attorneys fees

Comprehensive amendments ordered by the Supreme Judicial Court to Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.5 on charging and collecting fees will take effect on March 15, 2011. Some of the revisions mirror amendments made to the corresponding ABA model rule in 2002; some are grammatical or stylistic and do not reflect…

District Court (Judge Michael Ponsor) ordered substantial attorneys fees award for settlement in brain injury class action on February 8, 2010.  The District Court decision interpreted the First Circuit's Aronov v. Napolitano holding, and concluded that the settlement agreement, in…

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court has no discretion to offset an EAJA award of attorney's fees with a future 42 U.S.C. Sec. 406 (a) award of attornye's fees by the Commissioner of Social Security. EAJA fees paid for work performed before federal courts and fees…

An overview of Attorney's Fees in Civil Rights Litigation, 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1988.  Also, a listing of selected Massachusetts cases governing attorneys fees awards, as well as lists of both Massachusetts and Federal statutes allowing/mandating attorneys fees to prevailing parties.…

Judget Gertner found that a party can be deemed "prevailing" when it obtains a preliminary injunction upon a clear showing of likelihood of success on the merits, when the case is then mooted because the preliminary injunction gave plaintiff everything it needed.…

Supreme Court decision on expert's fees.

Provision of Social Security Act limiting attorney fees to 25% of past-due benefits does not displace contingent-fee agreements that are within such statutory ceiling.

Court holds that the catalyst theory is not a permissible basis for an award of attorneys fees under the Fair Housing Act and the ADA. Instead, to be a "prevailing party," a party must have secured a judgement on the merits or a court ordered consent decree. This decision will affect…

Attorney may seek recovery of fees under both EAJA and Social Security Act but must return the amount of the smaller fee to the claimant.

cert. granted and judgment vacated 507 U.S. 956, 113 S.Ct. 1378, 122 L.Ed.2d 754 (1993). Prevailing party status is appropriate where claimant established a significant procedural due process deprivation and obtained an enforceable nominal damage award. Court applies de novo, rather than abuse of…

Absent an express indication to the contrary, a district court may retain jurisdiction pending a fourth sentence remand and thereafter render final judgment for EAJA purposes. Overruled by Shalala v. Schaefer 509 U.S. 292, 113 S.Ct. 2625, 125 L.Ed. 239 (1993) (Once a district court remands a case…

EAJA fees denied because Plaintiff did not meet definition of prevailing party. Plaintiff's success on remand pursuant to Reform Act of 1984 was not a litigatory success, nor was it a catalyst to the passage of legislation to the passage of legislation changing the standard. The Court rejected…

Although the statute allows for a 25% maximum, it will often be the case that a reasonable fee (for time in the judicial review) is a much smaller amount, even in the face of a contingency fee agreement. Determination is in the sound discretion of the District Court. NOTE: In this case the attorney…

EAJA permits payment of attorney fees to public sector law office that provides services pro bono.

EAJA does not authorize award of attorney's fees to pro se litigants.

Basic requirements of EAJA

Vacates a judgment by the district court awarding claimant's counsel fees for representation of the claimant before the administrative agency. Counsel can recover for services rendered before the administrative agency only from the Secretary.