## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 10

- 3746 J AYNE A. M AT HE WS -S HEET S, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. M ICHAEL J. A S T RUE , Com m i ssi onero fS oci al S ecuri ty, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apo lisDiv isi on. No . 1:08

- cv-1426-WTL-D ML

—William T. Lawr ence , Judge

. A RG UE D J UNE 14, 2011

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 5, 2011

Befo re P OSNER, R OV NER, a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . A fte r p re va ilin g in th is s u it f orso ci al se curi ty disabi l i ty benefi ts, t h e pl ai nti f fas ked f or ana wa r d o fa t t o r ne y ’ s fe e s o f$ 2 5 , 2 0 0
. T he di s t ri ct j udg e cut th e amoun t do wn to $ 6, 62 5. He tho ug ht the ho u rs h er l aw yerhad spent o n the case exce ssi ve and sl i ced them fro m 11 2 o r 116 ( w e’ re abo ut to see that i t’ s un clear ho w m an y ho ur s th e l awy erwas s ee k i ng com pensati on f or ) to 53. A l though the j ud ge’ s ex p lana-2 N o. 10

- 3746 tion for th is drastic cu t w as skim p y, it w as skim p y i n p art because he ha d si m ply adopted o b j ecti ons m ade by the S oci al S ecurity A dm i ni str ati on’ s l aw yer

— and those obj ecti ons w er e co m pel l i ng. The y i ncl ud ed obj ecti ons to 1. 5 ho ur s th atthe pl ai nt i f f’ s l awy erc l ai m ed f o r pr epa r i ng r eq ue sts f o r e xt en si o ns o ft i m e, 6 ho ur s f o r pr epa r i ngthe fee p et itio n, 10 h ou rs for p re p ar i n g t h e re p ly b rie f in supp or t o fthe f ee peti ti on, and 16 h ou rs f orpre pari ng a t wo - p a g e l e t t e r . I ti s n o tth a ta n y o fth e i t e ms wer e i mproper, se e Com m i s s i one rv. Je an , 496 U
. S. 154 ( 1990 ) ; i t was th atthe a m o unto ft i m e th athe ha d s pen t on each o ne w a s e xc essive. M oreover, he had ad d ed the 10 hou rs f o r the b r i efto 1 06 hour s f o r hi s o th erwor ko n the ca se e ve n tho ug h the num be r o fho ur s th athe s o ug ht co mpe n s a t i o n f o r, b e f o r e t h e a d d i t i o n o f t h e h o u r s s pen t on th e rep ly brie f, w a s 112. T he j ud ge w asn ’t sure w hetherhe was as ki ng f orco m pensati on f or10 6, 11 2, o r 116 hours ( orper haps 122 : 1 12 plus 10) The bi gge st ch u n k of tim e for w hich he sou gh t a fee aw ard

— 85 .5 hou rs

— w as f orwri ti ng two br i ef s, and as the j ud ge p ointed out “th e m aj ority of[ th e con ten ts of] thos e brief s re lat ed to arg u m en ts th at w er e w h olly w ith ou t m er it.” The j ud g e a l s o tho ughtthe h o ur l y r a t e the l a wy e r was se ek i ng

— $225

— excess i ve, and cut that down to the ra te speci fi ed i n the sta tute ( the pr esum pti ve ceili ng, as w e’ re about to see )

— $1 25
. Al th o ug h the l awy er ’ s ar g um ent f ora hi gherr ate was w ea k, th e j ud ge rej ecte d i t o n a n i mpr o pe r g r o un d. The E qual A cces s t o J usti ce Act, wh i ch i s the bas i s f or awar di nga tt o rney ’s f ee s i n thi s ca se , pr o vi des tha t th e aw ar d “shal l be base d up on pre vai l i ng m ar ketr ate s f orN o. 10

- 3746 3
t he k i nd a nd q ua l i t y o fthe s e r v i c e s fur ni s he d, e xc e pt that

