A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### S e p t e m b e r 25, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT
BI LLY J . HI LL,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. M I CH AEL J . ASTRU E, C o m m iss io n e r, S o c ial S e c u rity A dm i ni s t r at i on,

D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 07- 5009 ( D. C. No . 0 2 - CV- 1 2 6 - P J C) (N .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e P O R F IL IO , AN DE RS ON , and BA LD OCK , C i rcui tJudg es.

I n t he di s t r i ctcour t , T i m othyW hi t e, couns el forpl ai nt i ff Bi l l yH i l l , m oved fo r a n a w a rd o f

a tto rn e y ’s fe e s u n d e r se c tio n 2 0 6 (b )(1 ) o f th e S o c ial S e c u rityA c t, 42 U . S. C . § 406( b) ( 1) . M r . H i l l oppos ed the mot i on, and the C om m i s s i onerof the Soci al Secur i t yA dm i ni s t r at i on ( SSA ) ar gued thatt he s um M r . W hi t e r eques t ed w a s u n re a so n a b le. T h e d istric t co u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n in its e n tirety , an d th is-2-

a p p e a l e n s u e d . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r4 2 U. S . C. § 4 0 5 ( g ) a n d 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d we a ffi r m. B ackgr ound M r . Hi l l a p p l i e d fo rd i s a b i l i tyi n s u r a n c e a n d s u p p l e me n t a l s e c u r i tyi n c o me benef i t s undert he Soci al Secur i t yA cti n M ar ch 1997. T he C om m i s s i onerdeni ed t he appl i cat i on. M r . H i l l appea l ed t o the di s tr i ctcourt , w her e the part i es c o n s e n te d to p ro c e e d b e fo re a m a g is tr a te ju d g e p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 6 3 6 (c ). W h ile th a t ac tio n w a s p e n d in g , M r. H ill filed a se c o n d b e n e fits a p p lica tio n in J u n e 2 0 0 2 . I n c o n n e c t i o n wi t h e a c h a p p l i c a t i o n , M r . Hi l l a p p a r e n t l ye n t e r e d i n t o two con t i ng ent- fee ag reem ents w i t h h i s at t orney , M r. W hit e, a “S ocial S ecuri tyC ase F ee A greem ent” and an “A t t orneyF ee A greem ent. ” T hu s, i n tot al , i tapp ears th e re w e re fo u r fe e a g re e m e n ts, b u t th e re c o rd c o n tain s o n lyth e S o c ial S e c u rity C as e Fee A gr eementexec ut ed i n 1998 and the A t t orneyFee A gr eementexec ut ed i n 2002. T he ent i r etyof the 1998 Soci al Secur i tyC as e Fee A gr eementpr ovi des as fol l ow s: T hi s i s a C ont i ngentFee A gr eement . I f the ca s e i s w on, then t he att or neyfee s hal l be bas ed on ei thertw enty - fi ve per cent( 25% ) of t h e p a s td u e b e n e fi t s g e n e r a t e d o r$ 1 7 5 . 0 0 a n h o u rfo rth e t i me expende d, w hi cheve ri s m or e. G ener al l y , ther e i s a mi ni m um at t or neyfee of $2500. 00, i f [s i c] buti n no events hal l the att or ney fe e e x c e e d fif

typ e rc e n t (5 0 % ) o f

th e p a st d u e b e n e fits g e n e ra ted if l es s t han $5000. 00 i n pas tdue bene fi t s i s gener at ed. T he att orney fee i ncl udes anypas tdue auxi l i arybenef i t s and/ orSSI be nefi t s that ar e gene r at ed. I f an A t t or ney Fee Agre em ent , as pr ovi ded by 42 U . S . C . § 4 06 , i s fi l ed in this case, then i tw i l l no tapp l yi f l ess-3-

t han $10, 000 i n pas tdue bene fi t s i s gener at ed and a hear i ng i s hel d, ori f a R eques tf

orR evi ew is filed w ith th e A p p e a ls C o u n c il. A p lt. A p p . at 2 7 . T h e 2 0 0 2 A tto rn e yF e e A g re e m e n t p ro v id e s, in re lev a n t p a rt: T H I S A G R E E M E N T i s ent er ed i nt o, pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 406, th is 1 s t d a yo f

