Farren v. Berryhill
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 7/25/2019. (bas, Deputy Clerk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF
STEPHANIE A. GALLAGHER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
101 WEST LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
(410) 962-7780
Fax (410) 962-1812
July 25, 2019
LETTER TO COUNSEL
RE:
Barbara F. v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. SAG-17-2090
Dear Counsel:
Arjun K. Murahari, Esq. has filed a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Social
Security Act (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), in conjunction with his representation of Plaintiff before
this Court. ECF 26. In response, the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) asked this Court to
consider whether Mr. Murahari’s requested amount constitutes a reasonable fee. ECF 27. No
hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2018). For the reasons set forth below, Mr.
Murahari’s motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED in part.
On July 2, 2018, this Court awarded Mr. Murahari $3,700.00 for 18.5 hours worked on
Plaintiff’s case in federal court, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C.
§ 2412. ECF 22-7, 25. Plaintiff subsequently received an Award Notice, in which she was
awarded $88,653.00 in past due benefits. ECF 26-2. On July 17, 2019, Mr. Murahari filed a Line
in this Court, seeking $22,163.25 in attorney’s fees. ECF 26. Mr. Murahari has agreed to
reimburse Plaintiff in the amount of fees previously received. Id.; see Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535
U.S. 789, 796 (2002); Stephens ex rel. R.E. v. Astrue, 565 F.3d 131, 135 (4th Cir. 2009).
The Act authorizes a reasonable fee for successful representation before this Court, not to
exceed twenty-five percent of a claimant’s total past-due benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Although
contingent fee agreements are the “primary means by which fees are set” in Social Security cases,
a court must nevertheless perform an “independent check, to assure that they yield reasonable
results in particular cases.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807. In determining whether a request for
attorney’s fees under section 406(b) is reasonable, the Supreme Court has explained that a
reviewing court may properly consider the “character of the representation and the results the
representative achieved.” Id. at 808. Importantly, the Supreme Court acknowledged that a
contingent fee agreement would not result in a reasonable fee if the fee constituted a “windfall” to
the attorney. Id. (quoting Rodriquez v. Bowen, 865 F.2d 739, 746-47 (6th Cir. 1989). Courts may
require the attorney to provide a record of hours spent working on the case and the attorney’s
typical hourly billing charge. Id.
Here, Mr. Murahari and Plaintiff entered into a contingent fee agreement, by which
Plaintiff agreed to pay Mr. Murahari twenty-five percent of all retroactive benefits to which he
might become entitled. ECF 22-3. In his previous motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the
Barbara F. v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. SAG-17-2090
July 25, 2019
Page 2
EAJA, Mr. Murahari submitted an itemized report documenting the 18.5 chargeable hours he
expended before this Court in Plaintiff’s case. ECF 22-7 (listing a total of 19.75 hours, 1.25 of
which were spent on clerical and administrative tasks marked “NO CHARGE”). If Mr. Murahari
receives the full amount of fees he requests, his fee for representation before this Court will
effectively total $1198.01 per hour. Mr. Murahari must therefore show that an effective rate of
$1198.01 per hour is reasonable for the services he rendered. See Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807.
Notably, Mr. Murahari’s typical hourly billing rate is $300, ECF 22-6 ¶ 6, which,
coincidentally, is also the top hourly rate that is presumptively reasonable for attorneys of his
experience level pursuant to the fee guidelines appended to the Local Rules of this Court.1
Although it is customary in Social Security cases for courts to approve significantly higher rates,
Mr. Murahari’s requested rate is almost four times his hourly rate, and exceeds the typical rates
awarded by courts in the Fourth Circuit for attorney’s fees in successful Social Security appeals,
even to attorneys with more experience. See, e.g., Melvin v. Colvin, No. 5:10-CV-160-FL, 2013
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92832 (E.D.N.C. July 2, 2013) (approving contingency fee agreement with
effective hourly rate of $1,043.92); Lehman v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., Civil No. SAG-10-2160,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186022 (D. Md. July 7, 2016) (approving contingency fee agreement with
effective hourly rate of $1,028.14). Hourly rates exceeding $1,000 are the exception, not the rule.
While this Court notes Mr. Murahari’s effective performance and the substantial past-due benefit
award to his client, his request for $22,163.25 for 18.5 hours in this case would result in a windfall.
Instead, this Court finds that an award of $18,500.00, amounting to an effective hourly rate of
$1000.00—more than triple the top hourly rate for an attorney of Mr. Murahari’s experience,
would adequately compensate Mr. Murahari for the time that he spent on this case in this Court.
See Hunter v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., Civil No. SAG-15-3758, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221544
(D. Md. Nov. 16, 2017) (approving contingency fee agreement with effective hourly rate of
$1,140.41, while noting that the requested rate was “slightly more than triple the top hourly rate”
for an attorney with eleven years of experience).
For the reasons set forth herein, this Court GRANTS in part Mr. Murahari’s Line seeking
attorney’s fees, ECF 26. This Court will award Mr. Murahari attorney’s fees totaling $18,500.00.
Mr. Murahari is directed to reimburse to Plaintiff the fees he received pursuant to the EAJA.
1
Although they do not govern Social Security cases, the Local Rules prescribe guidelines for determining
attorney’s fees in certain cases, which are instructive in evaluating the reasonableness of the effective hourly
rate in this case. See Loc. R. App. B (D. Md. 2018). Currently, Mr. Murahari has just over eight (8) years
of experience, ECF 22-6, and the presumptively reasonable hourly rate for attorneys admitted to the bar for
five (5) to eight (8) years is between $165.00 and $300.00, Loc. R. App. B (D. Md. 2018).
Barbara F. v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. SAG-17-2090
July 25, 2019
Page 3
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as an opinion.
implementing order follows.
Sincerely yours,
/s/
Stephanie A. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge
An
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?