. . . att or ney fees shal l notbe aw ar ded i n exces s o f $125 p e r h o uru nl e s s the c o ur tde t e r mi ne s tha tan i nc r ea se i n the c o sto fl i vi ng [ si nc e 19 96 , whenthe c ur r en t ve r s i o n o f t he Act wa s pa s s e d] o r a s pe c i a l f a c t o r, such a s th e l i m i te d a va i l ab i l i tyo fqua l i fi ed at to r ne y s f o r the pr o c e e di ngi nv o l v e d, j us t i fi e s a hi g he r fe e . ” 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2412 ( d)( 2) ( A ) ( i i )

. This i s an unu sual f or m of f eeshi fti ng st atute , and ra therchi ntzy; the usual f or m j ust sp ecifi es “reason able attorn eys’ fees. ” Th e d ep artu re fro m it in t h e E q u al A c c es s t o Ju st ice A c t is at tr ibu ta b le to the J usti ce Depar tm ent’ s r ese rv ati ons, shar ed by a num ber of m em ber s of Congre ss, about f or kin g ov er gov er nm ent m oney to peopl e li tig ati ng ag ai nst the go ver nm ent. S ee H
. R. Rep. N o. 96 -14 18 , 96t h C on g., 2d Ses s. 7 ( 1980 ) ; 126 C on g. Rec. 28 , 644- 47 ( 1980 )

. The A ct’ s fi nal form refl ects this con cern . M ostti m e s pent by l aw yers see ki ng so ci al se curi ty disabi l i ty benefi ts f orthei r cl i ents i s spent at the adm i ni str ati ve l eve l, and f ees awarded und erthe Equ al A cces s to J usti ce A ct ar e l i m i ted to w or k perf or m ed i n the jud ici al pro ceedi ng chal l engi ng the adm i ni str ati ve den ial of benefi ts. S ee Su lliv a n v . H ud son , 490 U
. S. 87 7, 891- 92 ( 1989 ) ; R aines v. Shalala , 44 F .3 d 1 3 55, 1358 (7th C ir. 1995). Bu t the S oci al Se curi ty A ct pr ovi des f orawardi ng a “r ea so n ab le fe e” to c om p en sa te a law ye r w h o s u c c es sfu lly re prese nts a cl i ent i n the adm i ni str ative p ro ceedi ng. 42 U. S

. C. § 4 06 ( a) ( 1)

. And i fa de ni alo fb en efi ts a t th e admi ni st r at i ve l ev el i s su cc es sful l y c ha l l en g ed i n the dist ri ct c ourt, the cour t m ay aw ar d a “reasonabl e fee” unde r the S o ci alS ec ur i tyActf o r the l awy er ’ s wor ki n the4 N o. 10

- 3746 j ud i ci al

- re vi ew pro ceedi n g, tho ugh thatfee m ay not ex ceed 2 5 per ce nto fthe t o ta l pa st
- due b en efi ts tha t th e cl ai m ant r ecei ved a s a res ulto fthe cour t’ s deci si on. 42 U
. S. C. § 4 06( b) ( 1) ( A )

. I fthe court aw ar ds f ees under bo th the Soc i al Securi ty A ct and the Equal A cces s t o J usti ce Act, a s i ti s a l l o we d t o d o , onl y the l a r g e r o fth e t wo aw ar d s m ay be co llec te d

. M cGui r ev. Su l l i van , 873 F. 2d 974, 97 7 n . 1 (7t hC ir. 19 89 ); We ak l ey v. Br own , 803 F. 2d 575, 58 0 (10 th C i r. 19 86)

. ( Otherwise the l aw yerwould be paid tw i ce f orthe sam e work

. ) The cas es w e’ ve j ust ci ted sa y that Congre ss decree d thi s re sul t, al though a l l theyci te i s the H ouse Reportthat we ci ted ea rl i er, wh i ch i s no t l eg i sl at i o n. Butthe y a r e r i g ht

— ther e is le gi sl ati on, j ust not codi fi ed. A ct o fA ugust 5 , 1985 , Pub. L. N o. 99

- 80, § 3, 99 St at. 18 3, 18 6 ( 1985 ); s ee Savi ngs Pr ovi si on N ote to 28 U
. S. C. § 2 412. I n hi s i ni ti al subm i ssi on the pl ai ntiff’ s l aw yerbas ed hi s re q u est f oran ho url y fee gr eat erthan $125

