Buljina v. Astrue
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141374
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Sead Buljina pursued disability benefits under the Social Security Act; attorney-teaming on contingency.
- Buljina applied in Oct 2005; ALJ denied benefits in Dec 2007; appeal denied, final agency decision.
- Contingency agreement: 25% of past-due benefits to attorney if successful.
- Case remanded by court for further proceedings after consent motion; February 2011 ALJ award granted substantial past-due benefits ($86,437.00).
- In Sept 2011, attorney filed § 406(b) petition seeking $21,609.25 (25% of past-due) as reasonable fees.
- Court independently reviewed and granted the 25% contingency fee as reasonable under Gisbrecht.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 25% contingency is reasonable under § 406(b). | Buljina’s lawyer argues 25% properly reflects substantial results. | Commissioner asks independent check; lodestar rate not sole measure. | Contingency fee sua sponte deemed reasonable; 25% approved. |
| Approach to calculating reasonableness under Gisbrecht. | Gisbrecht allows non-lodestar factors; contingency fees scrutinized for windfall only if present. | Lodestar considerations may inform reasonableness but not sole basis. | Court may consider factors beyond lodestar; independent check performed and no windfall found. |
| Whether there were any factors indicating delay, substandard representation, or disproportionate benefits. | Counsel provided timely, efficient, effective representation. | No specific issues raised beyond potential lower lodestar. | No evidence of delay or substandard work; fee not deemed unjustified windfall. |
| Whether the fee should be reduced due to potential windfall or disproportionality. | Fee aligned with results and contingency risk; reasonable given outcome. | Requests independent check to ensure no windfall. | No windfall; 25% remains reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (U.S. 2002) (court reviews contingent-fee arrangements to avoid windfalls)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar method as context; not sole measure under § 406(b))
- Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2009) (limits reliance on lodestar; contingency fees reviewed for reasonableness)
- Jeter v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 371 (5th Cir. 2010) (district courts determine relevant factors; not formulaic list)
- City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (U.S. 1992) (contingency-fee considerations; risk-sharing in representation)
- Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc., 390 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1968) (fee-shifting policy illustrating encouragement of private enforcement)