We are presented with the question of whether district courts may employ the lodestar method to determine whether an attorney fee constitutes a “windfall” under Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002). Because we read Gisbrecht as merely forbidding exclusive reliance on the lodestar method to determine the reasonableness of a 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) attorney fee, we do not conclude that Gisbrecht precludes a court’s consideration of the lodestar method altogether. And since the district court here did not rely exclusively on the lodestar method to evaluate the reasonableness of a contingency fee, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the contingency fee unreasonable under § 406(b).
Oct 2, 2010
The Lodestar Is Dead -- Long Live The Lodestar
From Jeter v. Astrue, ___ F.3d ____ (5th Cir. Sept. 30, 2010)
Labels:
Appellate Decisions,
Attorney Fees
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment