Neel, Donald v. Saul, Andrew
ORDER granting 21 Motion for Attorney Fees. The court APPROVES a representative fee of $4,765. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 6/3/2021. (kwf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Commissioner of Social Security,
Dana Duncan, counsel for plaintiff Donald Neel, moves under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) for
a fee award of $8,745 after plaintiff was awarded past-due disability insurance benefits. The
commissioner withheld $17,701 for potential attorney fees, which equals 25% of plaintiff’s
past-due benefits. Counsel states that he was awarded $8,956 for work he performed at the
administrative level, and he is seeking $8,745 for work his firm performed in this court.
Counsel’s requested § 406(b) fee represents less than 25% of plaintiff’s past-due benefits, Dkt.
21-2, so it falls within the amount allowed by statute and the parties’ fee agreement. See
Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 792 (2002); Dkt. 21-1. The commissioner does not oppose
counsel’s fee request. Dkt. 23.
The total amount of time that counsel’s firm spent on this case for proceedings in this
court was 28.05 hours, resulting in a proposed effective rate of $311.76 an hour. Of the 28.05
hours, 15.9 hours was attorney time and the remainder was for counsel’s legal assistants. Dkt.
21-3. Counsel’s requested fee is within the bounds of what is reasonable in light of counsel’s
experience, his risk of non-recovery, the work he performed, the results he obtained, and the
amounts awarded in similar cases. Therefore, the court will grant counsel’s motion. For
simplicity, the court will subtract the $3,980 fee that counsel received under the Equal Access
to Justice Act, which would otherwise have to be refunded to plaintiff.
IT IS ORDERED that Dana W. Duncan’s motion for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C.
§ 406(b), Dkt. 21, is GRANTED. The court APPROVES a representative fee of $4,765.
Entered June 3, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
JAMES D. PETERSON
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?