McCarthy v. Astrue

3 Citing cases

  1. Kasey B. v. Kijakazi

    1:20-cv-01762-MJD-TWP (S.D. Ind. Feb. 7, 2023)

    535 U.S. at 808; see also McGuire, 873 F.2d at 980. Numerous courts, following Gisbrecht's lead, have also noted the importance of contingency agreements: Reindl, 2012 WL 4754737, at *2 (contingent fee agreements allow claimants who cannot afford hourly rates to obtain counsel and benefit the system by encouraging lawyers to be discerning in evaluating cases); Koester, 482 F.Supp.2d at 1082 (same); McCarthy v. Astrue, 2008 WL 4539959, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 8, 2008) (same); Kirby, 2017 WL 5891059, at *2 (same).

  2. Janet H. v. Saul

    No. 1:19-cv-00939-DLP-JRS (S.D. Ind. Nov. 25, 2020)   Cited 13 times

    In Gisbrecht, the Supreme Court explicitly approved the Seventh Circuit's method of evaluating reasonableness, namely that courts should defer to the parties' reasonable intentions in analyzing attorney fees. 535 at 808; see also McGuire v. Sullivan, 873 F.2d 974, 980 (7th Cir. 1989). Numerous courts, following Gisbrecht's lead, have also noted the importance of contingency agreements: Reindl v. Astrue, No. 09 CV 2695, 2012 WL 4754737, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 4, 2012) (contingent fee agreements allow claimants who cannot afford hourly rates to obtain counsel and benefit the system by encouraging lawyers to be discerning in evaluating cases); Koester, 482 F. Supp. 2d at 1082 (same); McCarthy v. Astrue, No. 2:04 cv 369, 2008 WL 4539959, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 8, 2008) (same); Kirby, 2017 WL 5891059, at *2 (same). With that framework in mind, the Supreme Court provided three examples of situations where an attorney's requested fee might be unreasonable: (1) the character of and results achieved from attorney representation do not justify the amount; (2) the attorney is responsible for delay such that he or she would profit from the accumulation of benefits; or (3) the benefits are large in comparison to the amount of time counsel spent on the case.

  3. David D. v. Saul

    No. 17 C 6822 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2020)

    McGuire, 873 F.2d at 980-81. ("In addition, when an attorney and client have entered into a contingency agreement, due deference should be given to this expression of the intentions of the parties."); see also McCarthy v. Astrue, 2008 WL 4539959, at *3 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 8, 2008). As noted above, the Commissioner does not dispute the successful result counsel achieved in this case and the award of significant benefits to Claimant on remand before the Agency.