— n am ely $225

— on a cl ai m thati t w as t h e preva i l i ng m ar ketr ate f orhi s s er vi ces to hi s cl i ent. But he fail ed to i nd i cate w he th er he m ean t the pr evaili ng m arket rate for l aw yers i n so ci al se curi ty disabi l i ty case s o r som e g ener al avera ge o fl awy erfee s i n the r eg i o n i n whi chhe pr ac ti ce s. And he did notm enti on the co st ofl i vin g or any o ther“s peci al f acto r. ” T he g o v e r nme nti n i t s b r i e fi n r e s po ns e o ppo se d a ny fee awar d i n e xc es s o f$ 12 5 anho ur . The l awy erfi l ed a r epl y b r i efin w hi chhe di vi ded th e Con

su m er Pric e In d ex f or 2009, w he n th e bu lk of his w ork o n the c as e was do ne , b y the CPIf o r 1 99 6, whenthe sta tutor y r ate ( w hi ch had been $75 an hou r) w as ra i sed to $125 , and m ult i pli ed t h e quoti ent b y $ 125, wh i chN o. 10

- 3746 5 y i el ded $1 70
. At a r g um en t h e to l d us tha t he us ed th e CPIf o r “ m i dwes te r n t o wns wi th5 0, 00 0 i nhabi tants”; he pract i ces l aw i n the Vil l age o fFr ankf or t, I l l i noi s, popula

ti o n 1 8, 00 0. The r epl y b r i efdo es n ot indi ca te tha t he actual l y use d that m eas ure and our own co m pu ta ti on i n d i c a t e s th a t $ 1 6 7 i s t h e c o r r e c t n u mb e r, b u t we w on’t q uibb le over $3 an hou r. The r epl y b riefga ve no r ea so n f o r c ho o singthe CPI ove r othe r i nfl ati on m eas ures , norexp l ai ned w hy an i nfl at i o n adj us tment was appr o pr i at e i n th i s ca se. The l awy err epe at ed hi s r eque stf o r $ 22 5 an h ou r on th e gr ound that that was the p re vail i ng m ar ketr ate , but pre sum abl y he m eant to be as ki ng f or$1 70 as a f al lba cki fthe j udg e r efus ed to a war d hi m the preva i l i ng r ate
. The Equ al A cces s t o J usti ce Act does notauth ori ze an aw ar d of th e p r e v a i lin g h ou rly rat e, as su c h, un les s itis less than $125 an hou r . F o r that m atter it does n’t au th o r i ze a n a ward of $1 25 pe r ho ur, o r e ve n $ 12 5 pl us i nfl ati on. The $1 25 ra te i s a p resum pti ve cei l i ng; to j usti fy a hi gherr ate the pla i n tiff m ust poi nt to i nfl ati on orso m e o therspeci al f acto r. F lo roi u v . Go nz a les , 49 8 F .3d 74 6, 74 9 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ) (p er cu ria m ); M uhu rv. A shcroft, 382 F.3 d 65 3, 65 6 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ); H ealey v. Leavitt, 485 F. 3d 63, 68

- 71 ( 2d Cir

. 20 07)

. I fhe poi nts t o i nfl ati on he st i l l m ust s how thati t a ctually ju sti fi es a hi gherfee; f orwh i l e i t m i ght s eem o bvi ou s that a st atuto ry pri ce cei l i ng sho uld be rai sed in step w i th infl ati on, to d o that as a r o t e ma t t e r wo ul d p r o du c e wi nd f a l l s i n s o me c a ses . In flat ion affe c ts d iffer en t m ar ke ts , an d d iffer en t c os ts in6 N o. 10

