Plaintiff's lawyers in social security benefits case gets their full attorneys' fees

The Court of Appeals is not happy that the lawyers in this case was not properly compensated for his work in winning his client's social security disability benefits. That's how the Court of Appeals opens this rare decision that reverses a lower tribunal's attorneys' fees ruling. Hey, plaintiffs' lawyers: the Court wants us to get paid! At least in certain social security cases.

The case is Fields v. Kijakazi, issued on January 28. Most who handle civil rights cases know the general rule guiding fee applications. After the plaintiff wins, her lawyer files a fee application, generally multiplying the hours expended on the case by the hourly rate, with some adjustments for overwork, vague billing entries, etc. We call that the lodestar equation. In social security cases, the formula is different, allowing the lawyer up to 25% of the overall recovery. There is no lodestar in social security cases; courts instead ask whether the attorney is getting a "windfall." The Supreme Court endorsed this test in Gisbrecht v. Barnhart (2002). Since there is not much guidance on the windfall question, the Court of Appeals (Calabresi, Parker and Pooler) "make[s] clear that the windfall factor does not constitute a way of reintroducing the lodestar method."

The lawyer in this case, the lawyers spent 25.8 hours in winning his client's case. The Court notes that less-experienced attorneys might have spent twice the amount of time on the case. So, while the attorneys fees amount to more than $1,500 per hour, that is not really a windfall, as "it would be foolish to punish a firm for its efficiency and therefore encourage inefficiency." The lawyers were also "particularly successful" in this case, winning their client a six-figure awards "after the government fought long and hard to keep him from recovering anything." Nor did the client object to the fee award, which comes out of his recovery. Plus, the Court says, this case was always uncertain, and lawyers who handle cases on contingency, "even the very best ones" will "lose a signifiant number of cases and receive no compensation when they do." Victory in this case was no sure thing, as shown by the fact that it was denied multiple times at the agency level before the plaintiff finally won his benefits.

You know where the Court of Appeals is going with this. While plaintiff's lawyers wanted about $40,000 in attorneys fees, the federal court only gave them about $19,000, deeming the $40,000 amount a windfall. But that ain't no windfall, the Second Circuit holds, and the lawyers will get what they deserve.