Bock v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Chambers of
Douglas R. Miller
United States Magistrate Judge
101 West Lombard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
MDD_DRMChambers@mdd.uscourts.gov
(410) 962-7770
March 4, 2026
LETTER OPINION
Re: Bock v. Commissioner of Social Security
Civil No. 1:21-cv-02821-DRM
Dear Counsel:
Plaintiff has filed an Amended Motion for Attorney Fees under the Social Security Act
(“Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), for the amount of $30,918.50. ECF No. 29. The government
responded to Plaintiff’s prior Motion for Attorney’s Fees, ECF No. 23, which requested the same
award amount, neither supporting nor opposing the motion. ECF No. 28. No hearing is necessary.
See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. Dec. 1, 2025). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion for
attorney’s fees is GRANTED IN PART.
This Court has awarded Plaintiff’s attorney, Lawrence P. Demuth, Esq., $4,495.59 for a
total of 19.25 hours worked on Plaintiff’s case in federal court, pursuant to the Equal Access to
Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. ECF No. 21. Plaintiff received an Award Notice, in which
he was awarded past due benefits of $123,674.00. ECF No. 29-3. Subsequently, Mr. Demuth filed
a Motion in this Court, seeking $30,918.50 in attorney’s fees. ECF No. 29. Mr. Demuth has agreed
to reimburse Plaintiff in the amount of fees previously received. ECF No. 29; see Gisbrecht v.
Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002); Stephens ex rel. R.E. v. Astrue, 565 F.3d 131, 135 (4th Cir.
2009).
The Act authorizes a reasonable fee for successful representation before this Court, not to
exceed twenty-five percent of a claimant’s total past-due benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Although
contingent fee agreements are the “primary means by which fees are set” in Social Security cases,
a court must nevertheless perform an “independent check, to assure that they yield reasonable
results in particular cases.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807. In determining whether a request for
attorney’s fees under section 406(b) is reasonable, the Supreme Court has explained that a
reviewing court may properly consider the “character of the representation and the results the
representative achieved.” Id. at 808. Importantly, the Supreme Court acknowledged that a
contingent fee agreement would not result in a reasonable fee if the fee constituted a “windfall” to
the attorney. Id. (quoting Rodriquez v. Bowen, 865 F.2d 739, 746-47 (6th Cir. 1989)). Courts may
require the attorney to provide a record of hours spent working on the case and the attorney’s
typical hourly billing charge. Id.
Case 1:21-cv-02821-DRM Document 30 Filed 03/04/26 Page 1 of 2

Bock v. Commissioner of Social Security
Civil No. 1:21-cv-02821-DRM
Page 2
Here, Mr. Demuth and Plaintiff entered into a contingent fee agreement, by which Plaintiff
agreed to pay Mr. Demuth twenty-five percent of all retroactive benefits to which he might become
entitled. ECF No. 18-5. In his previous motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA, Mr.
Demuth submitted itemized reports documenting 19.25 chargeable hours he expended before this
Court in Plaintiff’s case. See ECF No. 18-7. If Mr. Demuth receives the full amount of fees he
requests, his fee for representation before this Court will effectively total $1,606.16 per hour. Mr.
Demuth must therefore show that an effective rate of $1,606.16 per hour is reasonable for the
services he rendered. See Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807.
Notably, Mr. Demuth’s typical hourly billing rate is $350, ECF No. 18-6 ¶ 6. Courts in the
Fourth Circuit have approved contingency fee agreements that produce much higher hourly rates
in successful Social Security appeals. See, e.g., Melvin v. Colvin, No. 5:10-CV-160-FL, 2013 WL
3340490 (E.D.N.C. July 2, 2013) (approving contingency fee agreement with hourly rate of
$1,043.92); Claypool v. Barnhart, 294 F. Supp. 2d 829, 833 (S.D.W. Va. 2003) (approving
contingency fee agreement with hourly rate of $1,433.12); Lehman v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin.,
Civil No. SAG-10-2160 (D. Md. July 7, 2016) (unpublished) (approving contingency fee
agreement with hourly rate of $1,028.14). This Court has routinely approved contingency fee
agreements for Mr. Demuth in successful Social Security appeals that produce much higher hourly
rates than his typical hourly rate. See Holly C. v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin, 1:21-cv-01043-JMC,
(D. Md. Sept. 13, 2023); Sharon S. v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin, 1:21-cv-00001-JMC, 2022 WL
16951447 (D. Md. Nov. 15, 2022); Wayne C. v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin, 1:18-cv-02512-MDLB,
2021 WL 5181824 (D. Md. Nov. 8, 2021). 	However, the requested rate is higher than those
awards. Instead, this Court concludes that an hourly rate of $1,400.00, four times Mr. Demuth’s
typical hourly billing rate, is a reasonable rate in this case. A rate of $1,400.00 for 19.25 hours of
work would result in a fee of $26,950.00, which is reasonable and should be approved.
For the reasons set forth herein, this Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s Amended Motion
seeking attorney’s fees, ECF No. 29. This Court will award Mr. Demuth attorney’s fees totaling
$26,950.00. Mr. Demuth is directed to reimburse to Plaintiff the fees he received pursuant to the
EAJA.
Notwithstanding the informal nature of this letter, it should be docketed as an opinion. A
separate implementing order follows.
Sincerely,
/s/
Douglas R. Miller
United States Magistrate Judge
District of Maryland
Case 1:21-cv-02821-DRM Document 30 Filed 03/04/26 Page 2 of 2