Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04581/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04581-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CYNTHIA SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v

JO ANNE B BARNHART, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant.

 /

No C 03-4581 VRW

 ORDER

Plaintiff Cynthia Sanchez brings a motion for an order

awarding attorney fees to her counsel, Harvey P Sackett

(petitioner), pursuant to 42 USC § 406(b). Doc # 33. 

According to plaintiff’s moving papers, she has since

obtained a fully favorable decision from the Social Security

Administration (SSA) and received a gross total of $39,382 in

retroactive benefits. That amount is subject to a twenty-five

percent contingent fee agreement with her counsel, of which she

submits documentation. As is its usual practice, the SSA has

\\

Case 3:03-cv-04581-VRW Document 38 Filed 01/31/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

withheld $9,845.50 toward a contingent fee award. Petitioner

states that through inadvertent error, he failed to apply to the

court for an award under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28

USC § 2412(d)(1)(A). Pl’s Mem (Doc # 33) at 13. Stating that

“[t]his is a mistake for which [plaintiff] should not be

penalized,” petitioner proposes to reduce the contingent fee award

request by $3,667.68, which would represent a hypothetical EAJA

award to be offset against the 42 USC § 406(b) contingent fee

claimed. This amounts to a net fee request of $6,177.82 for 22.3

hours of representation. 

 Petitioner states that his non-contingent billing rate

is $450. Doc # 33 at 12. Defendant Jo Anne B Barnhart “takes no

position on the reasonableness of the fee request,” Doc # 35 at 3,

but suggests that the “de facto” billing rate of $441/hour for

petitioner’s services ($9,845.50/22.3 hours) is too high, pointing

out that it is 2.5 times the statutorily-capped EAJA rate of

$165.71. Id at 4-5. 

In Gisbrecht v Barnhart, 535 US 789 (2002), the United

States Supreme Court upheld the use of contingent fee agreements

between social security claimants and their attorneys, with the

limitation that district courts have the power to review fee

agreements and interpose an independent check to assure “reasonable

results in particular cases.” Id at 807. 

It is the practice of the undersigned judge to rely on

official data to determine appropriate hourly rates, not on an

attorney’s self-proclaimed rates or declarations regarding hourly

rates charged by law firms. One reliable official source for rates

that vary by experience levels is the Laffey matrix used in the

Case 3:03-cv-04581-VRW Document 38 Filed 01/31/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1 (130.33 - 118.59)/118.59 = 0.09899, or about 9.9%

3

District of Columbia. See http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/dc/

Divisions/Civil_Division/Laffey_Matrix_5.html (citing Laffey v

Northwest Airlines, Inc, 572 F Supp 354 (D DC 1983), aff’d in part,

rev’d in part on other grounds, 746 F2d 4 (DC Cir 1984), cert

denied, 472 US 1021 (1985))(website consulted January 22, 2007). 

See, e g, In re HPL Technologies, Inc Securities

Litigation, 366 F Supp 2d 912, 921 (ND Cal 2005)(Laffey matrix used

to determine fee rates where senior attorney devoted much time to

settlement discussions and preparation). Under the 2006 Laffey

matrix, attorneys with 20 or more years of experience bill

$405/hour. These rates are tailored to the District of Columbia. 

Petitioner in this matter is based in San Jose. It is this court’s

practice to adjust fees drawn from the Laffey matrix in accordance

with the locality pay differentials applicable to the federal

judiciary, an agency that employs legal professionals throughout the

United States. See http://www.opm.gov/oca/07tables/indexGS.asp. 

The Washington-Baltimore area is subject to a +18.59% locality pay

differential, whereas the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside area is

subject to a 30.53% locality pay differential. The discrepancy

between these two percentages – 9.9%1

 – amounts to the upward

adjustment from the Laffey rates to which petitioner is entitled. 

The court thus concludes that $445 per hour constitutes a

reasonable fee for petitioner’s time. This rate is remarkably close

to the $441/hour petitioner would receive if he recovered the full

contingent fee. The fee request is therefore reasonable.

\\

\\

Case 3:03-cv-04581-VRW Document 38 Filed 01/31/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

The motion for attorney fees is GRANTED. Petitioner shall

collect $6,177.82 in accordance with 42 USC § 406(b)(1)(A). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

 

Case 3:03-cv-04581-VRW Document 38 Filed 01/31/07 Page 4 of 4