J u ly, 2 0 0 2 . . . . 1. T hi s A gr eementi s a c ont i nge nt fe e ag r e e m e nt , s o that a tto rn e yfe e s a re p a y a b le . . . o n ly in th e e v en t tha t a favorabl e adm i ni s t rat i ve det erm i nat i on i s rendere d o n myT i t l e I I . . . d i s a b i l i tyc l a i m a n d / o rmyT i t l e XVI S u p p l e me n t a l S e c u r i tyI n c o me . . . c l a i m. 2. M yR epr es ent at i ve and I under s t and thatfora fe e t o be p a y a b l e , t h e [ S S A] mu s ta p p r o v e a n yfe e my R epr es ent at i ve cha r ges orcol l ect s fr om m e fors ervi ces myRepr e s e nt a t i ve pr ov i de s i n p r oc e e di ng s be fo r e SSA i n co nn ect i on w i th m ycl ai m (s ) forben efi t s. 3 . W e a g re e th a t if th e [ S S A ] fa v o ra b ly d e c id e s m yc la im , I w i l l paym yR epr es ent at i ve an a t t orneyfee equal t o the l e s s e r of

e i t he r t w e nt y- fi ve pe r c e nt ( 25 % ) of t he pas t - due be ne fi t s r e s ul t i ng fr om m y cl ai m or t he s um of $5, 300. 00. 4 . . . . W e f

u rth e r u n d e rsta n d th a t th e a tto rn e yfe e fo r b o th cl ai m s m aynotexce ed the l es s erof tw enty - fi ve per cent ( 25% ) of the combi ned pas tdue bene fi t s or$5300. 00. A pl t . A pp. at30. I n N ovember2002 t he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed the C om m i s s i oner ’ s unoppos ed m o ti o n to rem an d the fir st ap p li ca ti o n to the ag en cyfo r fu rth er p roc ee d ing s. In F eb rua ry2 0 0 3 the d istri ct co u rtg ran ted M r. W h it e’s u n o p p o sed m o ti o n fo r $ 2 , 7 2 1 . 6 0 i n a t t o r n e y ’ s fe e s u n d e rt h e Eq u a l Ac c e s s t o J u s t i c e Ac t , 2 8 U. S . C.A s relev an t here , § 4 0 6 (a)(2)(A ) pro v ides that w h en p ast-du e b en efit s are 1 a w a rd e d a n d a w ritten a g re e m e n t fo r c o m p e n sa tio n w a s p re v io u slyp re se n ted to t he C om m i s s i oneri n w hi ch the fe e s peci fi ed does notexce ed the l es s erof 25% of th e to ta l a m o u n t o f

