the district court reduced that feat if in one thousand dollars based on a lodestar calculation of the not only of the paralegal services at one hundred dollars an hour which is an hourly rate lodestar and also the court did start with the contract that analyzed the contract decided that the contract and the reduced fee request would constitute a windfall and then arrive at a result using a lodestar well the three cases in crawford all three of them involve a voluntary agreement stipulated remand by the agency that those cases are or on all fours with with this case it is not unusual for the agency to stipulate to a remained of this claim and confess error under sentence four and send the case back for further proceedings the problem w with well my question is how do you determine what is a windfall and i could decide that twenty two thousand dollars is not a windfall and  rejected the district court's decisions in those three cases as as evidence a windfall in imposing a an hour and calculating the fees based on hours times or rate they want and if they should  on its terms only said i think it could only say they you had just start with the contract but that you could still use lonestar because gives brad clearly said the united states supreme court is pleased so that i mean part of the problem with the argument and i already probably heard my questions before and so maybe you can answer it is you know what what is your view conferred on the client and so if a fifteen thousand dollars fee would ordinarily be reasonable but the fee the amount of recovery in this case is approaching one hundred and twenty thousand dollars or the case are you just before us it was a two hundred and fifty thousand dollars you don't stop when you reach that that cap of what you thought in the past was a maximum hourly rate or a maximum reasonable fee you have to continue to drift upwards it's a regressive tax on the clients then offense the st song as is the fee is twenty five percent the next layer might be fifteen percent the next layer might you might actually get the ten percent as as the court get in from arizona but you'd never stop adjusting upward because of the recovery and this is the point that i might try to meet in the in the brief in this case in the other case there were submitted a value has little to do with time there's certainly a correlation of value in time but it is not a causal relationship between value and time mr chose time in this case was was circa twenty hours in the paralegal was it was three or four hours but that doesn't mean that that the that is services weren't as valuable as an attorney that invests thirty or forty or fifty hours in the case that's all he does that's all he does a social security cases he doesn't have to look up the treating physician role he's ensconced in the treating physician role he's ensconced in the access and doctor and he knows the the the case is in the regulations in the rulings and applies them in a mechanical workman like fashion to get results for his client like this so those are two different questions me answer the st one st the st question is why is there a dampening of the twenty five percent in in the court case but we're trying to leave room for reasonable fee and before the the agency because it is an an error in your business model if you tell the administrative law judge i represented the claim before the agency for free i'm just gonna get all my fees from my federal court work here but you could if you could under the contract you could recover those in excess of the twenty five percent right that's true that's what colbert the supreme court said in culbertson as a factual matter the agency only beholds a single twenty five percent and as a factual matter even though counsel can recover a nd theory and and exceed the twenty five percent cap the reality is that most attorneys do not and mr cho did not in this case the reason we don't know what the agency fee in this case is because the agency has authorized if it's been sitting for three years so i have thirty seconds left i think i'll give you a few starting with the contract the court could look at the hours and the attorneys and buy as part of its assessment of reasonableness so my records should look at paralegal time when assessing reasonable i think that the district court should look at para legal services and walk for services the same way that judge clinton did in clifton described is the right operating model for determining doing the windfall and i also see the reason for that is that i paid the paralegals years ago i'm just trying to get my money back and to say i get the base hourly rate that it would have it if i build a client that day is is not reasonable doesn't factor in the the the risk of loss and the way and so it should be folded into i'll be extremely brief judge bass the same question at oral argument proffer how do you determine the windfall and windfall the question that the answer that i gave george day over a decade ago was  if we each took into consideration and gave a reason which really goes to the the heart of of what's wrong with this this case being here in  the st place with all four of the cases being here feel it a geisha is not supposed to turn into satellite litigation and really isn't and that's exactly what we've done we've we've we've absorbed significant amounts of the any one of the three different things occur you drill down doesn't say everything he has to be reduced down if everybody is satisfied that the person did the work right who have done is adequate and better than adequate and it's not going to be when full because we're trying to leave leave room for an aggregate age and not to exceed twenty five percent yeah absalom ask a question the same one i asked in that st social security argument if we were to determine that there was some error in the continuing glares of proceedings that you that you've criticized only judge clifton and judge kozinski who are not necessary to make a majority took that position the six of the eleven judges that heard crawford awarded the fees that were sought because they met the cross for three dollars part analysis including a modest fee reduction and so you clearly have the discretion to make a case and we can thank counsel for both sides for their excellent arguments and hearing no question further and say this case shall now be submitted and parties will hear from us in due course