My law firm received a direct deposit of an attorney fee under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) today. That would have been unremarkable six months ago, but things changed and may still be changing.
EAJA fees are available in civil actions filed in the federal courts against federal government agencies if the plaintiff is successful and if the government's position in the litigation was not "substantially justified." Social Security cases generate by far the largest number of EAJA payments. Over the years the EAJA fees came to be paid by direct deposit to the attorney. In the last few months the direct deposits have stopped. The Department of Justice has been insisting that the EAJA fees belong to the client and must be paid directly to the client. This is problematic for attorneys representing Social Security claimants since they may have difficulty collecting the money from the client. Most EAJA fees in Social Security cases are in cases that are remanded by the courts. In remand cases the client has not previously paid any fee or received any money from Social Security. When a desperately poor claimant receives a check from Social Security they usually cash it and spend it quickly.
In the last month or so, there have been signs that the Department of Justice's position on EAJA was softening. There have been signs all along that the Social Security Administration was not interested in litigating on this issue and may have even been sympathetic to the position of attorneys representing Social Security claimants. Of course, there are also signs of great distress and disorganization at the Department of Justice related to the Attorney General.
So what is going on now? Was this EAJA direct deposit some fluke or is it a sign that the Department of Justice has, in effect, told Social Security "Oh, never mind. Just go back to what you were doing"?
EAJA fees are available in civil actions filed in the federal courts against federal government agencies if the plaintiff is successful and if the government's position in the litigation was not "substantially justified." Social Security cases generate by far the largest number of EAJA payments. Over the years the EAJA fees came to be paid by direct deposit to the attorney. In the last few months the direct deposits have stopped. The Department of Justice has been insisting that the EAJA fees belong to the client and must be paid directly to the client. This is problematic for attorneys representing Social Security claimants since they may have difficulty collecting the money from the client. Most EAJA fees in Social Security cases are in cases that are remanded by the courts. In remand cases the client has not previously paid any fee or received any money from Social Security. When a desperately poor claimant receives a check from Social Security they usually cash it and spend it quickly.
In the last month or so, there have been signs that the Department of Justice's position on EAJA was softening. There have been signs all along that the Social Security Administration was not interested in litigating on this issue and may have even been sympathetic to the position of attorneys representing Social Security claimants. Of course, there are also signs of great distress and disorganization at the Department of Justice related to the Attorney General.
So what is going on now? Was this EAJA direct deposit some fluke or is it a sign that the Department of Justice has, in effect, told Social Security "Oh, never mind. Just go back to what you were doing"?
3 comments:
It's a fluke. DOJ is still dragging SSA into this.
"When a desperately poor claimant receives a check from Social Security they usually cash it and spend it quickly."
If that's the case why you charging a fee?
So lets see what's more important, claimant eats or attorney gets paid. LOL
Dear Anonymous 2,
I am a legal aid attorney, and so collect no fees. But you are being totally unreasonable. If attorneys can't get paid, they won't take cases, it's as simple as that. Not all attorneys are fat cats with big incomes. Believe it or not, some attorneys would rely on those fees to pay their mortgage etc.
Post a Comment