- 3746 th e sa m e m ar k et, i n di f f eren t way s. The fr amer s o fthe Eq ual A cces s t o J usti ce Act w er e r i ght there f or e n ot to cr ea te a n e n t i t l e m e nt t o a n i nfl at i o n a dj us tment; the l aw yerse eki ng such a n adj ustm ent m u st show thati nfl ati o n ha s i nc r e a s e d the c o s to fp r o v i di nga de qu a t e l ega l ser vic e to a per son see ki ng r el i efag ai nst the go ver nm ent. B ryant v. Co m m is si oner of Social Secur ity, 57 8 F
. 3d 443, 45 0 ( 6t h C ir. 20 09 ); M ay v . Su l l i van , 9 3 6 F
. 2 d 1 7 6 , 17 8 ( 4th C ir. 19 91 ) (p er cu ria m ); H ead lee v. B o w en , 869 F. 2d 548, 55 2 (10 th C i r . 1 98 9); B a k er v. B o w en , 83 9 F
. 2d 1075 , 10 84 ( 5th C ir. 1988); bu t cf. Joh nson v. Su l l i van , 91 9 F
. 2d 503, 50 5 ( 8th Ci r. 19 90) ( i nti m ati ng a presum pti on i n f avo r ofa cos t ofl i vi ng adj ustm ent)

. N o such showing w as m ade. B ut the d istrict j ud ge d id n ot rej ect th e requ est for a high er fee on th e basis of t h e w e a k ne ss of the law yer’s ar g um en t. I ns te ad he s ai d tha t th e i nf o r m at i o n i n the re ply br i efabo ut co st ofl i vi ng h ad b ee n subm i tte d “too l ate
. ” Altho ugh the g ener al r ule i s i nd eed thatar gum ents mad e f o r the fi r s tt i me i n a r e pl y b r i e fa r e f o rf e i t e d, N a rdu cci v . M o o re, 5 72 F
. 3d 31 3, 3 24 ( 7th Ci r . 2 009), the j u d ge d id n ’t in vo ke th e ru le

— a nd a ny wa y i twa s i na ppli cabl e. Rem em berthatthe l aw yeras ked fo r $225 an h ou r in h is o p en in g b rie f. Th e g ov er n m en t’s br ief in re sponse sai d i t was to o m uch. T h e law yer r epl i ed that i t w as n ’t t oo m uch because i nfl ati on br ought the $ 125 sta tutor y pr esum pti ve m axi m um to $1 70 i n re al te rm s. Tha t was a n o n s equi tu r ; a c o sto fl i vi nga dj us tment t h at rais ed th e s ta tu to ry fee to $1 70 p ro vid ed n o b as is f oran a w ar d of$2 25. The l aw yernam ed no o therf actor. A nd he d idn ’t help h is cas e by argu ing tha t he d idn ’tN o. 10

- 3746 7

eve n have to requesta c o s to fl i v i ngi nc r e a se

— t h a t itis tack ed on autom ati cal l y to the sta tutor y f ee, th e w ay postj ud gm ent i n te re st i s a utom ati cal l y t acke d on to an a wa r d o fd a ma g e s . Ani n fl a t i o n a d j u s t me n t mu s t, a s we s a i d , b e j u s t i fi e d b y r e f e r e n c e t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r c i r c u msta n c es o fthe l aw yerse eki ng the i ncre ase . S up pose i nfl at i o n h a d n o ta f f e c t e d th e wa g e s he p a y s h i s c l e r i c a l e mplo yee s, o r had been o f f setby advances i n l aw - offi ce tec hn o l o g y o r c ha ng e s i n t he s t a nd a r ds a nd p r o c e dure s of t h e So c ial Se c u rit y A d m in ist ra tio n th at m ad e it cheaper to l i ti gat e cl ai m s f ordi sabi l i ty benefi ts. T h at sa id , a fee of $1 25 for leg al s er vic es ren d er ed in 20 09 in a so c ial se c u rit y d isa b ility ap p ea l se e m s a w fu lly l ow , e speci al l y when m ult i pli ed by the c ut- dow n l eve l ofhour s a l l owed b y the di str i ct j ud ge to yi el d a to tal f ee aw ar d of$6 , 625. Can a c onte ste d s oci al se curi ty cas e r e a l l y b e l i t i g a t e d t o j ud g men t i n a di s t r i c t c o ur tat a co st i n l ega l fees o fso m i nut e an am ount? Even a t $170 an ho ur the to talfe e aw ar d w oul d be o nl y $ 9, 010. I n the ci rcum sta nces, as we have e xplai ned, it was not i m pr o perf o r the l awy ert o r eque stthe c o sto fl i vi ng i nc r ea se f o r the fi r stt i m e i n hi s r epl y b r i ef

