Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01659/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01659-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Defendant
Robert J. Denoris
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

ROBERT J DENORIS,

Plaintiff,

v

JO ANNE B BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

 /

No C-04-1659 VRW

ORDER

On September 14, 2006, the court granted plaintiff Robert J

Denoris an award of attorney fees and costs in the amounts of

$6,500.87 and $157.40, respectively, under the Equal Access to

Justice Act (EAJA), 28 USC § 2412(d)(1)(A). Doc #25. Plaintiff’s

counsel Harvey Sackett (petitioner) has now filed a separate motion

for attorney fees under 42 USC § 406(b). Doc #26.

 According to plaintiff’s moving papers, he has since

obtained a fully favorable decision from the Social Security

Administration and received a gross total of $89,916 in retroactive

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

contingent fee agreement with his counsel, of which he submits

documentation. Plaintiff requests that the court issue an order

Case 3:04-cv-01659-VRW Document 28 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

approving an award to his counsel of the contingent fee offset by

the fee amount already recovered under the EAJA. This fee is

properly computed as follows: 

Contingent fee: $17,179.00

EAJA fee award: $ 6,500.87

Difference: $10,678.13

Defendant Jo Anne B Barnhart responds that she “does not

materially object to Petitioner’s request for attorney fees under

* * * § 406(b) for the net amount of $10,678.13.” Doc # 27 at 2. 

The requested fee amounts to an hourly rate of $503 for

petitioner. Petitioner submits a declaration stating that he has

more than twenty-nine years of experience, most of it as a social

security specialist. He posits that his (presumably hypothetical)

non-contingent billing rate would be $475. Ptr’s memo (Doc # 26)

at 13. In a fee request filed a few days later in a different

case, however, petitioner declared his non-contingent billing rate

to be $450; Sanchez v Barnhart, C 03-4581 VRW, Doc # 33. 

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 3:04-cv-01659-VRW Document 28 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 WashingtonBaltimore 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. Given the risk of loss

petitioner assumed in undertaking the representation, the slightly

higher hourly rate represented by the $17,179 contractual fee is

reasonable for the services rendered and the result obtained.

Case 3:04-cv-01659-VRW Document 28 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 $10,678.13 in accordance with 42 USC § 406(b)(1)(A). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

 

Case 3:04-cv-01659-VRW Document 28 Filed 01/31/07 Page 4 of 4