Meanwhile, we hear more and more complaints from the Social Security Administration about the quality of representation that claimants receive. I expect that many complaints are justified. This problem might have something to do with the erosion of Social Security attorney fees in the face of rapidly burgeoning case files. You get what you pay for, or perhaps in this case, what you allow other people to pay for.
By the way, if your opinion is that we ought to do away with any government involvement in attorney fees, that's fine with me as long as you allow me a lien on my clients' back benefits, the same type of lien that's widely used throughout the economy. Try taking your car in to the dealership for repairs and then getting it back without paying the repair bill. You can't because the dealership has a mechanic's lien on the car. That's normal. Why should attorneys be treated worse than car dealerships?
31 comments:
If they raise the fee agreement amount to $10,000.00 it would eliminated thousands of fee petitions and reduce their workload substantially. Attys and reps would switch to a single tiered fee agreement and no more fee petitions.
I agree with Howard, but also doubt such an increase will ever happen. I haven't been to a NOSSCR conference in some time due to scheduling issues, but has NOSSCR addressed whether and what they are doing to try to help us in this regard?
I am glad Charles is raising this issue. I do believe that the fee needs to be raised. The Administration is asking attorneys/reps to work up cases and service clients for (in many cases 2.5+ years before a hearing is even scheduled, and then if they are successful to wait another 5+ months longer for processing and cap the fees at a paltry low amount.
My contacts within the Administration seem to be of the opinion that the fees as capped as $6k are excessive for the work performed. However, when pressed whether they would want Attorney's to get out of the business of representing claimants they cringe at the idea. They all would rather have the attorney work the cases up than have a bunch of pro se unrepresented claimants. As I understand it, there has been some discussion on giving more responsibilities to Reps but not raising the fees. (I have no idea what this could entail)
I do think that the SSA insiders that are opposed to fee increases ignore the realities of running a private business... the costs involved, (support staff, technology, administration, marketing, taxes, payroll, floating case expenses, etc, etc) and the hardship that 2 to 3 yrs of delay in receiving payment can place on a business owner.
I do agree with Charles Hall's premise that one of the main reasons is the partisanship congress has inflicted, but I also think there is a huge negative (albeit misguided) view among the Administration leadership as well.
I would be interested in hearing the thoughts of other people here as well as solutions (besides voting congressional Republicans out of office)
I am glad Charles is raising this issue. I do believe that the fee needs to be raised. The Administration is asking attorneys/reps to work up cases and service clients for (in many cases 2.5+ years before a hearing is even scheduled, and then if they are successful to wait another 5+ months longer for processing and cap the fees at a paltry low amount.
My contacts within the Administration seem to be of the opinion that the fees as capped as $6k are excessive for the work performed. However, when pressed whether they would want Attorney's to get out of the business of representing claimants they cringe at the idea. They all would rather have the attorney work the cases up than have a bunch of pro se unrepresented claimants. As I understand it, there has been some discussion on giving more responsibilities to Reps but not raising the fees. (I have no idea what this could entail)
I do think that the SSA insiders that are opposed to fee increases ignore the realities of running a private business... the costs involved, (support staff, technology, administration, marketing, taxes, payroll, floating case expenses, etc, etc) and the hardship that 2 to 3 yrs of delay in receiving payment can place on a business owner.
I do agree with Charles Hall's premise that one of the main reasons is the partisanship congress has inflicted, but I also think there is a huge negative (albeit misguided) view among the Administration leadership as well.
I would be interested in hearing the thoughts of other people here as well as solutions (besides voting congressional Republicans out of office)
SSA doesn't understand the expenses a practicing attorney faces. They think that if I get a $6,000 fee on a case that I just put the money in my pocket. Most of the fee goes to pay business expenses, and (if I'm lucky) there will be profit at the end of the year.
What does the annual income or salary look like for a disability attorney who owns or works for a small firm? I understand it will vary, but what’s the range?
@7:46
"Disability Attorney salary range in the United States
$53,000 - $100,000
The average pay for a Disability Attorney job in the US is $72,000 a year. ZipRecruiter scanned its database of millions of jobs in order to estimate the most accurate salary range for Disability Attorney jobs in the United States."
ZipRecruiter.com
I am not so sure it's a Congressional conspiracy. How long did it take to raise it from 4K to $5300 and then to $6K? Didn't that take quite a while to happen?