. The j udg e’ s st at ed r ea so n f o r r ej ec ti ngthe e nha nc ement

— th at th e re q u es t w as u n tim ely

— w as t h u s inv alid . H is mi s t a k e i n i n v o k i n g f o r f e i t u r e , a n d th e me a g e r n e s s o fthe f ee aw ar d, w hi ch r esul ted in p ar t fro m thatm i sta ke, per su ade us tha t he s ho ul d t ak e a fur th erl o o ka t th e pla i nti f f’ s r equest f ora cos t o fl i vi ng adj ustm ent. Buttha t sh o uld b e th e en ti r e sc o pe o fthe r emand. The pla i nti f f’s law yerm enti oned nothi ng o therthan i nfl ati on8 N o. 10

- 3746 that m i ght j usti fy a fee aw ard above the sta tutor y pr esu m p tiv e c eilin g. I t is d ou b tfu l th at h e c ou ld h av e id en tifi ed another j usti fi cati on i n thi s ca se. The Suprem e Cour t has hel d that th e otherspeci al f acto r m enti oned i n the sta tute

— “the l im ite d avai l abi l i ty o f qu a l i fi e d a t t o r ne y s f o r the p r o c e e di ngi nv o l v e d”

— i s t o be interp reted narrow ly, as being li m ite d t o nec essary sk ills or kn ow led ge sp e c i a l i ze d to th e a re a o f law in questi on, and that any no nenum er ate d s peci al f acto r m ust l i kewis e be speci al i zed to t h at ar ea ofl aw and so ca n’ t be j us t a fac to r o f“ br o ad an d g en er ala ppl i ca ti o n” su cha s “th e ‘no ve l tya nd di f fi cul tyo fi ss ue s, ’ ‘ th e unde si r ab i l i tyo fthe c as e, ’ the ‘ wor ka nd abi l i tyo fc o unsel, ’ and ‘ the r esul ts obt ai ned. ’ ” Pie r cev. U nde r wood, 48 7 U
. S. 552, 572 (1988 ). R arely are sp ecial factors oth er th an th e tw o enu m erat ed in the s ta tu te i nv o k ed. S o m e co ur ts thi nkundu e lit i gio u sn es s b y t h e g ov er n m en t s u c h a fac to r, e.g., Je an v. Nels on , 8 63 F
. 2 d 7 59 , 7 76 ( 11 thCi r . 1 98 8) , b ut us ua l l y tha t would justi nc r ea se the numbe r o fho ur s th e pla i nti f f’ s l aw yerh ad to spend on the case r atherthan t h e h o u r l y r a t e . C o n t r o v e r s y i n th e w a k e o fth e S u p r e me Cou r t’ s dec i si o n i n Pie r cev. U nde r wood has f ocuse d on w hethera speci al i zed l ega l prac tice i s i pso f acto a speci al f acto r w ar ra nti n g a fe e above the sta tutor y fee

— th e p os itio n of th e N in th C irc u it, e.g., N a da raj a h v . Ho lder, 56 9 F
. 3d 90 6, 9 12

- 14 ( 9th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( i m m igrati o n a nd habeas co rpus)

— orwh ether, atthe opposi te extr em e, th e s p ec ial t y m u st be on e re q u irin g t ra in in g in a field outsi de A m er i can l aw

— th e po si tion o fthe F i ftha ndN o. 10

- 3746 9 D .C . C irc u its . See , e.g., In reSe al ed Case00

- 5116 , 25 4 F.3 d 23 3, 23 5-3 6 (D .C

. C ir. 20 01 ); E s t a t eo f C e r v i n v . C o mmi s s i o n e ro

f In t e r n a l R e v e nue, 200 F.3d 351 , 355 (5th C ir. 2000 ))

