UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O

. 98-459

J OHN A. R OZ MUS , A PP EL L ANT ,

AND

N O

. 98-1428

G ER TRUD E L. G R AY , A PP EL L ANT

V

.
T OGO D. W EST , J R ., S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE

.

Be fore HOL DAWAY, STEI NB ERG, and GREENE, Judges

. O R D E R

On Marc h 2 3, 19 99 , a

pp e lla nt John A. Rozmus fi le d a n a pp lic a tio n un de r t

he Eq ua l A c c e ss to J ustice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), for costs and attorney fee s incurre d in the prosec ution of his claim on appe al from the B oard of Veter ans' Appea ls ( BV A o r Bo ar d ). On April 6, 1999, appellant Ge rtrude L . Gra y filed a similar EAJA application for costs and attorney

fee s relate d to her appea l. I n both case s, this Court had remande d the appe llants' r espec tive appea ls to the Boar d for
re a dju dic a tio n. Th e Se c re tary ha s c on c e de d th a t bo th a

p p e l l a n t s m e e t th e jur isd ic tio na l r e qu ir e me nts
and a re e nti tle d to EA JA f

e e s, bu t c on te sts the a mou nts so ug ht. The app ell ant s hav e mov e d to consolidate their a

pplications. I n addition, on Fe bruar y 10, 2000, the Secre tary

filed with the Court a Notice of S upplemental Authority , which the appellants have opposed. Since these c ases pr esent
a c o m m o ni s s u e , t h e C o u rt will g r a n tt h e a p p e l l a n t s ' m o t i o n s a n d

c o n s o l i d a t e t h e s e E A JA
a pp lic a tio ns

. Specifica lly , the issue befor e the Court is whether or not E AJ A fee s may be g rante d for wor k perf ormed prior to the signing of a formal attorney fee ag ree ment. Both parties ag ree that EAJA fees may be g rante d for a

ny work perf

ormed afte r the for

mation of an attorney -client re lationship. See Si m i l es v

. W

e st , 11 Vet.App. 115, 120 ( 1998). The Sec reta ry contends that a

n attorney -client relationship commences with the sig ning of a fe e ag ree ment. Howeve r, the S ec re t ar y h as not p ro vided the Court with any prec edent that holds that a f ormalized fee ag ree ment is nece ssary for the formation of an attorne y -client re lationship.

On the contr ary , both appellants have provided ample authority to support their position that th e a tt o r n e y - c li e n t r e lati o n s h ip ma y e xis t p r io r to th e s ig n in g o f a f e e a g r e e me n t. The issue of2

whether an attorne y -client re lationship ex ists is g ener ally g overne d by

the applica

ble state law

. Appellant Gr ay

contends that under Ohio law, the state where the attorney service s were perf ormed, an attorne y -client re lationship may exis t with or without a formal fe e ag ree ment. See W arm v. Gr e e nb e rg , 279 N.E. 2d 640 (Ohio Ct. App. 1971). In the same ma nner, a ppellant Rozm us contends that the District of Columbia, the place wher e her leg al servic es we re perf

ormed, a lso recog nizes that an attorne y -client re lationship may exis t in the absenc e of a

fee ag ree ment. The Court ag rees wi t h the appe llants' position. I t is well-established that a f ormal fe e ag ree ment is not necessa

ry for a n attorney -client re lationship to commence. The a uthority of an attorney

beg ins with his or her re tainer, but t h e re lation of attorney and client is not depende nt on the pay ment of a f

ee, nor is a forma l contrac t
nece ssary to cre ate the re l ati onship. The contra ct may be implied from conduc t of the par ties. The employ

ment is sufficiently

established whe n i t i s shown that the
a dv ic e a nd

a ssi sta nc e of the a tto rn e y

a re so ug ht a

nd re c e ive d in ma tte rs pe rt ine nt t o the attorne y ' s profe ssion. 7 Am. J ur. 2d Attorneys at Law § 136 (1997) ( footnotes and c itations omi tted).

I n these cases, the evidenc e proffer ed by the appellants shows that they soug ht and re ceive d advice and assistanc e fr om their respe ctive attorne y s in matters pertinent to their a ppeals to the Court prior to the sig ning of

a for mal fee ag ree ment. The Secre tary has not contested the va lidity of the evidenc e provide d. The Court finds t h i s evidenc e suff icient to establish an attorne y -client relationship and to render the appe llants eligible fo r co s ts and fee s under EA J A for the service s pe rf or me d p ri or to t he e xec uti on

of the fo rm a l f

e e a g re e me nt. Upon consider ation of the foreg oing analy sis, appellant J ohn A. R ozmus ' application for fee s an d ex p en s es u n d er

E AJ A i s GR AN T E D i n t h e a m o u n to f $ 4 , 2 9 9

. 4 6

. Ap p el l an t Ge rt ru d e L. G ra y 's application for

fee s and expenses under EAJA is GRANTED in the amount of $8,075.18. The issue reg ardingthe Secr etar

y ' s Notice of Supplementa l Authority and the a ppellant' s o p p o s i t ion to that fi lin g is the re by

moo t.

