Ector v. Commissioner of Social Security
6:24-cv-06161
W.D.N.Y.May 16, 2025Background:
- Plaintiff Daniel E. prevailed in a Social Security benefits lawsuit in the Western District of New York.
- Plaintiff's counsel filed a motion for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A), seeking 25% of past-due benefits.
- The defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security, took no position on the motion.
- Plaintiff and counsel had a contingent-fee agreement capped at 25% of any awarded past-due benefits.
- Following litigation, Plaintiff was awarded $106,674 in past-due benefits; counsel sought $26,668.50 (approx. 25%).
- Plaintiff's counsel previously received $14,859.62 under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of 25% attorney fee | Fee is reasonable per agreement and statute | No position | Fee is reasonable and within statutory limit |
| Compliance with EAJA offset requirement | Will refund EAJA fee if 406(b) fee granted | No position | Counsel must refund $14,859.62 EAJA award if 406(b) fee paid |
| Windfall analysis for attorney fees | Requested fee is not a windfall given hours worked | No position | No windfall; effective hourly rate is reasonable |
| Validity of fee agreement | Agreement is lawful and properly executed | No position | Agreement valid; fee request in compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (Supreme Court recognizes court's authority to review contingency fee agreements in Social Security cases for reasonableness)
- Wells v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 367 (Second Circuit guidance on reducing contingent fees for unreasonableness or windfall)
- Fields v. Kijakazi, 24 F.4th 845 (Second Circuit affirms district court must start fee review with the contingency agreement and may adjust for reasonableness)