, Plaintiff’s lawyer in an underlying Social Security benefits case. We vacate the judgment and remand.

The district court correctly identified the legal standard for determining the amount of fees to award under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) for representing a Social Security claimant in court: The district court must conclude that the fees granted are reasonable under the standards set forth in Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 122 S.Ct. 1817, 152 L.Ed.2d 996 (2002), and in Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). But the district court did not comply with Crawford’s requirement that the court “provide a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the fee award.” 586 F.3d at 1152 (internal quotation marks omitted).

A clear explanation is particularly important here, in light of the unusual circumstances of this case. Counsel misplaced Plaintiffs case file, which may have affected the duration of the case. Moreover, counsel worked disproportionally few hours compared to the large fee awarded. On remand, the district court shall enunciate how those and other relevant circumstances affect the calculation of a reasonable fee.

VACATED and REMANDED. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.