Goode v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 3:22-cv-01428

Plaintiff’s attorney sought a fee award under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) after prevailing in a Social Security disability action in federal court.
The request was for $25,744.50, which reflected 25% of the plaintiff’s past-due benefits awarded by the Social Security Administration (SSA).
Counsel acknowledged she must refund to Plaintiff a previously-awarded Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) fee of $6,233.39 and requested the fee net of that amount.
Defendant (the Commissioner of Social Security) took no position on the petition for § 406(b) fees.
The fee agreement between Plaintiff and counsel specifically provided for a 25% contingency fee from past-due benefits.
The Court reviewed the request for reasonableness, considering supporting documentation and the quality of representation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is a 25% contingency fee reasonable under § 406(b)?	Goode argued 25% aligns with both statute and contract and is reasonable.	No opposition.	Yes; 25% is reasonable based on documentation and precedent.
Should the § 406(b) award be reduced by the already-paid EAJA fee?	Goode requested deduction to avoid double payment.	No opposition.	Yes; net $19,511.11 to counsel after EAJA offset.
Does a contingency fee arrangement control if within statutory limits?	Such agreements should generally be enforced unless they are unreasonable or a product of misconduct.	No opposition.	Yes, but subject to independent reasonableness review by the court.
Is the court responsible for reviewing reasonableness of § 406(b) fees?	Goode (implicitly) recognized such necessity.	No opposition.	Yes; Court performed independent check and found requested fee reasonable.

Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002) (Courts must independently review contingent fee agreements under § 406(b) for reasonableness.)
Wells v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 367 (2d Cir. 1990) (The best indicator of reasonableness of a contingency fee in a Social Security case is the negotiated agreement between attorney and client.)
McGuire v. Sullivan, 873 F.2d 974 (7th Cir. 1989) (Courts must assess independently the reasonableness of contingency fee agreements in Social Security cases.)