to the complaint the rationale that are the relief that we're seeking is more narrow than that we're simply seeking a declaration or remedy such that the so security ministration would be authorized or would would pay fees directly nationalist itself as an entity and as a law firm we are not seeking a remedy such that the law firm itself or any other law firm would represent claimants in front of the social security administration and we're when that money come from it would come from the it would not come directly from the government so we are not seeking damages from the government or the social security administration we are seeking to have the fees which are withheld skin you're ok with that you just want it understood that the money for the work was done by the individual termes if i can go directly to offer rather than passing through the individual turning up that's  if you entered into a contract that the limited power but if you a different kind of contract that allowed the social security to pay the law firm the law firm wouldn't honor that contract if you get it into a contract with your associates that allowed social security to pay that attorney's fee directly to the law firm that the law the social security administration would not honor that under under the current regulatory regime that's correct this so security ministration only allows payments directly to individual attorneys under the current regime does it have these associates assign their right to those fees over their assignment in place yes so there is the power of attorney form which essentially says that the associates harty does not have a right or interest in the appearing is there a contractual assignment zero contract in place a typical assignment know there's a power of attorney form do you know whether what the social security administration's position is when if there ever is an assignment in place do you know have they ruled on that my understanding is that they do not prohibit assignments generally speaking so that they will allow a an arrangement under which an associate attorney can assign the fees to a law firm thank you so so why haven't you tried that well we that's a that's that's typically  how the law firm does generate its fees fees come into the individual attorneys they then d go into joint bank accounts between the associate attorney in the law firm and then from there then transfer into the law firms accounts i understand what you have you put in your brief but the question is is different if it was an assignment contract with the social security administration respect that and pay the individual associates fee directly to the firm no i believe not your honor i believe under the alex and palm rules that the so scared ministration would not honor that would not directly paid a lot  to not allow law firms to represent clients that the accountability that the social security administration worries about and insisting on personal representation can still be achieved if law firms represent  a good part of what you brief was all about and now you're telling us not oh we don't care about any of that and all we really care about is the ability of the social security administration to deposit check into the law f includes fifteen thousand dollars in escrow and then on top of that about seventy thousand dollars overall based on the attorneys that enter government service so that is a significant out of money to rassmann ness of bush with respect to the fees that are it was unable to  recoup based on its attorneys entering government service and with respect to the attorneys that enter government service our basic position is that with respect to the ethics that suit which the government relies upon that really is a red herring essentially at our core argument is that it it's a rational an arbitrary capricious for the government not to recognize law firms for the purpose of payment for work that has been performed by associate attorneys in law firm i mean your your issue with the  former associates who joined this social security administration is a little different because it's my understanding that once they join they have to give up their individual rights to any fees that they incurred is that correct yes the government's position is that they have to wait fees when they enter government service if those fees have not been authorized if the fees in individual cases have not been authorized at the time that the associate attorney enters government service but and so and so i don't you necessarily have to argue that the law firm should be recognized otherwise those fees gone well not if those fees were the property of the law firm to begin with and so it's our position that the associate attorneys like attorneys and the other law firm are paying on salary rests the nationalists says compensated those associates charges for their work and the revenue coming from the social security administration is the property of the law firm not of the associate attorneys so that if the social theory ministration recognize law firms for the purposes of payment of fees then there would be no problem with government with associate attorneys entering government service and with respect to the government's refusal to recognize law firms for the purposes of payment that really has resulted in significant burdens for the law firms such that the law firm has to take really extraordinary measures to protect us interests in order to receive his and in a sense the be able to practice before the social security administration as i mentioned it has to maintain joint bank accounts with associates and ask the hire a fee collector at a cost of roughly forty thousand dollars per year it has to untangle tax problems that come up with respect to income you're being allocated to the law firm where the in visual attorney and has to keep track of associates where they where they go years after they leave the firm and social security cases in themselves can take years and then she petitions can take years after that it has the update fee agreements whenever a new attorney comes in and has t individual associate get some kind of tax from social security it but you say that there's also some kind of reporting for the law from what is that yes my understanding there's a there's a for there's a form that goes and i believe it's developed jointly by the i r s and the administration one form goes to the law firm firm form also goes to the associated tourney and essentially the same amount yes so the so that the fees are initially essentially assigned or allocated to the associated tourney and the firm in the associate attorney can allocate that income to the firm for tax reporting purposes so that gets to a rationality argument in the sense that the government that's what's reported for the firm the income from the what's reported is the fees that come in through the individual attorneys that is treated as income of the law firm so let's say for individual attorneys they have one hundred thousand dollars in fees generated from claiming cases in a year on that form that amount can be treated as income to the law firm itself and govern the payment for representation of claimants they refer to attorneys and other persons persons under the dictionary act one u s c one can be defined two and food law firms now it's  rules where it states that a law firm cannot