Richardson, John v. Berryhill, Nancy, No. 3:2018cv00188 - Document 24 (W.D. Wis. 2020)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER granting 21 Motion for Attorney Fees. The court APPROVES a representative fee of $19,148.68. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 11/23/2020. (kwf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Richardson, John v. Berryhill, Nancy Doc. 24 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN JOHN RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, OPINION and ORDER v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, 18-cv-188-jdp Defendant. Meredith Marcus, counsel for plaintiff, moves under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) for a fee award of $ 23,100 after plaintiff was awarded $116,188.00 in past-due benefits. Dkt. 21. Counsel’s requested fee represents approximately 20% of plaintiff’s past-due benefits, 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. 21-2. The total amount of time that counsel’s firm spent on this case for proceedings in this court was 23.1 hours, resulting in a proposed effective rate of $1,000 an hour. Of the 23.1 hours, 17.7 hours was attorney time and the remainder was for counsel’s legal assistants. Dkt 21-3 and Dkt. 21-4. Counsel acknowledges the high rate, but she says that it is justified by the excellent results she obtained. Specifically, she says that plaintiff will potentially receive an additional $335,800 in disability benefits over his lifetime. In Evans v. Berryhill, No. 12-cv-888jdp, 2018 WL 835172 (W.D. Wis. Feb. 13, 2018), this court approved an effective rate of $1,000 under similar circumstances, so counsel’s motion is GRANTED. For simplicity, the court will subtract counsel’s $3,951.32 fee under the Equal Access to Justice Act, which would Dockets.Justia.com otherwise have to be refunded to plaintiff. The court APPROVES a representative fee of $19,148.68 Entered November 23, 2020. BY THE COURT: /s/ ________________________________________ JAMES D. PETERSON District Judge 2
]]>
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.