p a s t- d u e b e n e fits o r $ 4 ,0 0 0 (r a is e d to $ 5 ,3 0 0 in 2 0 0 2 , s ee 67 Fed. R eg. 2477 ( 2002) ) , t he C om m i s s i oners hal l appr ove the agr eement , and t he fe e s peci fi ed i n t he agr eements hal l be the maxi m um fee fors ervi ces att he a d m in istra tiv e lev e l ab se n t a r e q u e st to in c re a se it. -4- § 2412 ( E A J A ) , fors ervi ces r ender ed i n the j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs beca us e the C om m i s s i oner ’ s pos i t i on w as nots ubs t ant i al l yj us t i fi ed. In M a rc h 2 0 0 3 a n S S A a d m in istra tiv e law ju d g e (A L J) fo u n d M r. H ill di s abl ed and a w ar ded bene fi t s bas ed on hi s fi r s tappl i cat i on, di s m i s s i ng as dupl i cat i ve hi s r eques tfora hea r i ng on hi s s econd appl i cat i on, w hi ch had be en deni ed i ni t i al l yand upon r econs i der at i on. T he A L J al s o appr oved the 2002 At t o r n e yF e e Ag r e e me n t , wh i c h M r . Wh i t e p r e v i o u s l yh a d fi l e d wi th th e S S A. O n J ul y28, 2003, t he SSA i s s ued a N ot i ce of A w ar d t o M r . H i l l , gr ant i ng hi m $80, 216. 70 i n pas t - due bene fi t s , a pr os pect i ve mont hl ypaym entof $987. 00, and M ediC are el i gibi l i t y . T he ag encyw i thh el d 2 5% of the past -due be nefit s, $20, 054. 18, forpos s i bl e paym entof att or ney ’ s fee s under42 U . S. C . § 406, w hi ch, s ubj ectt o an offs etforanyE A J A aw ar d, “es t abl i s h[es ] t he exc l us i ve r egi m e for o b tain in g fe e s fo r su c c e ss f u l re p re se n tatio n o f

S o c ial S e c u rityb e n e fits cl ai m ant s , ” G is br echt v. B arnh art , 535 U . S. 789, 795- 96 ( 2002) . O utof the w i t hhel d amount , t he age ncypai d M r . W hi t e $5, 300 under§ 406( a) ( 2) ( A ) for 1 w or k per form ed att he admi ni s t r at i ve l evel bas ed on the 2002 A t t or neyFee A g re e m e n t.In r el evan tpart , § 4 06 (b) (1) (A ) pr ov i des: 2 W heneve ra courtr ender s a j udgm entfavor abl e t o a cl ai m ant undert hi s s ubchapt erw ho w as r epr es ent ed befor e the courtbyan a tto rn e y , the c o u rt m a yd e ter m in e a n d a llo w a s p a rt o f its ju d g m e n t a r eas onabl e fe e fors uch r epr es ent at i on, noti n exce s s of 25 per centof t he t ot al of the pas t - due bene fi t s t o w hi ch the cl ai m anti s ent i t l ed by re a so n o f

su c h ju d g m e n t, an d th e C o m m iss io n e r o f S o c ial S e c u rity m ay , not w i t hs t andi ng t he pr ovi s i ons of s ect i on 405( i ) of thi s t i t l e, but s ubj ectt o s ubs ect i on ( d) of thi s s ect i on, cert i fyt he amountof s uch fee forpaym entt o s uch att orneyoutof, and noti n addi t i on t o, t he am ou nt of such p ast -due be nefit s. W hen an a t t or neyobt ai ns bot h an EA J A aw ar d and a § 406( b) aw ar d, t he 3 a tto rn e yis re q u ir e d to re f u n d th e s m a lle r a w a rd to th e c lie n t. See G is br echt , 535 U . S. at796. T he pr operpr ocedur e i s fort he att or neyt o m ake the r efund f ro m th e § 4 0 6 (b ) a w a rd , n o t to re q u e s t a s m a lle r § 4 0 6 (b ) a w a rd . See McG r aw v. B arnh art , 4 5 0 F .3 d 4 9 3 , 4 9 7 n .2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); Weakley v . B ow en , 803 F. 2d 5 7 5 , 5 8 0 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 6 ). T h u s, M r. W h ite s h o u ld h a v e re q u e ste d $ 1 3 ,7 6 7 .1 8 in hi s § 406( b) m ot i on, as t he di s t r i ctcourtl at err ecogni zed. M r . W hi t e made t he o t h e rd e d u c t i o n s v o l u n t a r i l y. -5- O n J une 8, 2004, m or e than t en mont hs aft erthe C om m i s s i oneri s s ued the N ot i ce of