petition for fees on behalf of individual claimants for example halleck's section i dash one dash to dash fifty three dollars states specifically that another person or  i think it would probably be the judge i haven't looked deeply into how an actual trial would work on a constitutional claim of this sort i think it probably would be more of an equitable claim than a claim at law but i do believe that even though it's a difficult standard and i do understand that if it's arguable that there's a rational basis that in of itself it's not enough to use satisfy surviving summary judgment but we would contend is that if it's arguable that it's arguable almost sort of like a diva claim you know whether it's reasonable that it's reasonable and that circumstance that summary judgment should be denied and i'm sure your honor seeing that we did cite cases in our brief where there is a dispute based on the proffered evidence that the government shows a rational basis such that there can be a skew the material fact over whether or not there's a rational basis and here we believe that we have cre history of the material fact based on number one the government does recognize the fact that the income for individual attorneys is the income of the law firm itself with respect to tax reporting it also trac law firms with respect to fee agreement purposes so that in some cases it won't prove a fee agreement payment if attorneys for a claimant come from different firms and then the government also does pay firms and court proceedings directly so it does pay the government does pay morass vanessa bush directly in a district court proceeding so it's our view that the government it's arguable that it's arguable that there is no rational basis for the government's a sort of basis of efficiency and oversight of claimants oversight of attorneys excuse on your on your a p a claim which the district court dismissed is really difference between the arbitrary and capricious argument you if you were able to go forward with your a p a claim and you are like your rationale and you on constitutional claim that the substantive due process claim or they are they really the same the same law firms cannot be representatives and they answer that question is yes they succeeded any claim whatsoever you st need to be a representative and let me just explain a little bit of what the system looks like and why that's the case so what happens is a claimant needs to appoint you as a representative once your representative in an agency proceeding and not attorney or an attorney representative you provide representation services and then representatives he's out of a claimant's benefits and so you have to remember these are this is money you're taking away from the claimant and this is money you're taking away on the basis of i am a person and to t v you know whatever it might be that is provided representational services so for a six a two about the few reman process says you know you can get a few agreement if you've provided quote services with respect to the claim for six a one says has attorneys who have represented claimants and social security proceedings they've done that successfully they've gotten representatives for representing claimants and social security proceedings and at the end of the day if there was a sign an agreement would you pay the law that's actually a really tricky question i know your honour's asked a little bit about that that's been litigated and various instances i'll just point out really quickly that there is here is the social security administration has no rules about the private contractual relationship between attorneys and their law firms you know that you know quite the attorney you know associate can get attorneys fees  represented as cs and they could promise that to their law firm they can promise that but what you have there you're saying you're saying there's a federal statute that would prohibit the social security administration from paying the law for what i'm saying is i think it's when you talk about specifically assignment agreements of assignments of claims against the united states it's a little bit complicated i'm not entirely certain about what the answer to that question is and i'll just be honest about that but the question is i'm sorry go ahead judge thompson you are probably going to say the same thing out was well i was just going to say that the the question one of the questions that we were asking isn't about assignments of claims it's about assignments to determine it right to payment right and this is this is not a claim against the u s government as you point out so readily this is coming coming from me it would just be whose name goes on the check right and i think if you look for example on you know at perhaps let's break this down a little bit further i mean it like if if roscoe nestled you know that the main problem here was that individuals were not able to you know these individuals who entered into government service because of federal at this rolls were not able to request representatives because you know they went into a federal service that's that that doesn't really have to do with anything of an assignment at the backend if there few cases i think we all agree that if there was a fee authorization and fees were authorized these individuals could get the payments and like i was saying as i say doesn't have any rules that say if you've get that's the point but i kind of just backing this up a little bit the stats that's the point the statute is what provides that only those who represent a claimant can seek representative c d s and accurate ministration what it considered a regulation that allowed law firms to be representatives one of the downstream effects of that is that it triggers those later statutory provisions that lead into you know law firms who in fact provide representational services where claimants in fact choose to let those law firms provide representational services than team representatives state use so what we're talking about are all sort of downstream the  of a particular choice that as i say has long had on the books which is that only individuals can be representatives once you've made that choice and once that's a reasonable choice that's going to have other downstream effects but the fact that it sometimes has negative downstream effects doesn't see it that in no way makes other parts of the system under reasonable  in that sense i mean what will we have the kind of remember here is these are well how's this double tax reporting rational i don't think there is double x reporting i mean if you want to take a look at sort of what the tax reporting to protect what's already been won or whatever reason they have to go to court and continue the representation then they can be made i guess out of the claim that is payment to be made directly to the launcher so what statutory provision that they're talking about in fact they're talking about a different step you don't think either i mean they their complaint references each other equal access to justice act but even if they were representing the social you know talking about the social security act we're have a fundamental interest in ensuring that there's representation that there's quality represent is that there's accountable representation to these claimants and that when claimants choose somebody that