United States v. Kim, No. 12-56922 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseAfter claimants defeated the Government's attempts to forfeit property seized in connection with a criminal investigation, claimants received significant awards of attorney's fees. Claimants' lawyer asked the district court that he be paid those fees directly, pursuant to an assignment in their representation agreement. The Government asserts that the Anti-Assignment Act, 31 U.S.C. 3727, voids such an assignment. The court concluded that the Government is not estopped from asserting the Anti-Assignment Act; the Act applies to and voids an award of attorney's fees pursuant to Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA), 28 U.S.C. 2465; and an award of attorney's fees under CAFRA is a claim against the United States to which the Act applies. The Act does not prevent an attorney from taking an interest in the fees that is effective against the Government; it merely forbids an assignment of the right to be paid directly from the United States Treasury. The court vacated the district court's order awarding attorney's fees directly to the lawyer because the Act applies to void the assignment in the representation agreement between claimants and the lawyer. The court remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Anti-Assignment Act. The panel vacated the district court’s order awarding attorneys’ fees, pursuant to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (“CAFRA”), directly to the Law Office of Eric Honig because the Anti-Assignment Act applied to void an assignment in the parties’ representation agreement; vacated the district court’s post-judgment orders awarding additional fees; and remanded for further proceedings. In the underlying action, Honig represented claimants who sought properties that were seized by the United States government, and the district court entered summary judgments in favor of the claimants. The district court found that the claimants were prevailing parties under CAFRA, and awarded attorneys’ fees against the government. The panel held that the government was not estopped from asserting the Anti-Assignment Act. UNITED STATES V. KIM 5 The panel held that the Anti-Assignment Act prohibited a claimant from assigning an award of attorneys’ fees under CAFRA to his attorney. The panel concluded that the Anti- Assignment Act invalidated the assignment of the award of attorneys’ fees against the United States from the claimant to his attorney. The panel further held that the Act does not prevent an attorney from taking an interest in the fees that is effective against the government; it merely forbids an assignment of the right to be paid directly from the United States Treasury.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on November 30, 2015.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.