I know there might be a significant variation, but what percentage of reps' cases hit the $6k cap and would exceed $7-8k? I mostly ask because it seems like few, if any, SSI cases and many DIB cases with lowish PIAs are not hitting the $24k mark.
Obviously any additional money would be welcome on the occasions where it would occur, but if the cap is raised to $8k, how much more will that realistically bring in?
Congressman Lewis (D-GA) had floated a bill that would have tied the cap to COLA (o something similar) and raised it every year, but this didn't go through.
Because there are a few concentrated rep factories (mostly owned by hedge funds), or people like Eric Conn, who cleared 8 figures a year in fees paid directly by SSA, there is likely a perception out there that reps have it much easier than they do.
Most of my rep-colleagues are now per-diem contract attorneys for the big shops and only getting flat fees for showing up at the hearings. Often with files not well prepared by the hedge-fund shops. And some of those places don't pay if you lose the hearing.
Not sure what the solution to any of this is. But what little rep-fee money there is, is not going exclusively to the solo practitioners and small SSD firms anymore.
@9:22
If the average salary for a disability attorney is $72K then it lags over $40K a year behind the average attorney salary. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/legal/lawyers.htm Yeah, it's time to raise the fee cap.
I wouldn't say Congressional conspiracy. More likely hypocrisy. What is the unspoken sentiment? It's ok for rich folks to have lawyers to protect their interests. Not so for poor folks with disabilities. But you can't come out and say that openly without the hypocrisy being obvious, so you discourage representation by restricting the amount lawyers can make representing the poor to the point they could make much more doing almost anything else. Discriminatory mission accomplished without your hands becoming too obviously dirty.
Everyone knows that if inflation indexing is not included, the value will tend to erode over time. So I assume this is what Congress wants when it does not include inflation indexing. The minimum wage is also not inflation indexed, so Congress has to deal with it periodically, but the raises granted have not kept up with inflation.
Another example related to Social Security are the thresholds for determining the taxability of Social Security benefits, which are $25k and $34k (for a single taxpayer), for taxable income plus half of Social Security benefits. The $25k threshold was first effective in 1984, and if indexed for inflation would be $60k now. So it affected only high-income people then, but now it affects about half of Social Security recipients, and this will continue to grow. This taxation can cause marginal tax rates on other income to be 50% or 85% percent higher than the individual's tax bracket rate over a substantial range of income.
Look, you guys do realize the GOP really has no truck with anything other than tax, divorce or corporate law? Their animus to "personal injury" and "class action" and anything that impacts business (union, environment, small guy fighting back stuff) is historical fact. So why do you think the fee ceiling stays low when the gave back to the rich so much this last tax bill? Why are funds for public defenders trending downward while cases go upward? It's just a simple "they don't like you (or your clients). Occams razor, go for teh simplest explanation.
Welcome to the real world. You think the rest of us are getting raises to keep up with the cost of living? You think that the people you are getting on benefits are getting COLAs that keep up with the rising costs of the things they use?
If you don't like it, practice in another field. It isn't rocket surgery.
@6:41 if you want higher fees, looks like you are practicing in the wrong area of law. And remember, average means some earn more and some earn less, you decided to earn less, so deal with it.
@9:28, @9:38 out of curiosity, do you work for the agency?
I chose to be a disability lawyer despite knowing the potential issues with that line of work. However it seems disingenous to attack us because we don’t like a Congressionally-mandated cap on the amount of money we can earn on a case.
@9:28
The COLA has increased a total of 10.8% since 2009 when the fee was last changed. I think a reasonable solution would just be to tie the fee cap to COLA which would create a predictable level of hardship experienced by beneficiaries (still a small fraction of past due benefits received) while also providing at least an attempt to increase fees proportionally to inflation and cost of living. In other fields of law, or even other professions, service providers are permitted to increase costs to the extent the market will bare, yet the Social Security Act requires limiting fees to a set figure. I agree the disabled deserve protection, but SSA does have a responsibility to act reasonably.
@9:38
I doubt any social security practitioner enters the field expecting high fees. They do expect some increase in fees over time as historically this has been the case. As to average meaning "some earn more and some earn less," you are incorrect. As to some fields of law earning less than others, that is correct but as a general principle either greater effort or at least greater results, results in greater compensation. While benefits increase year after year, which inherently results in greater results, fees are limited by statute.