DA TE D: Marc h 1 3, 20 00 PER CU RI AM

. STEI NB ERG, Judge , concur

ring : Iag ree with the result (awar d of fe es and e x penses unde r the Eq ua l A c c e ss t o Just ic e Ac t, 2 8 U .S. C. § 24 12 (d ) (E AJA) , for the pr e -f e e -a g re e me nt p e ri od s in question) but believe that the rationale for that r esult is incomplete and re quires some e x planation in t e rm s o f t

he fa c ts o f t

he tw o c a se s. First, Sim ile

s v . W est sug g ests that the question of whe ther a nd when a

n attorney -client relationship has been esta blished may

be a matter of fede ral law, for purposes of the EAJA, and that
e vid e nc e that the c lie nt co ns e nte d to th e ini tiatio n o f r e pr e se ntatio n b y the a tto rn e y , s uc h a s e xists in eac h of t he ca s e s b e f

o r e u s , is s u f

f ic ie n t f o r th a t p u r p o s e e v e n th o u g h th e r e ma y b e n o w r itten repr esentation ag ree ment. Similes , 11 Vet.App. 115 ( 1998).3

Al te rn a tiv e ly , if tha t que sti on is to be de te rm ine d und e r a pp lic a ble state law, the re su lt w ou ld be the same. As to appellant Rozmus, the Secreta ry contests attorne y

fee s for time spent fr om J anuar y 9 throug h Fe bruar

y 11, 1998. I n Aug ust 1996, the V i et n am Veterans of Americ a, Inc., contra cted with the attorney to pr ovide pro bono repr esentation for the appe llant as to his claims then
curr ently befor e VA. Appellant Roz mus' J uly 16, 1999, Reply , Ex hibit A. There is no indication that the contra ct was limited to repr esentation before the Boa rd, and the attorney

cer tainly did not view it as so limited because he beg an to consider an appeal t o this Court two day s after the B VA decision wa s issued on J anuar y 7, 1998. As to appellant Gr ay , the Secr etar y contests attorne y

fee s for time spent fr om October 14, 1997, throug h J uly

6, 1998. On October 12, appellant Gray sent a letter

to the attorney . Appellant Gra y ' s J uly 16, 1999, Reply , Ex hibit B. The attorney rec eived that letter

on October

14, revie wed that letter, a

nd on October

17 telephoned the appellant to disc uss her c ase. A ppellant Gra

y ' s J uly 16, 19 99 , Re ply , Exhi bit A. On Oc tob e r 17 , the a tto rn e y a g re e d to " ob ta in a c op y of [the ap pe lla nt' s]
c la im f ile fo r p ur po se s o f r e vie wi ngit a nd makin g a re c omm e nd a tio n a bo ut w he the r t o p ro c e e d w ith an ap peal to th e C ou rt ." Ib id

. On October 20, the appellant signe d a VA a uthorization form in order to allow the attorne y

to rec eive a

copy of her claims file.

Acc ording ly , Iag ree with the Court that, by virtue of the appellant's consent t o the initiation of repr esentation a ctivity by the attorney in e ach case , an attorne y -client re lationship was established that rende red e ach a

ppellant eligible for EAJA fee s and ex penses f or the ser vices pe rfor

med by the attorney prior to the execution of the f ormal fe e ag ree ments. See Similes , su pra (holding that work done by attorney afte r client ha d consente d to repre sentation was compensable under EAJ A but that work done befor e that consent had been g rante d was not compe nsable); se e als o W ar m v . G re e nb e rg , 279 N.E.2d 640, 641 (Ohio Ct. App. 1971) ( as soon as attorney spends any

time o n re q u est for assistance , potential client is obligated to compensate attorne y for that time).

F in a ll y , th e r e is p r e s e n tl y p e n d in g b e f o r e th e Co u rt in Rozmus an August 10, 1999, unopposed motion by

the Secr etar

y to file a re ply

to the appellant' s J uly

16, 1999, reply

to the Se c re tary ' s r e sp on se to the a pp e lla nt' s EAJA ap pli c a tio n. Iwo uld have pr e fe rr e d to have g ra nte d th is motion and rec eived the Sec reta ry ' s reply befor e the Court rule d in this m atter.