. N eit h er ex tr em e is at tr ac tiv e. M os t law ye rs ar e s p e c ialists; i fbei ng a speci al i st i s a suffi ci ent g ro und f ora f ee awar d above the s ta tu to r y pr es um pti ve c ei l i ng, the c eilin g is a d ea d let te r. B u t t o c on fin e t h e lim ite d -av ailab i l i tys pec i alf ac to r t o s pec i al ti es r equi r i ngt r ai ni ng o u ts id e o f A m er ica n law is to o c on fin in g. Ju d ge B ou d in propos ed an at tr acti ve m i dd l e g ro und in hi s op in ion f o r a pa ne l o fthe F i rst C irc ui t i n A tla ntic Fish Sp o tters A ss’n v . D a ley, 205 F.3d 488 , 492 (1s t C ir. 2000 ), wh e n h e s a i d th a t“ t h e s t a tu t e d o e s n o ta s s i g n e x t r a c o mpensati on by‘ fi el ds’ but b y a ski ng the prac ti calquesti on w h etheri n the case athand l aw yer s qual i fi ed to hand l e t h e ca se can be f ound fo r $125 [ per hour] o r l es s . . . . [ I ] f a pl ai nt i f fc ans ho w tha t a par ti cul ar. . . k i nd ofcas e . . . r equi re s f orco m p et en t co unsel so m eone fro m am on g a sm all c las s o f sp ec ialis ts w h o a r e a va ilab le o nl y f o r [ m ore tha n $ 12 5] pe r ho ur, tha t se ems t o us enoug h t o m eetthe l anguage o fthe sta tute, i ts pu rpos e, an d the Su p re m e Cou r t’ s g l o ss [ i n P ie rc e ]
. ” Our o pi ni o ns a r e co ns i st en t wi thJ udg e Bo udin’s f o r m ul at i o n, Flo urio u v . Go nz a les , sup ra , 498 F.3d at 74 9; M uhu rv. A shcroft, sup ra , 382 F.3d at 65 6; R a ines v. Sh a la la, sup ra , 44 F. 3d at 1361 , i fnotqui te so cri sp. ( For an exhausti ve re view o fthe dizz yi ng ar ra y o fal ter nati ve posi ti ons i n the cou rt s ofappeal s, se e Fo rm er E m plo yees of BM C Sof

t ware, Inc
. v. U
. S. Se cre t ary of La b or, 51 9 F. Su p p . 2d 12 91 , 134 7-5 2 (C t. Int ’l T ra d e 2 00 7).)10 N o. 10

- 3746 I t m i ght s eem thatbec au se t h e costo fl i vi ng speci al fac tori s no t a utom ati c, the tw o enum er ate d speci al f ac to r s m er g e; th e l awy era r g ui ngf o r a c o sto fl i vi ng in c re as e m u st sh ow lim ite d av ai l ab ility of law ye rs ab le to hand l e such a case . Bu t that i s not cor re ct. Infla ti on m i gh t have an i m pact ac ro ss a r ange offi el ds ofprac ti ce that w oul d m ake i t di f fi cul t t o h ire a co m petent l aw yer ev eni n a r athe r r o ut i ne c ase in a fi el d o fl aw b y no m ea ns e so te r i c; i n s ucha s i tu at i o n a fee abo ve the st at u to ry fee m igh t w e l l b e jus tifie d . W h en infla tio n is not a factor, th e law yer d oes ha ve to sh o w th a t there i s s om ethi ng speci al abo ut the parti cul ar ty pe ofcas e th at j u st ifies th e h igh er fee

