United States v. $186,416.00 in U.S. Currency, 642 F.3d 753

UMCC prevailed in a CAFRA civil forfeiture, triggering government liability for reasonable attorney fees and costs.
UMCC sought fee awards, requesting direct payment to its counsel, which the government opposed on amount and payee grounds.
The panel referred the fee calculation to the Appellate Commissioner, directing use of the lodestar method, and allowed consideration of the attorney-client fee agreement.
The majority held CAFRA fees are payable to the claimant, not directly to counsel, and that the Appellate Commissioner should determine reasonable fees.
Dissent would allow district courts to decide on a case-by-case basis whether fees go to the client or the attorney, citing CAFRA’s neutral text.
The order notes CAFRA’s text does not explicitly designate payee, unlike EAJA or SSA, and discusses Ratliff’s influence on the payee question.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Method to calculate CAFRA fees	UMCC urged lodestar	Government urged non-lodestar or contract-based method	Lodestar method appropriate
To whom CAFRA fees should be paid	Fees should be paid directly to attorney	Fees should be paid to claimant	Fees payable to claimant; direct payment to attorney not required

Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87 (Supreme Court 1989) (lodestar framework for fee-shifting statutes)
Nadarajah v. Holder, 569 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2009) (EAJA fees incurred by client; relevance to lodestar)
Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521 (U.S. 2010) (EAJA payments to prevailing party; informs payee question)
Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717 (Supreme Court 1986) (fees directed to prevailing party under §1988)
Gilbrook v. City of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839 (9th Cir. 1999) (fee awards to prevailing party absent explicit transfer to counsel)
Image Technical Serv., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 136 F.3d 1354 (9th Cir. 1998) (antitrust fee awards go to plaintiff, not counsel)