data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/23695/23695c31925baedb752b426c0a6e312b9ac751fc" alt="social security cases tower law group"
We're pleased to share with you that, on July 1, 2024, the Seventh Circuit issued a remand!
In Arnold v. Commissioner of Social Security, the Seventh Circuit recently tackled the complex issue of attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) post-Gisbrecht. Arnold's case, initially denied but remanded by the district court, resulted in a favorable ALJ decision awarding $160,797.10 in past-due benefits.
Arnold’s legal team sought fees based on a contingency agreement, capped at 25% of past-due benefits.
However, the district court opted to reduce this significantly, awarding only $16,920 instead of the requested $40,199.27, citing concerns over a perceived "windfall" based on hourly rates.
Central to the case was whether the district court properly applied § 406(b) standards in light of Gisbrecht v. Barnhart (2002), which underscores the importance of contingency fee agreements while allowing courts to ensure fees remain reasonable.
The Seventh Circuit determined that the district court erred in not giving sufficient weight to the contingency agreement, instead focusing too heavily on hourly rates—a departure from Gisbrecht’s directive.
Key Points
1. The Seventh Circuit criticized the district court for not starting its analysis with the contingency fee agreement, adjusting only as necessary based on specific considerations.
2. Comparisons to unrelated Second Amendment cases using the lodestar method were deemed inappropriate, as they differ fundamentally from § 406(b) cases analyzed under Gisbrecht.
3. The Seventh Circuit emphasized that the district court’s assessment of the case’s lack of extraordinary challenges did not justify such a substantial fee reduction without a proper analysis grounded in the contingency agreement.
In response, the Seventh Circuit vacated the decision and remanded the case, instructing the district court to reassess the fee request using the correct legal standards, with the contingency fee agreement as the primary consideration.
Got any questions? Schedule a consultation with us. I’m here to help. It’s a lot to take in, but we’ll get through it together. After all, navigating these waters is always easier when you’ve got someone to chat with.
Комментарии