N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ALFR E D F. W AKELEY,

Pe t i tione r,
v. KNUTSON TOW B OAT C OM PANY; e t a l., R e sponde nts. No. 19-70399 B RB No. 18-0238
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B e ne fits R e vie w B oa

rd A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

Se pte m be r 3, 2020 Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : TASHIM A, B YB EE, a nd C OLLINS, C irc uit Judge s. Alfre d W a ke l e y

pe titions for re vie w of a

B e ne fits R e vie w B oa

rd (B RB ) de c ision upholding a

n a d m inistra tive la w judge (ALJ) de c ision a warding W a ke le y a ttorne y ’ s fe e s a

nd c o sts unde r the Longshore and Ha rbor W orke rs’ C om

pe nsation Ac t (LHW C A), 33 U.S.C . §§ 901–50. W e re vie w the B RB de c ision “ for e rrors of 

# FIL ED AUG 20 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.la

w a nd a dhe re nc e to the substa ntia l e vide nc e sta

nda rd.” Port of Portland v

. Dir., OW C P , 932 F.2d 836, 838 (9th C ir. 1991). W e grant the pe tition for re v ie w a nd
re m and to the B RB for furthe r proc e e d ings. W e a lso orde r the B R B to re a ssign this m a tte r to a

diffe re n t ALJ on re m and. 1. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e doe s not support the ALJ’ s de t e rm i na tion of the hourly ra te for W a

ke le y ’ s attorne y , C ha

rle s R obinowitz . W e grant the pe tition for
re vie w on this ground a

nd re m and for furthe r proc e e dings c o nsiste nt with this disposition. On re

m and, the B RB should ta ke into c onside ra tion upda te d e v ide nc e of hourly ra te s in the Portla

nd c om m unity , inc luding the2017 upda te to the Ore gon Sta

te B ar (OSB ) Ec onom ic Surve y , in de te rm ining R obinowitz ’ s hourly
ra te . a . First, the ALJ e rre d in finding tha t R obinowitz

fa ile d to sa

tisfy his burde n of produc ing e v ide nc e e sta blishing the

re a sona ble ne ss of his re q

ue ste d hourly ra te . To e sta

blish there a sona

ble ne s s of fe e s sought, the fe e a pplic a n t ha s the i nitia l burde n o f produc tion, inc luding “ proof of m arke t

ra te s in the re le va

nt
c om m unity .” Unite d State

s v . $28,000.00 in U.S. C

urre nc y , 802 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th C ir. 2015) (c ita

tion om i tte d). In support of his re que s te d hourly ra te , R obinowitz

subm i tte d his own de c l ara tion, the a ffida vit of a n e xpe rie nc e d pra c titione r, a

2014 surve y o f c om

m e rc ia l litiga

t ion ra te s, a 2009 surve y

of sm a ll
2la

w firm ra te s, e x c e rpts of the 2012 OSB surve y , a nd attorne y fe e orde rs from the B RB and the Ninth C irc uit Appe lla te C om m issione r awarding him

sim ila r ra te s in othe r c a se s. Substa

ntia l e vide n c e doe s not support the ALJ’ s c onc lusion tha

t R obinowitz

did not m e e t

his initia l burde n of produc tion. Se e Se ac hris v . Brady

Hamilton Ste v e doreC

o. , 994 F.3d 1066, 1077 (9th C ir. 2021). b. Se c ond, the ALJ e rre d by re je c ting R obinowitz ’ s e vide nc e of pre v a i ling m arke t rate s a s outda te d. Although fe e aw ards should be ba se d on
c urre nt m arke t c onditions, historic a l e v ide n c e is re le va nt to de t e rm ining c urre nt
m arke t c onditions, pa

rtic ula rly whe n it is theonly

e vide nc e a va ila

ble
. Se e id. a t 1077–78 (c iting C

hriste nse n v . Ste v e doring Se rv s . of Am. , 557 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th C ir. 2009)). Substa

n tia l e vide nc e doe s not support the ALJ’ s re je c t ion of the 2009 sm a ll firm

surve y a s outda te d, pa rtic ula rly give n the ALJ’ s a djustm e nt of 2011 ra te s to re a c h the 2017 proxy m arke t rate . Se e id.
c . Third, the ALJ e rre d by re j e c ting R obinowitz ’ s proffe re d e vide nc e of
c om m e rc ia l litiga

t ion ra te s. In de te rm ining the a

ppropria te ra t e , the ALJ wa s re quire d to look to ra

t e s c ha rge d for “ sim ila

r se rvic e s by

la wy e rs of re a sona

bly
c om pa ra ble skill, e xpe rie nc e , a

n d re puta t ion.” Blum v . Ste nson , 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984). The ALJ’ s re a soning tha t c om m e rc ia l litiga

tion is not sim

ila r to LHW C A work is unpe rsua sive be c a use the ALJ a

ppe ars to ha

ve c o nflate d
3c om

m e rc ia l litiga

t ion with c om

ple x litiga

tion a nd ha s fa ile d to providea ra tiona l ba sis for distinguishing c om m e rc ia l litiga

tion whileusing pla intiff c ivil litiga tion
and ge ne ra l pra c tic e a s c om pa ra tors. S e e Se ac hris , 994 F.3d a

t 1079. d. Fourth, the ALJ e rre d in re j e c ting R obinowitz ’ s e v ide nc e from the 2012 OSB surve y . The ALJ re je c te d R obinowitz ’ s proffe re d portions of the surve y re porting ra