A w ar d, M r . W hi t e fi l ed a mot i on i n the di s tr i ctcour t , w hi ch he l at er amended, s eeki ng $11, 045. 58 i n att or ney ’ s fee s under§ 406( b) ( 1) ( A ) for 17 . 8 ho urs of w ork perform ed at the j ud i ci al l evel. M r. W hit e based his request 2 on t he 1998 Soci al Secur i t yC as e Fee A gr eement , i n part i cul ari t s pr ovi s i on that t he att or neyfee w oul d be bas ed on the gr eat erof 25% of the pas t - due bene fi t s or $ 1 7 5 p er h o u r fo r t im e sp en t. H e c alcu lat ed the a m o u n t as 2 5 % o f M r. H il l’ s pas t - due bene fi t s , l es s deduct i ons fort he EA J A aw ar d, t he § 406( a) aw ar d, and hi s ow n del ay . M r . H i l l obj ect ed t o anyfurtheraw ar d of fe es , cl ai m i ng, among 3 ot hert hi ngs , t hatM r . W hi t e had be en i neffect i ve i n hi s r epr es ent at i on and al r eady-6-

had r ece i ved the agr eed- on fee , $5, 300. T he C om m i s s i oner , i n a r ol e r es embl i ng th a t o f a tru s te e fo r M r. H ill, s ee G is br echt , 535 U . S. at798 n. 6, oppos ed the m ot i on on a numberof gr ounds , i ncl udi ng thatthe r es ul t i ng hour l yr at e w as exce s s i ve gi ven the r el at i ve s i m pl i ci tyof the i s s ues , the r eques t ed s um exce eded th e $ 5 ,3 0 0 a m o u n t ag re e d to in th e 2 0 0 2 A tto rn e yF e e A g re e m e n t, an d M r. H ill w as di s s at i s fi ed w i t h t he r epr es ent at i on and obj ect ed t o anyfur theraw ar d. T o t he e x ten t th e $ 5 ,3 0 0 c a p d id n o t ap p ly , the C o m m iss io n e r su g g e ste d th a t a r eas onabl e § 406( b) aw ar d w oul d be $6, 230 bas ed on an hour l yr at e of $350. T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed the mot i on on the gr ound thatthe courtl acke d s t atut or yauthor i t yunder§ 406( b) t o aw ar d at t or ney ’ s fee s w her e the under l y i ng c o u rt ju d g m e n t re m a n d e d to th e a g e n c yin ste a d o f a w a rd in g b e n e fits. O n a p p e a l, a n o th e r p a n e l o f

th is c o u rt re v e rs e d , see Hi l lv. B arnh art , 184 F. A pp’ x 744 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) , bas ed on the hol di ng of ouri nt erveni ng opi ni on i n McG r aw v. B arnh art , 450 F. 3d 493, 503 ( 10th C i r . 2006) , that“§ 406( b) ( 1) al l ow s a di s tr i ct cour tt o aw ar d at t or ney s ’ fee s i n conj unct i on w i th a r emand forfur ther pr ocee di ngs ; i ti s notr equi r ed, as a pr edi cat e t o a § 406( b) ( 1) fee aw ar d, thatthe di s t r i ctcourtr emand foran aw ar d of bene fi t s . ” A f te r o u r r e m a n d , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt h e ld a h e a ri n g o n th e § 4 0 6 (b ) m o tio n . M r . H i l l t es t i fi ed thatt he fouragr eement s he s i gned w er e conf us i ng and thathe t houghtt he 2002 A t t or neyFee A gr eementm eanthe w oul d payM r . W hi t e no m o re th a n a to tal o f

