Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

Second Circuit Criticizes Attorney Fee Reduction in EAJA Case

July 13, 2011 | Posted in : Billing Practices, Fee Award, Fee Entitlement / Recoverability, Fee Issues on Appeal, Fee Jurisprudence, Fee Reduction, Fee Request

A recent New York Law Journal story, “Circuit Criticizes Big Fee Reduction in Disability Case” reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed Northern District Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini’s decision to slice an attorney’s fees by two-thirds based on the lawyer’s failure to develop an administrative record on issues collateral to a disability determination.  The appeals panel held that the judge abused his discretion by making a sua sponte (without prompting) critique of attorney Mark Schneider’s billing records and a finding of excessive legal billing.

In the underlying case, Schneider represented Loretta Vincent on her successful claim for disability benefits based on a work-related back injury that rendered her unable to work.  Ms. Vincent moved for attorney’s fees of $8,272.  Judge Bianchini ruled that the failure to develop the record was a “special circumstance” that would render a full award “unjust” under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).  He said that Mr. Schneider’s time spent preparing the fee application was “clearly excessive and unreasonable,” the billing records contained “conclusory explanations” for several lengthy increments of time” and the attorney had improperly intermingled legal and clerical tasks.

On appeal, the second circuit held that the failure of a Social Security claimant’s counsel to develop an administrative record on issues collateral to a disability determination is not a special circumstance that warrants a fee reduction under the Equal Access to Justice Act.  The decision in, Vincent v. Commissioner of Social Security (pdf) also noted that this was the second time in two years that the circuit had reversed orders by Magistrate Judge Bianchini reducing or denying fees for Mr. Schneider’s work, the panel ordered the case assigned to a different judge on remand.