te s c ha rge d by y e ars of e xpe rie nc e without m uc h e xpla na tion e xc e pt a
c ita tion to the

a ttorne y fe e orde r in Se ac hris and inste a d re lie d on the portions of the s urve y

re porting ra

t e s by pra c tic e are a . The ALJ provide d no re a sone d ba sis for re je c ting this e vide n c e , a

nd y e ars of e xpe rie nc e is a re le va nt fa c tor in de te rm i ning a

proxy m arke t rate . Se e id. a t 1080 (c iting Shirrod v . Dir., OW C P , 809 F.3d 1082, 1089 (9th C ir. 2015)). The ALJ’ s re lia n c e on he r prior attorne y

fe e orde r in Se a c hris in pla c e of a re a sone d a

na l y s is wa s im

prope r. Se e C

hriste nse n , 557 F.3d a

t 1054 (holding tha

t ALJs m a

y not re ly sole ly on a ttorne y fe e awards in othe r LHW C A c a se s).
e . Fifth, the ALJ’ s de c ision to plac e R obinowitz in the 75th pe rc e ntile
m ust be va c a te d. Although the ALJ c ould re a sona

bly have pla c e d R obinowitz

in
e ithe r the 75th pe rc e ntile or 95th pe rc e ntile , in de c iding to pla c e R obinowitz in the 75th pe rc e ntile he re , the ALJ re lie d on he r pla c e m e nt in Se ac h ris , a de t e rm i na tion that we found wa s influe nc e d by im prope r c onside ra tions. Se e Se ac hris , 994 F.3d
4a t 1080–81. As in S e ac hris , a re m and is ne c e ssa

ry to de te rm ine the prope r pe rc e ntile ranking. f. Fina lly , the ALJ e rre d in inc luding the“ ge ne ra l” pra c tic e are a in the proxy m arke t rate c a l c ulation. The re is a m ple e vide nc e in the re c ord tha t R obinowitz

is a spe c ia list ra

the r tha n a ge ne ra list, a

n d the ALJ provide d no
re a s one d ba sis for inc luding ge n e ra l pra c tic e while e xc luding c om m e rc ia l litiga tion. Se e id. a t 1082. There c ord doe s not support the ALJ’ s inc lusion of the ge ne ra l pra c tic e c at e gory . 2. The ALJ e rre d in de te rm ining thehourly ra te for R obinowitz ’ s pa ra le ga l. In a

warding a n hourly ra t e of $150, theALJ’ s e x c lusive re lia nc e on the
ra te awarde d in Se ac hris and rate s a warde d by

ALJs in othe r LHW C A c a se s wa s im prope r. Se e C

hriste nse n , 557 F.3d a

t 1054. Robinowitz ’ s e vide nc e
— his own
a ffidav it, the 2014 c om

m e rc ia l litiga

tion ra t e surve y , a

n d the 2014 a

ttorne y fe e orde r in Pe titt v . Sause Brothe rs , No. 12-70740 (9th C ir. App. C om m ’ r Se pt. 24, 2014)— e sta

blishe s his re que ste d ra te of $165. W e grant the pe tition for re vie w on this ground. On rem and, the B RB sha ll a ward R obinowitz ’ s pa

ra le ga l a n hourly
ra te of $165. 3. The ALJ a

nd B RB e rre d in de n y ing R obinowitz an a w ard of inte re st
on c osts a s a

de la y e nha nc e m e nt. B oth the ALJ a nd B RB found tha

t R obinowitz
5fa ile d to e sta blish tha t the LHW C A pe rm its inte re st on c osts be c a u se he fa ile d to provide c a se s supporting such an a ward, but the Supre m e C ourt ha s m a de c le ar that
suc h inte re st is not c a te goric a lly una va i la ble in fe e -shifting c a se s. Se e Se ac hris , 994 F.3d a

t 1084 (c iting Pe rduev . K e nny A. e x re l. W inn , 559 U.S. 542, 555 (2010)). The ALJ’ s a lte rna t ive holding tha t a djusting his a

ttorne y fe e ra te to the 2017 m arke t rate a de quate ly c om pe nsate d R obinowitz

for the de la

y in pa y m e nt fa ils to a c c ount for the distinc t de la y in pa y m e nt on c osts. W e grant the pe tition for re vie w on this ground, a nd on re m and the B RB sha ll de t e rm ine whe the r an award of inte re st on c osts is a ppropria te give n the de l ay in pa

y m e nt on se rvic e s pe rform e d be twe e n 2007 a nd 2017. 4. Fina lly , we sua sponte dire c t tha t the B RB a ssign this m

a tte r to a diffe re nt ALJ on re m an d . The ALJ re lie d he a vily on he r prior attorne y fe e orde r in Se ac hris

— a de c ision tha

t ra ise d c onc e rns a

bout the im

pa rtia lity and fa irne ss of the proc e e dings. 994 F.3d a

t 1084. Suc h

re lia nc e on a prior fe e award sugge sts tha t this c a s e did not re c e i ve the inde pe nde nt e va luat ion re quire d by C hriste nse n . Se e 557 F.3d a

t 1054
. B e c a

use the ALJ’ s tone , m anne r of e va luation, a nd re lia n c e on Se ac hris do not give

us c onfide nc e tha

t R obinowitz

re c e ive d a

fre sh e va luation in this c a s e , c o nside ra tion by a ne w ALJ is wa

rra nte d. PE T IT IO N G RANT E D AND RE M A N DE D.
6