$ 5 ,3 0 0 fo r a ll w o rk p e rfo rm e d . H e re itera ted h is o bjec tio n toT h e d istric t co u rt a p p lied O k la. S tat. tit . 1 5 , § 1 5 8 (“ S e v e ra l co n tra c ts 4 r el at i ng t o t he s ame m at t er s , betw een the s ame par t i es , and made as part s of s ubs t ant i al l yone tr ans act i on, ar e t o be t aken t ogether . ”) ; O kl a. St at . t i t . 15, § 170 (as a rul e of lastres ort , “t he langu age o f a co ntr actshou l d b e i nterpret ed m ost s t r ongl yagai ns tt he part yw ho caus ed the unce r t ai ntyt o exi s t ”) ; and D is m uke v . Cs eh , 8 3 0 P .2 d 1 8 8 , 1 9 0 (O k la. 1 9 9 2 ) (a d d re ss in g w h e n c o n tra c tu a l am b ig u ityis co n stru ed ag ains t draf ter). -7- anyfur t herfee aw ar d. M r. W h ite a lso tes tifie d , as se rtin g th a t se p a ra te agr eement s w er e nec es s aryt o r ecove rfee s foradmi ni s tr at i ve and j udi ci al w or k, and thatt he 2002 A t t or neyFee A gr eementconce rned onl yfee s foradmi ni s tr at i ve w or k. H e admi t t ed thathavi ng t w o s epar at e agr eement s w as confus i ng, but a s s e rt e d th a t M r. H ill u n d e rs to o d th e a g re e m e n ts a t th e tim e h e s ig n e d th e m . See A p lt. A p p . at 1 4 7 , 1 5 1 ; s ee als o Ap l t . Re p l yBr . a t7 ( c h a r a c t e r i z i n g h i s o wn test im o n y ). In a w ritten d e c isio n , the d istric t co u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n o n th re e se p a ra te b a se s. F irst, th e d istric t co u rt fo u n d a c o n flict b e tw e e n th e 1 9 9 8 S o c ial S e c u rity C as e Fee A gr eementand the 2002 A t t orneyFee A gr eement : T he 1998 agr eement descri bed t he fe es pay able as the gr eat erof 25% of the pas t - due bene fi t s or$175 per hou r, bu tt he 2 00 2 ag reem ent descr i bed t he fe es pay able as the l es s erof 25% of the pas t - due bene fi t s or$5, 300 and w as notl i m i t ed t o § 406( a) fee s for se rv ice s b e fo re th e S S A . A p p ly in g O k lah o m a law a n d c o n stru in g th e a m b ig u ity cre ated b ythe tw o ag ree m en ts ag ains t th eir draf ter, M r. W h it e, the c o u rt 4 concl uded thatt he 2002 A t t or neyFee A gr eementcontr ol l ed— M r . H i l l had “agr eed t o payan att or neyfee of the l es s erof 25% of hi s pas t - due bene fi t s or-8-

$5, 300 forcouns el ’ s s ervi ces w i thoutanyr efe r ence t o w hetherthos e s ervi ces w e re b e fo re th e S S A o r th e c o u rt.” A p lt. A p p . at 1 1 5 . T h u s, b e c a u se M r. W h ite al r eadyhad r ece i ved $5, 300 fr om M r . H i l l ’ s pas t - due bene fi t s , he w as notent i t l ed to an yad d it ion al fe e u n d er § 4 0 6 (b). T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt a ls o p ro v id e d tw o a lte rn a te b a s e s fo r d e n y in g th e m o tio n . T he courtr eas oned thateven i f the 1998 Soci al Secur i tyC as e Fee A gr eement contr ol l ed, i tw as pers e unr eas onabl e t o the ext enti tperm i t t ed an a w ar d gr eat er t han the § 406( b) cap of 25% of the pas t - due bene fi t s . T he courtal s o found that th e § 4 0 6 (b ) m o tio n w a s u n tim e lyu n d e r F e d . R . C iv . P . 6 0 (b )(6 ) p rin c ip les . T h is appea l fol l ow ed. D i s cus s i on W e re v ie w th e d e n ia l o f § 4 0 6 (b ) a tto rn e y ’s fe e s fo r a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . See McG r aw , 4 5 0 F .3 d a t 5 0 5 . A c o u rt a b u se s its d isc re tio n if it m a k e s a c lea rly err on eou s factual fi nd i ng , reaches an err on eou s conclusi on of law , or com m i t s a c le a r e rr o r o f