@10:04
I think 9:28 is, but 9:38 sounds like a practitioner unfamiliar with the fee agreement statutes.
I am curious if the best solution is just to start filing fee petitions in every case for a reasonable fee. Maybe then SSA would take notice.
ro 10:59 PM
Approximately 50%of the fees I receive are from cases where the fee is the $6,000 cap, less the "service". That ends up being about a third of the cases overall where the fee is capped.
I estimate that if the fee cap had raised with the other COLA's,to a current amount of about $7,500 that would mean an additional payment around $1,ooo per case. (Not all cases would be at the new cap)
Depending on the size of the firm, this could mean a difference of anywhere from $50,000 to $150,000 per year in fees. So, it makes a great deal of difference to a practitioner.
@ 12:32 AM wrote "Most of my rep-colleagues are now per-diem contract attorneys for the big shops and only getting flat fees for showing up at the hearings. Often with files not well prepared by the hedge-fund shops. And some of those places don't pay if you lose the hearing."
Why would anyone risk malpractice, their bar card, and their reputation by signing up to do this kind of contract work? If the file is not prepared, that's on the person sitting in the chair next to the claimant, not the hedge fund who suckered them into serfdom. Maybe if the hedge funds had to start sending actual people to the hearings from their offices and footing the associated costs of doing so, they would be less lucrative and fade away into the distance. By doing contract work for them, all an attorney is doing is help to perpetuate a bad situation for both claimants and non-hedge fund representatives. Make them carry their own damn water.
Raising the Fee Agreement amount is something the Commissioner or Acting Commissioner can do without congressional approval.
6:41 AM,
"If the average salary for a disability attorney is $72K then it lags over $40K a year behind the average attorney salary. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/legal/lawyers.htm Yeah, it's time to raise the fee cap."
Is it really reasonable to use the average attorney salary as a baseline for disability attorneys? At least at the administrative level, you don't need to be an attorney to represent a claimant and collect a fee. If someone is doing work that doesn't require a degree or law license, then is it reasonable for him/her to expect to be paid a premium for credentials that the industry views as overkill?
hear, hear 1:48
I know a lot of attorneys feel stuck doing this contract work, but by golly we all took that oath and live by some version of the model rules--how could you possibly represent someone with a crap worked up file that you just met that day? Do you not care about your duties of zealous advocacy, competency, and preparedness? I really don't want to hear about how bad the hedgies are--you're the (attorney) rep of record, so it's on you.
@ 1:48 PM
I derive a good chunk of my income from this contract work. 80% of the time, the records are well-developed. I make a decent living that would otherwise be impossible waiting months to be paid on my own cases.
I say raise rep fees and change grids at same time.
I notice nobody responded to 2:16 who totally and completely nailed it!
@2:16
6:41 here. It is relevant to consider the average of what attorneys make when considering raising the fee cap. If you want to attract reasonably skilled and diligent attorneys to consider representing people before the agency, and put in the time and effort to fully develop the files like the agency wants, you have to make it possible for them to make a reasonable living at it. If the current fee cap means attorneys are making on average $40K+ less that they could doing other work, you are effectively driving them away. Alternatively, you force the ones who stick with it despite the poor compensation to take more cases than they can reasonably handle well to make ends meet. Neither is good for the agency, the claimants, or the people who represent them.
2:16 nailed it, put a ribbon on it, tied the bow and even put sprinkles on top!!
Agree with @3:39 that the grids need to be changed; all the jobs the VE cites as something that my unskilled clients could do haven't been updated since 1979. Unskilled sedentary jobs just don't exist anymore.
Here in Mississippi we don't get too many max-pay cases, but it would be nice if we could get more for the occasional case that would pay more than $6,000.00.
The fee is capped at $6000 if there is $24,000 in retroactive benefits. And it seems that the biggest factor in retroactive benefits totalling over $24,000 is the never-ending backlog. Without the backlog, if ALJ hearing could be held within a year of filing, then reps would lose a big chunk of their income. Ironic that the SSA backlog does help the rep's bottom line...
Conclusion is that if SSA wanted to reduce the income of reps, they should do everything possible to speed up the process.
Post a Comment