they know who they're going to be getting at the end of the day and that's a choice that might have a number of downstream consequences but those are downstream consequences that are completely established by statute and to the extent that that's the complaint that you know we have to do something contrary to statute that's not a viable claim in any respect and unless this court has further the word person can mean more than an individual so what why would it be contrary to interpret this broader than an individual yeah so they the dictionary act as talked about person that it says that you know person as a standard meaning that could be not an individual and that depends on the context of the particular statutory scheme i think it's pretty i mean i'm not saying that's contrary the statute to have be representatives but that's not a regulatory choice that agency has made i'm saying is contrary to the statute for somebody who is not a representative to ask for representatives because fo six a one and i hate to say that unless you have provided representation of services you can't ask for represented representatives out of some claimants benefits you don't have that statutory limitation on who can be a representative but there is a regulatory limitation so we're not saying that's not what it seems that the question is being big so i'd like to go back to judge perez is question about what's what what's rational about that choice you know if it's not if it's not required by statute what's rational and now there's there's a few aspects of this i think you have to kind of think about this in the broader actually tori's scheme a being an agency that processes millions upon millions of claims every year that you want individuals who know what they're getting and as a as interest in ensuring that s s a has an interest in ensuring that i proceedings run smoothly if i would that the law for a law firm had that same interests i mean one requirement for attorneys is that they have that practice insurance and law firms have malpractise insurance we're not saying there's no there are other ways to run the system there certainly are multiple ways in which as i say could have set up the system you know all we're saying is this isn't like you know if you've ever been to like a debt collection court and somebody comes in with a stack of folders and they don't need to really know anything about a case and they can kind of just say like john smith those five hundred dollars and merits that six hundred dollars and what kind of just keep moving through it like as a claimant as somebody who really needs money you want to know who you might want to know who you're getting on a given day and why not you know you might want to know that you're not just getting this is sociate or that associate it may be a different hearing has a license and attorney doesn't but you don't need it doesn't have to be an attorney and he did that i mean that's that's the point somebody coming out of law school with a law license could represent a claim that and know a lot less about social security law than a representative whose pastor chess was not a lawyer so i don't understand your rationale yeah i you seem to be suggesting that this total security administration has an independent interest in making sure that claimants are properly represented but if someone coming out of law school with a law license on day one of practice has never had any experience in this area can practice before you that doesn't make any sense i read it out it's not hold up i think we still would have an interest even if there were somebody who kind of walked straight out of law school to making sure that there would have a way for sure and it no but i mean this is kind of thinking about big picture rules across the entire scheme we can just like place an exception for this particular law firm and say well they have competent associated teams and so therefore i will like let all of their associates be the ones that represent claimants i think so i think at the end of the day you you will that incompetent solo practitioners with a law license practice before you representing a climate  honor i i don't mean that at all i i think what i mean is that there's a system that needs to process lots of claims to get claimants benefits to them on a very timely matter if there are pick ups in that process i mean people don't get their benefits at time and as i said certainly has an interest in ensuring that there are fewer of those stakeouts that happen one way of ensuring that is that if you have somebody who's a claimant that they have a representative that they know who that representative is going to be at least that representative has some level of  and certainly having you know you could have in terms of talking about you know sort of what you might term incompetent attorneys like having one incompetent attorneys are only better than having five incompetent attorney is so and i sense i i don't see that is sort of a reason why the entire scheme is irrational but as i was saying i do think the statute makes pretty clear that that fundamental predicate is something that plane ticket here would need to prevail in order to get the type of relief that they want which is somehow or some type of payment directly to them because the statute itself makes clear that only representatives get willing to accept a regime where only an individual is identified as the represented supposed to a law firm that way a claim that can yes basically are that is what we're looking for and i would point out that that's really no different than how practice works in the private sector you know for example if i appear in front of the united states or court for violence on behalf of a you know a party i'm the individual attorney appearing before the court the law firm is not apparent before the court i am and then when the representation is done when it's time to build a client that it's the firm that builds the client not me as an individual attorney to censure the same regime that works in private practice is what we're seeking is respect to represent so i guess you would say to the source of security more stringent ok you think that there are benefits for claimants and knowing that around this rule with your own with your firms your clients internal relationships with its associates so for example if if a fee has been earned as defined by internal firm mechanisms that when someone leaves the firm the old firm those funds well that certainly with a firm could be made whole through internal mechanics couldn't  well that's certainly what we attempt to do and we do have to keep track of our former associates in order for that to happen or not is that is necessarily dependent on whether the associate gets the money from the s s a that's just and i mean there is a way to do this right yes except with respect to government service well even then if you if you have an internal coup accounting procedure that says that at the under your relationship with the associate the firm will get the money regardless of whether the associate is able to collect it or not i mean you can protect yourself to a certain extent can't you yes ok thank  questions from the panel thank you very much counsel thank you for that concludes argument in this case tony baldwin an attorney fan you should disconnect from the hearing at this time