Hawk v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Leah Hawk,
Plaintiff 3:23-CV-591
(MJK)
v.
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
Peter A. Gorton, Esq., Attorney for Plaintiff
Candace Brown Casey, Esq., Special Assistant United States Attorney
for Defendant
DECISION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Hawk’s Notice of Motion for Additional
Attorney’s Fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). (Dkt. 25). The
Commissioner filed a response neither supporting nor opposing the
motion. (Dkt. 27). Although Hawk’s counsel attests (Dkt. 25-1, ¶ 1) that
the motion (Dkt. 25) was sent to Hawk in accordance with L.R. 5.5(g)(2),
the requirement to do so is no longer found in the Local Rules. This
obligation is found in section F(2) of General Order No. 18.1 The parties
1 Counsel is directed to be more cognizant of the Court’s General Orders.
Case 3:23-cv-00591-MJK Document 28 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 4

consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. (G.O. 18 and Dkt.
7).
Hawk entered a contingency fee agreement with her attorney,
Peter Gorton (Dkt. 25-4), under which Hawk agreed to a twenty-five
(25%) percent contingency fee on all past due benefits awarded to him,
subject to repayment of any fees paid to her counsel under the Equal
Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). Attorney Gorton seeks the total sum of
$26,883.74, noting his obligation to refund Hawk $14,622.92 that he
previously received. (Dkt. 25-1, ¶6).
Attorney Gorton attests that he was retained by Hawk on October
10, 2016. (Dkt. 25-1, ¶3). He represented Hawk at her first hearing and
subsequent appeal, which was later appealed to this Court, resulting in
a remand on September, 2021. Id. Attorney Gorton represented Hawk
at her second hearing and subsequent appeal to this Court, resulting in
remand on August 7, 2024. Id. Attorney Gorton represented Hawk at
her third hearing, which resulted in a fully favorable decision,
generating an award notice dated December 22, 2025 (Dkt. 25-3).
The Court must determine whether the attorney’s fees award
requested is reasonable. See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 798
Case 3:23-cv-00591-MJK Document 28 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 4

n.6 (2002). To make this finding, the Court considers the factors set
forth in Fields v. Kijakazi, 24 F.4th 845,853-56 (2d Cir. 2022). First, the
fully favorable outcome achieved by Attorney Gorton speaks for itself.
Second, as the record shows, Attorney Gorton was not responsible for
any undue delay (for example, the record was filed by the Commissioner
on August 22, 2023 (Dkt. 8), and Plaintiff’s brief was filed on October 6,
2023. (Dkt. 9). Third, Attorney Gorton has well over thirty years of
experience, and his practice is highly concentrated in the handling of
Social Security Disability cases at the administrative level and before
federal courts. (Dkt. 25-1, ¶ 4). Fourth, the hours spent by Attorney
Gorton reflect his efficiency in handling these types of cases. (Dkt. 25-2).
Fifth, there is no evidence that Hawk is unsatisfied with his efforts.
Sixth, the nature of these cases makes a favorable result uncertain, yet
the effort to achieve the result is a constant.
The Court finds that the effective hourly rate of $200.23 (Dkt. 25-
1, ¶6) is reasonable given Attorney Gorton’s experience and the Court’s
understanding of hourly rates charged by attorneys with that level of
experience in this community. The Court finds that the total fee is
Case 3:23-cv-00591-MJK Document 28 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 4

reasonable and will not exceed 25% of the total of Hawk’s past-due
benefits in the amount of $107,535.00.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the motion is granted in full, and Attorney Peter
Gorton is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $26,883.75 and it is
further
ORDERED, that Attorney Peter Gorton shall refund to Hawk
any fees he previously received under the EAJA, to wit, $14,622.92.
Dated: February 3, 2026
_________________________
Hon. Mitchell J. Katz
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-00591-MJK Document 28 Filed 02/03/26 Page 4 of 4