Avgoustis v. Shinseki
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6884
Fed. Cir.2011Background
- Avgoustis applied for EAJA fees as prevailing party after VA proceedings remanded to consider additional evidence.
- VA conceded most EAJA criteria; dispute centered on whether itemized statements disclosed time with sufficient detail.
- Veterans Court reduced 2.5 hours ($437.50) for vague entries like 'review client correspondence.'
- Avgoustis argued further disclosure would violate attorney-client privilege; Veterans Court held general descriptions avoid privilege issues.
- This court reviews whether EAJA abrogates attorney-client privilege and whether general subject matter disclosures violate privilege.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does EAJA abrogate attorney-client privilege? | Avgoustis argues statute requires disclosure that overrides privilege. | Shinseki contends EAJA demands detailed time records, potentially conflicting with privilege. | EAJA does not abrogate attorney-client privilege. |
| Do general subject-matter disclosures of billing records violate the attorney-client privilege? | Avgoustis asserts general descriptions would reveal privileged content. | Shinseki argues disclosures are sufficiently non-specific and customary in fee jurisprudence. | General subject-matter disclosures do not invade the attorney-client privilege. |
Key Cases Cited
- Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104 (1991) (statutory interpretation given to privileges in presence of conflicting aims)
- Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981) (work-product and privilege limits in applied statutory contexts)
- United States v. Forrester, 616 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2010) (statutes silent on privilege do not override customary privileges)
- United States v. Danovaro, 877 F.2d 583 (7th Cir. 1989) (statutory disclosure does not override common-law privilege absent clear intent)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (identify general subject matter of time expenditures in billing records)
- McDonald v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 257 (2007) (Veterans Court required adequate identification of billing purposes)
- Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 1999) (disclosures cannot reveal content of advice sought or given)
- Clarke v. Am. Commerce Nat'l Bank, 974 F.2d 127 (9th Cir. 1992) (general purpose of work usually not privileged; content may be privileged)