ILNews

Lawyer can argue for cost-of-living adjustment for increased fees

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has decided that an attorney that successfully represented a client in a Social Security disability benefits suit should be allowed to make a request for a cost-of-living adjustment that would exceed the maximum $125 per hour that can be awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Jayne A. Mathews-Sheets’ attorney put in a request under the act for $25,200 in attorney fees. He claimed somewhere between 112-116 hours worked on the case at a rate of $225 an hour. U.S. Judge William Lawrence of the Southern District of Indiana thought the number of hours and amount asked for were excessive, so he cut the hours and the amount the unnamed attorney could request to 53 hours at $125 per hour, the presumptive ceiling under the Equal Access to Justice Act. He awarded $6,625 in fees.

The act says the award “shall be based upon prevailing market rates for the kind and quality of the services furnished, except that . . . attorney fees shall not be awarded in excess of $125 per hour unless the court determines that an increase in the cost of living [since 1996, when the current version of the Act was passed] or a special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceeding involved, justifies a higher fee.”

The attorney claimed $225 was the prevailing market rate for his services but didn’t provide specifics as to how he came to that number. In his reply brief, he argued for a slightly lower amount. The attorney divided the Consumer Price Index for 2009, when he did most of his work on the case, by the CPI for 1996 when the statutory rate was raised to $125, and multiplied the quotient by $125 to come up with $170 due to inflation.

Judge Lawrence didn’t reject the request for the higher fee based on the weakness of the attorney’s argument, noted 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner, but instead said the information submitted in the reply brief had been submitted too late. The federal appellate court found that the judge’s stated reason for rejecting the enhancement was invalid. It wasn’t improper for the attorney to request the cost-of-living increase for the first time in his reply brief.

The judges thought that a fee of $125 for legal services rendered in 2009 in a Social Security disability appeal seemed “awfully low,” and ordered the lower court to take another look at the attorney’s request. But that is all that is allowed on remand – the attorney mentioned nothing other than inflation that could justify a fee award above the statutory presumptive ceiling, wrote Judge Posner in Jayne A. Mathews-Sheets v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, No. 10-3746.

“And so on remand the plaintiff’s lawyer will have to show that without a cost of living increase that would bring the fee award up to $170 per hour, a lawyer capable of competently handling the challenge that his client mounted to the denial of social security disability benefits could not be found in the relevant geographical area to handle such a case,” he wrote.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT