Final Regs On Law Firms Representing Claimants Cleared For Publication

     The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has cleared Social Security's proposed final rules on the recognition of law firms representing claimants. To this point, the agency has insisted that only individuals can represent claimants. In the real world, however, there are these things called law firms and they like to do things like shift responsibility for a case from one of the firm's attorneys to another, something that is now difficult both for the law firm and Social Security. There's also the problems that ensue when an attorney leaves a law firm. Who gets the fee? This is a nice step forward for everyone, including Social Security. Expect these final regulations to be published in the Federal Register before long.

Attorney Fee Cap To Go To $9,200 This Fall And Be Indexed

     From a press release:

The Social Security Administration (SSA) plans to raise the fee cap for claimants’ representatives, from $7,200 to $9,200, when they and their client agree to use what is known as a “fee agreement process.” This will be the first increase to the fee agreement cap since November 2022, when the cap went up from $6,000 to $7,200, after remaining the same for thirteen years.

The fee cap increase is scheduled to take effect this Fall. The agency also plans to tie future increases to the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). SSA will publish notice of this change in the Federal Register in April in advance of the effective date. ...

Fee Cap Going Up And Will Be Indexed

      The National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) is reporting that there will soon be an increase in the cap on the amount that attorneys may charge under the fee agreement process and that henceforth the cap will be adjusted annually for inflation.

Two Important Sets Of Final Regs

     The Social Security Administration has asked the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve two sets of proposed regulations.

     Here's a description of the first for which approval has been requested:

We propose to update our regulations to reflect that we may authorize direct payment of representative fees to an entity itself, not only to representatives working for an entity, as required by the decision of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Marasco & Nesselbush v. SSA. In accordance with the Marasco ruling, we propose a process for paying an entity directly, which involves requiring registration for all entities who wish to receive direct payment of assigned fees. We also propose several measures to standardize registration, appointment, and payment processes for all representatives who wish to be appointed on a claim, matter, or issue with us. These proposed changes will enable us to pay fees directly to entities in a timely and efficient manner. In addition to helping us implement the Marasco decision, these provisions will increase appointed representatives’ access to our electronic services, reduce delays, and thus improve program efficiencies for all representatives.

    Here's a description of the second set of proposed regulations for which approval has been requested:

We propose to develop intermediate improvements to reduce the burden in our current disability adjudication process as a step towards longer-term reforms to ensure our disability program remains current and supports equitable outcomes. Actions could include decreasing the years of past work we consider when making a disability determination, as well as other potential regulatory changes.

The development of this regulation was informed by a listening session conducted by our Office of Communications with advocacy groups representing claimants and beneficiaries.

Proposed Rule Recognizing The Fact That There Are Such Things As Law Firms

     A Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM) from today's Federal Register:

We propose to revise our regulations to enable us to directly pay entities fees we may authorize to their employees, as required by the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (First Circuit) in Marasco & Nesselbush, LLP v. Collins. To make direct payments, issue the necessary tax documents, and properly administer these rules, we propose to require all entities that want to receive direct payment of assigned fees and all representatives who want to be appointed on a claim, matter, or issue to register with us. We also propose to standardize the registration, appointment, and payment processes. We expect that this proposed rule will help us implement the changes required by the Marasco decision, increase accessibility to our electronic services, reduce delays, and help us prepare for more automation, thereby improving our program efficiencies.

    This should have been done over 30 years ago but better late than never. 

    By the way, I have no idea how this got into the Federal Register. These things have to be approved by the Office of Management and Budget and OMB never listed this as pending approval on its website. I don't think I've ever seen this before. It's not listed now as having been approved by OMB even though the NPRM itself shows that OMB was involved.

Fee Payments Have Declined

     Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has issued a report on payments to attorneys and others for representing claimants before the agency. The data was already available but they've added charts. Below are a couple of them.

Availability Of Representation At Social Security Needs Some Attention

     The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) is a federal advisory body that makes recommendations for federal agencies, generally dealing with process issues in administrative rule-making and adjudication. ACUS is currently studying how agencies can improve representation in cases pending for administrative adjudication.

    Let me suggest that access to representation at Social Security could stand some attention. You say, "How can that be? I've seen TV ads for Social Security attorneys." First, you probably haven't seen nearly as many ads now as there used to be. The number of attorneys handling the cases is down dramatically. Profit margins are down. Television advertising is no longer cost effective for most firms. Second, and more important, while it's easy for SOME Social Security disability claimants to obtain representation, it's hard for MANY others to obtain representation. If you're 55 and older, you'll probably find an attorney without difficulty. If you're under 50, it may be difficult. Some firms explicitly refuse to take on cases of any claimants who are under 50 or 55. Almost all others are careful about taking on clients who are under 50. This makes sense as a business matter since profit margins are low. The chances of success are significantly lower for younger claimants. You can make money on clients who have, let's say, a 60% chance of success but you can't make money on clients with a 40% chance of success. Does that mean that younger people don't deserve representation? No, most of them deserve a fair chance at proving disability. A 40% chance of success doesn't equal a frivolous case. It's still a case that the claimant should have representation on, especially since that claimant needs more help, but, for the most part, he or she can't get it.

    I hear ALJs decry the number of no-shows for hearings. Do they notice how many of those cases are claimants under age 50 who are unrepresented? There's a reason those claimants don't show up. They got discouraged because they couldn't find attorneys even though they would have some reasonable chance of success if they were represented.. That's not good for those claimants and it's not good for the system.

    How do you make me as an attorney who represents Social Security disability claimants more interested in the cases of younger claimants? The only solutions that I know of are to make the cases less difficult to win or to let me charge a higher fee when we do win. 

    Don't dismiss consideration of whether it's too hard for younger disability claimants to get approved. My perception is that over the years that age has assumed a greater and greater weight in determining disability. I get the feeling that attorneys screening calls from prospective clients aren't the only ones applying quick and ready rules of thumb. Would anyone deny that problem exists at the initial and reconsideration levels? Has it crept into ALJ behavior? Age certainly should be important. People naturally become less adaptable as they age. (If you don't understand this, just wait. You'll get older and you'll understand eventually.) However, my impression is that age is too big a factor now. Younger claimants don't get a fair shake. If you're in severe pain, it doesn't matter whether you're 25 or 65, you're not going to be able to work. We're not giving enough consideration to the effects of cognitive limitations and mental illness, which make adaptation difficult even for younger people. We're expecting more of people than is realistic.

    Please, if you're a Social Security employee who thinks Social Security attorneys are foolish or mean or unprofessional for not taking on more cases of younger individuals, leave the agency and start representing claimants yourself. You'll find plenty of younger clients. We'll see how long you last.

A Big Batch Of "Proactive Disclosures"

     Social Security FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] Reading Room routinely posts "Proactive Disclosures." Usually, it's just a couple of posts a month but they're starting off this month with a bang. Below is what they've posted so far. I guess this is based about recent FOIA requests they've replied to. It makes you wonder why some of these FOIA requests were made. By the way, this includes a list that purports to tell you the top 500 law firms receiving attorney fees in Social Security cases. I don't know about this list but in the past these numbers have been wildly inaccurate.

	04-13-06 to 10-06-16 Initial Approval Statistics for Asthma Listing
	04-13-06 to 10-06-16 Reconsideration Approval Statistics for Asthma Listing
	12-15-04 to 05-16-15 Initial Approval Statistics for Sickle Cell Listing
	12-15-04 to 05-16-15 Reconsideration Approval Statistics for Sickle Cell Listing
	ACOSS Kilolo Kijakazi Oath of Office
	CY2021 Claimant Representatives Receiving Fees of $225K and Above
	CYs 2017 to 2021 Top 500 Firms by # of Awarded Clients
	FY 2022 ME and VE Payment Rates
	FY2017 to 2022 SSI Terminations Due to Earned Income
	FY2021 Social Security Disability Income Wait Times
	Personal Assistant Position Description - 9E560
	Personal Assistant Position Description - 9E561
	Personal Assistant Position Description - 9E562
	Personal Assistant Position Description - 9E563
	Reader Assistant Position Description
	Social Security Administration Reentry Plan 03302022-10-19-22
	SSA Appointees 08-30-22
	SSA Office of Systems Organizational Charts July 2022
	SSA-8202 - Statement for Determining Continuing Eligibility for Supplemental Security Income Payment

Attorneys Representing Social Security Claimants Are Hurting

     Social Security has posted final numbers showing total fees paid to attorneys and others for representing claimants in 2022. Let's do a comparison with the last three years:

• 2019: 390,809 fees were paid for a total of $1,214,557,861. Average fee per case was $3,107.80
  
• 2020: 360,493 fees were paid, down 8% from 2019. The total fees paid were $1,081,523,523, down 11% from 2019. Average fee per case was $3,000.12.
  
• 2021: 296,847 fees were paid, down 18% from 2020 and down 24% from 2019. The total fees paid were $932,887,938, down 14% from 2020 and down 23% from 2020. Average fee per case was $3,142.66.
  
• 2022: 311,047 fees were paid, up 5% from 2021 but down 14% from 2020 and down 20% from 2019. The total fees paid were $923,992,941, down 1% from 2021, down 15% from 2020 and down 24% from 2019. The average fee per case was $2,970.59.
  

    Social Security attorneys are genuinely hurting. The recent increase in the fee cap is only going to help so much, especially when you consider that the attorneys have to cope with huge inflation and case files that have been getting bigger and bigger because of electronic medical records. The end result is that the quality of representation of claimants has been going down.

    Social Security depends upon claimants being represented. Take us out of the picture and workloads at Social Security become far worse.

Can This Business Survive?

    From the Messenger Inquirer:

Will Craig retired from the Social Security Administration in December after 25 years.

He said he’s seen the problems people have in filing claims and appeals.

So Craig has started The Social Security Advisor, a business “where I can help people seeking guidance with Social Security-related issues, such as help with completing complex forms, filing appeals or just help filing their applications,” he said. “I’ve see how everything works. I can’t file claims, but I can help people fill them out correctly.”

Craig said when he worked at Social Security, “I had to get people in and out in 10 minutes. Often they said they wished they had more time to talk with me.”...

Craig charges $50 an hour for his services. ...

Craig’s website says, “People often feel that they don’t need an attorney to qualify for Social Security disability, but might still need help completing the piles of forms and questionnaires that the Disability Determination Service can send. Have you tried calling your local Social Security office to see if they can help? Most likely they told you that there is no one available or that you should seek help from a friend or family member. With 25 years of experience working for the Social Security Administration, I’ve assisted people just like you fill out those forms.”

    I wish Mr. Craig all the best with his new business. I think this sort of service is needed. However, I think that Social Security is going to effectively shut it down by insisting on a fee petition for each fee he receives from a customer and that all monies he receives be held in escrow until a fee is approved. I have to say that this sort of thing -- where help is provided a Social Security claimant but there is no direct contact with Social Security -- has always been a gray area. I can't be entirely sure that Social Security will try to shut him down. I think it would not be in the public interest for them to shut him down. Why shouldn't it be legal to provide this sort of service if there's a demand for it? By the way, don't tell me that insisting that he file a fee petition to get paid isn't the same thing as shutting him down. Anyone who says that doesn't know how slow and tedious the fee petition process is. He would expend more effort filing fee petitions and following up on them than he would helping customers.

You Snooze, You Lose

    From Bloomberg:

An attorney who won disability insurance benefits for his client isn’t entitled to the fees the Social Security Administration designated for his work before a federal court, because his 26-month delay in requesting them wasn’t reasonable, the First Circuit said.

Jose Pais was denied benefits by the SSA in 2014. In 2018, a federal district court ruled in Pais’ favor and remanded the case to the SSA, which then decided Pais was entitled to benefits.

Pais and his lawyer had signed a contingent-fee agreement. The SSA therefore sent Pais a notice of award in June 2019, saying that his lawyer was entitled under federal law to fees of up to $29,159, representing 25% of the recovered benefits.

The lawyer promptly submitted a claim to SSA for over $7,000 for the work he did in administrative proceedings, but didn’t submit a claim for his work before the district court until August 2021.   

The district court rejected the lawyer’s excuses and said that the delay was unreasonable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

There is not fixed time under the Social Security law for an attorney to file a motion for fees, the opinion by Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson of the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit said. But there is a circuit split over which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure applies to the request, Thompson said.

The Tenth Circuit applies Rule 60, under which parties have a “reasonable time” to move for “relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding.” But the Second, Third, Fifth, and Eleventh circuits apply Rule 54(d)(2), which says that unless a statute or court order says otherwise, a motion for attorneys’ fees must “be filed no later than 14 days after the entry of judgment.”

Agreeing with the Tenth Circuit, the First Circuit said that the SSA never hands down a notice of award within 14 days of a district court’s judgment, which makes rigid application of Rule 54(d)(2) impossible. It also noted that some of the circuits that apply Rule 54(d)(2) toll the 14 days to the date the SSA issues a notice of award. ...

    What I want to know is how long it took Social Security to act on the fee petition. This delay may not be as bad as it seems.

ALJ Fee Petition Cap Increasing To $12,000

     From the Social Security Administration:

We previously announced an upcoming increase to the maximum fee under the fee agreement process, the first increase in 13 years. Effective November 30, 2022, the maximum fee will change from $6,000 to $7,200.

Additionally, on November 30, 2022, we are also increasing the fee petition amount that an initial authorizer may approve if an appointed representative seeks authorization of a fee through the fee petition process. During the fee petition process, the initial authorizer may now approve up to $12,000 in connection with a claim adjudicated at the initial, reconsideration, or hearing level. ...

Seven Years To Correct Mistake

    I just received a $436.88 attorney fee in a case that was approved in November 2015. The fee had been miscomputed originally. We notified the payment center of the problem at that time. They agreed that there was a problem. It's taken them seven years to correct the problem. Seven years.

    In case you're wondering (or trying to find some way to blame me for the delay) the case involved Disability Insurance Benefits, Disabled Adult Child Benefits and Supplemental Security Income benefits, meaning that benefits were computed in three locations, meaning that the chances of everything being computed correctly were low. Actually, a mispayment that only affected attorney fees is about as good as you could hope for, although you would hope it would take less than seven years to correct the mistake.

House Appropriations Releases Report On Bill To Fund SSA

     The full House Appropriations Committee has approved its version of the appropriations bill covering the Social Security Administration. There were no amendments affecting Social Security. The report that accompanies such bills has been released. These reports typically contain precatory language that agencies generally try to follow even if they are not legally required to do so. Here's some excerpts that affect Social Security (beginning at page 310):

• ... Within the total recommended increase, the Committee expects SSA to direct not less than $630,000,000 for field offices, teleservice centers, and program service centers, and $190,000,000 to replace losses and build capacity at the State Disability Determination Services (DDS) agencies that make disability determinations for SSA.
• In addition, within the recommended funding level, the Committee provides $89,500,000 for SSA to mail paper statements to all contributors aged 25 and older not yet receiving benefits ...
• Hearings.—The Committee continues to consider the Final Rule ‘‘Hearings Held by Administrative Appeals Judges of the Appeals Council’’ (85 Fed. Reg. 73138, December 16, 2020) to be an unjustified erosion of due process for individuals who are appealing a denial of Social Security or SSI benefits. As part of a beneficiary’s right to an impartial appeal process, an on the record hearing, conducted by an impartial judge with decisional independence, must be conducted in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act to ensure due process, without agency interference, or political bias. Replacing this appeals step and the role of independent administrative law judges (ALJs) with SSA employees jeopardizes the independence of the process. In light of the harm that would be caused by this policy change, the Committee strongly urges SSA not to exercise this authority. ...
• The Committee requests SSA submit to the Committee within 90 days of enactment of this Act a plan for reducing the initial and reconsideration claims backlogs, and continue to submit to the Committee quarterly reports on disability hearings backlogs until SSA has eliminated the hearings backlog and achieved its monthly average processing time goal. The Committee urges the Commissioner to prioritize the hiring of additional staff at the DDS agencies to determine initial claims and reconsideration appeals, as well as ALJs and requisite staff to adjudicate backlogged hearings claims. ...
• The Committee remains concerned about the time it takes SSA to effectuate favorable SSI and/or SSDI disability determinations and requests a briefing on the issue withing 30 days of receiving the report on Disability Determinations as requested in House Report 117–96. ...
• The Committee directs SSA to submit a report to the Committee within 180 days of enactment of this Act exploring the feasibility of using employee incentives, including an agency student loan repayment program, to improve recruitment and retention for qualified candidates across the agency. ...
• The Committee recognizes the essential role that field offices play in the public’s ability to access SSA benefits and services and strongly encourages the Commissioner to take every action possible to maintain operations at existing field offices. ...
• The Committee understands that the Office of Hearings Operations (OHO) relies on legal assistants to conduct a broad range of work supporting hearings and reviewing work of its administrative law judges, and urges SSA to examine the position descriptions of legal assistants, pay and actual work conducted, to ensure that job classifications and compensation are commensurate with current duties. ...
• The Committee believes that quality representation in matters with SSA assists claimants and beneficiaries, and can also help SSA work more accurately and efficiently. The Committee appreciates that the Commissioner is raising the cap on fees payable via fee agreement, and encourages the Commissioner to index the cap to account for inflation in future years. ...
• The Committee reiterates its support for well-managed telework programs in the Federal workplace and understands that SSA is in the process of evaluating how telework affects service delivery during the reentry evaluation period of March 30 through September 30, 2022. Within 90 days of enactment of this Act, the Committee requests a briefing on how the results of that evaluation will be used to measure and monitor the impact of telework on customer satisfaction, service availability including continuity of operations, workloads management, employee experience, stewardship, and environmental considerations. ...

    Note that we are a long, long way from having a final bill. The Senate has to act. The filibuster in the Senate gives the minority a veto over appropriations bills. The House of Representatives may be in Republican hands by the time there is final action.

Offical Announcement Of Increase In Fee Cap

     The Social Security Administration is today publishing in the Federal Register the increase in the fee cap under the fee agreement process from $6,000 to $7,200 effective November 30.

Some Questions

     On May 11, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security spoke to a Continuing Legal Education conference sponsored by the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR). She announced that the cap on the fees that attorneys and some others can charge for representing Social Security claimants under the fee agreement process would go up from $6,000 to $7,200 on November 30.

    I have some questions. I imagine that some people reading this blog know the answers to most of these questions. I don't know whether they'll share anything with us but I'll ask the questions anyway.

• The increase in the fee cap isn't effective until November 30. Why such a long lead time? This length of time certainly isn't necessary in order to train staff. (I'll guess that there won't be any real training no matter how far in advance the agency announces this. There certainly wasn't in past years when the fee cap was raised.) When the fee cap was raised previously, the change wasn't announced this far in advance.
• There has been no notice in the Federal Register about the increase in the fee cap as there was in the past when the fee cap was hiked. Has the agency just not gotten around to the notice? Is this somehow still up in the air?
  
• Why $7,200? If adjusted for inflation, it should be more than a $1,000 higher. I can guess that there were proponents within the agency, and perhaps the Biden Administration, for a higher or lower increase. Who were the proponents on each side? What were their arguments? Did the Acting Commissioner make this call or was it the White House? (I don't know why the White House should have been involved but I also don't understand what took so long. I think it was last November when I first heard that an increase was coming.)
  
• Does the low increase reflect a desire on the part of some to change traditional representation patterns -- to force attorneys to be more amenable to a switch to all telephone/video hearings? A desire to generally reduce the effectiveness of representation? (I may be giving those involved too much credit. My impression has  long been that, in general, government employees have little comprehension of the economics of Social Security law firms. It's a high overhead, low profit margin kind of business. Reduce gross fees even modestly and the profit margin is greatly diminished or eliminated. What I've just written is painfully obvious to people like me but must seem like Greek to many who receive a paycheck every two weeks regardless. Of course, I heard a rumor that the Chief Administrative Law Judge has talked about attorneys needing to "become more efficient." What did he have in mind? Whether or not there was a desire to manipulate attorneys to become less effective and to agree to dispense with in person hearings, I predict those will be the effects. Attorneys are struggling under the effects of incredibly poor performance across most parts of the Social Security Administration which delays adjudication and payment of benefits as well as payment of attorney fees at a time when attorney fees have been effectively cut in a dramatic way by inflation. There's nothing we can do to stay afloat but to cut service to our clients which may be "more efficient" in the eyes of some. Claimants don't get the service they're willing to pay for but the service that others who may not have their best interests at heart are willing for them to pay.)
  

Equity Action Plan Talks About Attorney Fees

      A press release:

Today, the Social Security Administration released its first Equity Action Plan, supporting President Biden’s whole-of-government equity agenda to advance equity, civil rights, racial justice, and equal opportunity for all.

On January 20, 2021, The President signed an Executive Order, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. The Executive Order requires all Federal agencies “to pursue a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, including people of color and other people who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality.”

“Social Security’s programs touch the lives of nearly every American, providing income security for the diverse populations we serve, including people facing barriers, people with disabilities, people who are widowed, retirees, and their families,” said Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security. “Systemic barriers may prevent people who need our programs the most from accessing them. Our Equity Action Plan will help to reduce these barriers and ensure people have access to our services.”

Social Security’s Equity Action Plan includes:

• Increasing collection of race and ethnicity data to help understand whether programs are equitably serving applicants and beneficiaries,
• Revising policies and practices to expand options for service delivery,
• Ensuring equitable access for unrepresented claimants in the disability application process,
• Decreasing burdens for people who identify as gender diverse or transgender in the Social Security number card application process, and
• Increasing access to research grant programs for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Serving Institutions and procurement opportunities for small and disadvantaged businesses.

To learn more about the actions outlined in the Equity Action Plan, please visit www.socialsecurity.gov/open/materials/SSA-EO-13985-Equity-Action-Plan.pdf. For more information about efforts to redress systemic barriers in policies and programs to advance equity for all, visit www.whitehouse.gov/equity.

    Here's a little from the Equity Action Plan that will be of immediate interest to some readers: 

... Some claimants get attorney or non-attorney representatives to assist with this process. However, representatives’ fees are based on awarded back benefits. This is a disincentive for representing SSI Disability applicants in favor of DI applicants, whose benefits are typically higher. There is evidence that although African American people are more likely to have a disability, they are less likely to be approved for disability benefits than White people. Considering this, we will assess whether African American claimants are less likely to have a representative than White claimants, research whether claimants who have representatives are more likely to receive disability benefits, reach out to claimants who do not have representatives to prepare them for their disability hearings and inform them of their right to representation, and work with professional associations of representatives to create incentives to increase their representation of disability program applicants. ...

[W]e are evaluating whether the current maximum fee of $6,000 that attorney and non-attorney representatives receive under the fee agreement process is enough. ...

    And on another topic:

... [W]e will: 

Explore establishing a Customer Experience (CX) office that reports directly to the Office of the Commissioner. ...

    That doesn't sound like an ombudsman or even a customer service office but it could be a step forward. Social Security has expended much effort telling the public how it must do business with the agency and more or less blaming the public for lousy service at the agency, as in telling the public that if they'd only just use online services, their service would be so much better, without noticing that the agency's online services are, on the whole, lousy and that many members of the public wouldn't be able to use them even if they were terrific. Quit blaming the customer.

Something Coming?

     There have been rumors that an increase in the cap on fees that attorneys can charge for representing Social Security claimants is coming. That hasn’t happened yet but Social Security just saw fit to update its POMS manual section on increases in the fee cap. 

     I will say, though, that I look at these POMS updates generally and a lot of the time I wonder why they bothered with the update.

What Will Social Security Do About The Marasco & Nesslebush Case?

      I had written recently about Social Security's inability to react to an adverse ruling by a court at anything other than a glacial pace. Let me ask when the agency might decide what it's going to do about Marasco & Nesselbush v. Collins. On July 16, 2021 the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that:

... SSA's rule barring payments to attorneys for work completed before they enter government service is both arbitrary and, in some circumstances, in conflict with the statutory mandate to pay "a reasonable fee" for successful representation of SSA claimants. ...

and further held that:

... SSA must adjust its rules, as described above, to ensure that the law firms that employ salaried associates to represent SSA claimants may receive direct payment of the attorney's fees to which the firms' associates are entitled for representation performed while employed by those law firms. ...

     This didn't go to the Supreme Court so Social Security has no choice but to implement it in the First Circuit area (most of New England) but it makes little sense to try to apply it just to that one area of the country. Payment centers all over the country are involved in authorizing attorney fees in the cases of claimants residing in the First Circuit area. Why would you want to have two systems? I can't exclude the possibility that Social Security will be that pig-headed but I hope that wiser heads prevail. Something should have been done about this problem decades ago.

Fee Cap Chokes Claimant Representation

     From The Legal Intelligencer (registration required):

A limit on the fees attorneys may collect on Social Security cases has remained unchanged for nearly 13 years, leaving some smaller firms and solo practitioners struggling to keep their practices running as inflation and costs of business outpace their earnings.

The stagnating cap has has resulted in a practice area that both fails to attract new talent and drives established practitioners to seek out more profitable types of law, say some Social Security attorneys. Those attorneys say the drain on resources is creating a smaller pool of representation available to vulnerable populations that will ultimately lead to fewer claimants getting the help they need.

In June 2009, the Social Security Administration raised the previous maximum limit for fee agreements under Section 206 of the Social Security Act from $5,300 (adjusted in 2002) to $6,000 in order to “adequately compensate representatives for their services while ensuring that claimants are protected from excessive fees.”

That limit has not been adjusted since. ...

According to National Organization of Social Security Claimants president David Camp, the tax that Social Security imposes for releasing the fee—currently 6.3%—has continued to go up in that time, as have most other business costs. 

“Nobody likes to say they want more money,” said Camp, “but at some point, when you’re operating a small business or when you’re a solo attorney with maybe one assistant, it’s very hard to have a payroll … and it’s been brutal, and it’s now been 13 years.” ...

Tim Cuddigan of Omaha-based Cuddigan Law said his firm had to adapt the services it offered about five years ago when it became clear that the cap wasn’t going to change any time soon. Cuddigan Law’s focus on Social Security disability proved unable to generate enough income to support the three-attorney firm, so it supplemented its offerings with a veterans disability practice. 

“The rent has gone up, salaries have gone up, insurance has gone up, and the fee cap hasn’t gone up,” said Cuddigan. 

“It’s become this low-wage way to practice law, and such an unfortunate overall reduction in the number of people that are willing to do it,” Camp said.

Camp and Cuddigan said they have seen fewer law school graduates looking to enter the field as well as experienced attorneys leaving behind their Social Security practices because of the low pay. They said in some cases small firms and solos have gone out of business. ...