ju d g m e n t. See Hars co C or p. v. R enner , 475 F. 3d 1179, 1190 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). T he t ouchs t one of a n aw ar d of att or ney ’ s fee s under§ 406( b) i s w hethert he amount r eques t ed i s r eas onabl e, and the i nqui rybegi ns w i th the t erm s of the fe e a g re e m e n t. See G is br echt , 5 3 5 U . S . at 80 7 (“[ S ec ti o n ] 40 6 (b) c all s fo r co u rt r evi ew of [c ont i ngentfee ] arr angement s as an i ndepende ntchec k, t o as s ur e that th e yy ield re a so n a b le r e su lts in p a rticu lar c a se s.” ). W ith re sp e c t to th e first b a sis-9-

fo r th e d istric t co u rt’s r u lin g , M r. W h ite’s o v e ra rc h in g c o n ten tio n o n a p p e a l is that the $ 5 , 3 0 0 ca p in the 2 0 0 2 A tt o rne yF ee A g ree m en t pertaine d o n lyto w o rk per form ed befor e the age ncyand thatthe 1998 Soci al Secur i tyC as e Fee A g re e m e n t ap p lied to w o rk a t th e ju d icia l lev e l. M o re sp e c ifica lly , h e first p o in ts t o p a r a gr a ph t w o o f the 20 02 A t t orne yFe e A gr e e ment , w hi c h s t a t e s tha tSSA ap p rov al i s n ec essa ryfo r a fee aw ard fo r serv ices ren d ere d in p roc ee d ing s b efo re th e a g e n c y . See sup ra . T hi s pr ovi s i on, he cont ends , i ndi cat es thatthe $5, 300 cap a p p lied o n lyto se rv ice s re n d e re d a t th e a d m in istra tiv e lev e l an d c o m p e n sa b le under§ 406( a) beca us e the SSA i s i nvol ved onl yi n appr ovi ng fee r eques t s for se rv ice s re n d e re d a t th e a d m in istra tiv e lev e l, no t th e ju d icia l lev e l. D ra w in g th is i nfer ence , how ever , r equi r es fami l i ar i tyw i th the s t atut or ys cheme and the r es pect i ve r ol es of the SSA and the di s tr i ctcourti n appr ovi ng fee r eques t s , and w oul d r equi r e the furt herdeduct i on thatr efe r ence t o SSA appr oval , i n and of i t s el f, nece s s ar i l ypr ecl uded appl i cat i on of the agr eement ’ s $5, 300 cap t o § 406( b) r eques t s r equi r i ng cour tappr oval . W e bel i eve thi s i s t oo gr eatan expe ct at i on of a l ayper s on. M r . W hi t e’ s pr ot es t at i on thatM r . H i l l i n fac thad thi s under s t andi ng w h e n h e sig n e d th e a g re e m e n ts is u n a v a ili n g ; itd o e s n o t o v e rc o m e th e u n c e rta in ty of the l anguage M r . W hi t e dr aft ed. I f M r . W hi t e i nt ended the 2002 A t t or neyFee A gr eementt o appl yonl yt o § 406( a) r eques t s , he coul d have i ncl uded l anguage m ak ing that clea r.-10-

