Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02704/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02704-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne Barnhart
Defendant
Janice Martin
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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANICE MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JO ANNE BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security,

 Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 04-2704 SC

ORDER GRANTING

PETITION FOR

ATTORNEYS' FEES 

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, Plaintiff's Attorney Frederick J. Daley, Jr.,

moves this Court for an attorney fee award pursuant to the Social

Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). 

II. BACKGROUND

Petitioner represented Plaintiff in the judicial review of

the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of benefits. 

Plaintiff prevailed upon remand and was awarded benefits of

$85,141.00. The Commissioner also withheld approximately 25% of

the award, or $21,111.50 for the direct payment of an attorney's

fee. Petitioner submitted his fee contract with Plaintiff, which

confirmed the 25% contingency fee. See Petitioner's Reply, Ex. A. 

Petitioner has already received $5,800.00 in compensation for his

work under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. §

Case 3:04-cv-02704-SC Document 33 Filed 12/11/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2412, for 43.9 hours of billable work. See Petition for Attorney

Fee, ¶ 3. Thus, Petitioner seeks the remainder of the contingency

fee, a net payment of $15,311.50. See Petitioner's Reply, ¶ 1.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), the Court may allow "a reasonable

fee for such representation, not in excess of 25 percent of the

total of the past-due benefits." The Court has a duty to ensure

that the contingency fee is reasonable. See Gisbrecht v.

Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 808 (2002). The Supreme Court held:

§ 406(b) calls for court review of such arrangements as an

independent check, to assure that they yield reasonable

results in particular cases. Congress has provided one

boundary line: Agreements are unenforceable to the extent

that they provide for fees exceeding 25 percent of the

past-due benefits. Within the 25 percent boundary . . . the

attorney for the successful claimant must show that the fee

sought is reasonable for the services rendered. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807 (internal citations omitted).

IV. DISCUSSION

Petitioner requests $21,111.50 in total fees for 43.9 hours

of billable work. See Petition for Attorney Fee, ¶ 2, Ex. C. 

This amounts to approximately $480 per hour for the attorney and

paralegal time on the case. See id., Ex. C. Petitioner provided

information indicating that the award's de facto hourly rate is

comparable to the hourly rates charged by partners at the largest

law firms in Chicago. See Petitioner's Reply, Ex. C and D.

A District Court in the Ninth Circuit recently performed a

detailed analysis of 43 post-Gisbrecht cases in which courts have

reviewed contingency fee awards in Social Security cases. See

Case 3:04-cv-02704-SC Document 33 Filed 12/11/06 Page 2 of 3
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 3

Ellick v. Barnhart, 445 F.Supp.2d 1166 (C.D. Cal. 2006). The

court noted that awards had been approved ranging from 1.01 to

6.55 times counsel's normal hourly rate and ended up awarding the

plaintiff 2.5 times the hourly rate of $220. Id. at 1173. At

that multiplier, Ellick awarded counsel a de facto hourly rate of

$550. In this case, the $21,111.50 would give Petitioner an award

3.3 times his hourly rate, for a de facto hourly rate of $502 for

attorney time, less than the award in Ellick. In light of

relevant precedent, this Court finds that Petitioner's award is

reasonable and should be awarded in full.

V. CONCLUSION

Petitioner's Motion for Attorney Fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 406(b)(1)(A) is hereby GRANTED. Petitioner is hereby AWARDED

the full fee of $21,111.50, which results in a net payment of

$15,311.50 after a deduction for the EAJA fee already paid.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: December 11, 2006

____________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:04-cv-02704-SC Document 33 Filed 12/11/06 Page 3 of 3