. Thatsp eci al f acto r has no t been i nvoke d i n thi s ca se. A nd so o n r em an d the pl ai nti f f’ s l aw yerwil l have to sh ow th at w ith ou t a co st of livin g in c re as e t h at w ou ld b r i ngthe fe e a wa r d u p t o $ 1 7 0 p e r h o ur, a l aw yer c a p ab le of c om p et en tly h an d lin g t h e c h alle n ge th at h is cl i ent m ounted to the denia l o fso ci al se curi ty d i sabi l i ty benefi ts coul d not b e f ound in the r el evantge ogr aphica l ar ea to hand l e s uch a ca se. A final point: the d istri ct cou rt or d e r e d the fee aw ard pai d to the l aw yerr atherthan to hi s cl i ent, and the gov er nm ent o bj ects , ci ti ng A st ruev. Ra tl if f , 130 S. C t. 2521 (2010), w he re the Su p rem e C ou rt held th a t t h e statu tory f ee en titl ementb el o ng s to the pa r tyr athe r tha n t o the party ’ s l aw yer . But the pla i nti f fi n thi s case had assi gned he r c l a i m t o a fe e a wa r d t o h e r l a wy e r i n a dv a nc e , a nd , so fa r a s appe ar s, tha t was no t th e ca se i n R atli ff , w he re th e govern m en t w an ted to d e d uc t from the fee aw ardN o. 10

- 3746 11 a d ebt sh e ow ed

. Som e la ng ua ge in the Su p rem e C ou rt’s op inion su ggests th at assign m en t w ou ld m ake no d if feren ce : “ The f ac t thatthe s ta tu te a war ds to the pr ev ai l i ng partyfees i n w hi ch herat tor ney m ay h av e a bene fi ci al i nt er es t o r a c o nt r ac tu alr i g htdo es no t es tabl i sh thatthe sta tu te ‘a w ar ds’ the fees di re ctl y t o the a tto rney . ” Id

. at 25 26
. But el se wher e th e o pi ni o n no te s th at the gover nm ent “ often pai d EA J A fees di re ctl y t o att or neys i n case s in w h ich th e p re va ilin g p ar ty h ad as sig n ed its righ ts in th e f ees a war d t o the a tt o r ne y ( whi cha ss i g nm en t w oul d not be nece ssa ry i fthe sta tute re nd er ed the f ees aw ar d p ay ab l e to th e a tt or n ey in t h e firs t in st an c e) . . ., [ though i t] has sin ce c onti nued the dir ect paym ent pr acti ce o nl y i n case s where ‘ the p lain tiffdoes noto w e a debt t o the g ove rnm ent and as s igns t her ightto r e ce i vet he fees to the a tto r n ey . ’ ” Id

. at25 29. The l anguage we’ve i ta l i ci zed su g g es ts tha t i fthe r e i s ana ss i g nm en t, the o nl y g r o und f o r th e di st r i ct co ur t’ s i ns i st i ng o n m aking the aw ar d to the pl ai nti f fi s that the pl ai nti f fhas debts th at m ay be p riorto w ha t she ow es h e r l aw yer. T he re i s no i nd i c a t i o n o f t ha t i n t hi s c a s e , s o t o i g no r e t he as si gnm ent a nd o rderthe f ee pai d to her w oul d j ust cre ate a potenti al co l l ecti on pro bl em for the l aw yer . S ee U nited Sta tes ex rel. Vira ni v . Jer ry M . Lew is TruckP a r ts & E quipm ent, Inc. , 89 F.3d 57 4, 579 (9th Cir. 1996). E ven if ou r i nt erp retation of A st ruev. Ra tl if f i s i ncor re ct an d the j ud g e sh o ul d no t ha ve o r der ed di r ec t pay m en t ofthe f ee aw ar d to the l aw yer, thi s ca nnot hel p the gover n m en t. Fo r it is s e e k i n g to alt er th e jud gm en t a n d it c an n ot d o t h at w ith ou t h av i n g f i l ed a c ro ss -ap p ea l, e.g ., A m e rica n B o tto m C o nserv a ncy v . U .S. C o rps o f E ng ineers ,12 N o. 10

- 3746 20 11 W L 23 14 75 7, at *7 (7t h C ir. Ju n e 1 4, 2 0 1 1 ) , w h ich it ha s no t do ne . On th e co nt r ar y , i t ur g es us i n the c o nc l usi on o fi ts b ri efto affi rm the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s j ud gm en t

— ha vi ngs ai d a few pa g es e ar l ier th atthe j udg m en t i s i nc o r r ec t be ca use it or der ed pay m en t to the wro ng per so n! R EV ER S ED AN D R EMAND ED .

8- 5- 11