M r . W hi t e al s o ar gues t hat“s i m ul t aneous l y ” w i th M r . H i l l ’ s exec ut i on of t he 2002 A t t or neyFee A gr eement , M r . H i l l “exe cut ed a Soci al Secur i tyC as e Fee A gr eementt hats peci fi cal l ys t at es thatthe ‘ A t t or neyFee A gr eement , as pr ovi ded b y4 2 U .S .C . § 4 0 6 , . . . w ill n o t ap p ly. . . if a R e q u e st fo r R e v iew is filed w ith t he A pp eal s C ou ncil . ’” A plt . B r. at27 -28 (quo t i ng the 1 99 8 S ocial S ecuri tyC ase Fee A gr eement ) ( t ypefa ce a l t er ed; el l i ps es i n or i gi nal ) . M r . W hi t e’ s appar ent concl us i on i s t hatbeca us e a Reques tforR evi ew w as fi l ed, the 2002 A t t or neyFee A gr eementi s i nappl i cabl e. T her e ar e tw o pr obl ems w i th thi s ar gum ent . Fi r s t , t he 2002 Soci al Secur i t yC as e Fee A gr eementi s notpartof the r ecor d, s o w e ca nnot be ce r t ai n of i t s cont ent s . Second, even a s s um i ng thatM r . H i l l s i gned s uch an agr eementand i tcont ai ned l anguage m at er i al l yi dent i cal t o thats etfor th i n the 1998 Soci al Secur i t yC as e Fee A gr eementt o w hi ch M r . W hi t e r efe r s us ( oreven s i m pl ycons t rui ng t he 1998 Soci al Secur i tyFee A gr eementt ogetherw i th the 2002 A tto rn e yF e e A g re e m e n t), th e m e a n in g o f “ th e A tto rn e yF e e A g re e m e n t . . . w ill n o t ap p ly ” is u n c lea r. M r. W h ite re lied o n th e 2 0 0 2 A tto rn e yF e e A g re e m e n t in obt ai ni ng § 406( a) fee s forhi s admi ni s tr at i ve r epr es ent at i on, s o i tcert ai nl yw as appl i cabl e i n t hatcont ext . A nd w hetherthe R eques tforR evi ew r ender ed the $ 5 , 3 0 0 ca p in tha t agre em en t i n ap p li ca b le t o § 4 0 6 (b) fee s is en ti relyu n clea r. W e a re n o t p e rsu a d e d b ya n yo f M r. W h ite’s o th e r a rg u m e n ts p e rta in in g to t he fi r s tbas i s fort he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on, ar gum ent s thatw e fi nd near l yas con fusi ng i n thei r pr esent at i on as the ag reem ents he d raft ed. W e bri efl yadd res s-11-

tw o o f th o se . F irst, M r. W h ite a rg u e s th a t th e d istric t co u rt ig n o re d b o th h is d e g re e o f

su c c e ss in th is c a se , w h ich h e c o n ten d s is th e “ m o st c ritica l fa c to r” in d e ter m in in g a re a so n a b le a tto rn e y ’s fe e , an d o n e o f th e p u rp o se s o f

th e sta tu te, to e n a b le a tto rn e y s to b e p a id a re a so n a b le fe e fo r le g a l se rv ice s in S o c ial S e c u rity cas es . A pl t . B r . at19 ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . T hes e cont ent i ons over l ook thatthe di s t r i ctcourtcons t rued the fe e agr eement s agai ns tM r . W hi t e, fi ndi ng thatfee s pay abl e fr om M r . H i l l ’ s pas t - due bene fi t s w er e capped at$5, 300, a s um M r . W hi t e al r eadyhad r ece i ved, and thus the agr eement s pr ecl uded anyfur ther aw ar d under§ 406( b) des pi t e the ul t i m at e s ucce s s i n obt ai ni ng benef i t s . Second, t he fa ctt hat M r. H i l l enter ed the fee ag reem ents freel yand vo l un t ari l yl i kew i se l a c k s a n y p e r s u a s i v e v a l u e g i v e n th e i ra m b i g u i ty. C oncl us i on W e conc l ude thatt he di s t r i ctcourtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng t he mot i on for§ 406( b) at t or ney ’ s fee s on the gr ound thatt he 1998 and 2002 a g re e m e n ts w e re a m b ig u o u s a n d s h o u ld b e c o n s tru e d a g a in s t M r. W h ite . A c c o rd in g ly, w e n e e d n o t r e a c h th e o th e r b a s e s fo r t h e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e c is io n . T h e o rd e r o f

th e d istric t co u rt d e n y in g th e m o tio n fo r § 4 0 6 (b ) a tto rn e y ’s fe e s is AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt B obbyR . B al dock C i r cui tJ udge