Andria Priestley v. Michael Astrue
651 F.3d 410
4th Cir.2011Background
- Plaintiffs prevailed in district court after SSA denial of disability benefits and filed EAJA fee petitions.
- McChesney (SC attorney) sought fees; two out-of-state attorneys (Martin, Naides) assisted writing briefs but were not admitted in District of SC or pro hac vice in these cases.
- District court granted McChesney’s fees but denied Martin/Naides fees, citing local rule 83.1.05 and unauthorized practice of law.
- Court found Martin/Naides’ involvement violated licensure rules and treated it as a “special circumstance” making fees unjust under EAJA.
- Fourth Circuit vacated district court orders and remanded for reconsideration of Martin/Naides fees, directing prevailing-market-rate consideration for their work.
- Davis and Peter involved fee reductions for travel time; the panel remand did not reach other EAJA challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| EAJA special-circumstances standard governs denial | Martin/Naides fees should be reimbursed under EAJA | Local licensure rules justify denial as unjust | Remanded for reconsideration of Martin/Naides fees |
| EAJA entitlement for nonadmitted attorneys’ work | EAJA authorizes nonadmitted work as eligible | Local rules prohibit reimbursement for unauthorized practice | Vacated and remanded; Fees may be allowed as nonattorney or attorney work |
| Relation of local rules to EAJA eligibility | EAJA could override local practice restrictions | District may regulate practice; licensure matters separate | Remand; district to decide on fee eligibility consistent with EAJA and market rates |
| Travel-time fee adjustment authority under EAJA | Travel time reductions should be improper | Court has broad discretion to grant reductions | Remand did not resolve; related issue affirmed/denied as part of remand process |
Key Cases Cited
- Dietrich Corp. v. King Res. Co., 596 F.2d 422 (10th Cir.1979) (nonattorney support services may be reimbursable)
- Hyatt v. Barnhart, 315 F.3d 239 (4th Cir.2002) (fees include paralegal work; broad EAJA scope)
- Richlin Sec. Serv. Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571 (Supreme Court 2008) (attorney fees include nonattorney work; market-rate basis)
- Sandoval v. Apfel, 86 F.Supp.2d 601 (N.D. Tex.2000) (special factors; specialization can affect efficiency and fees)