Mallett v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Caprice Mallett,
Plaintiff,
v.
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
No. CV-23-02307-PHX-MTL
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Attorney John Phillips’ (“Phillips”) Motion for
Attorney Fees Under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) and his Memorandum in support thereof.
(Doc. 16.) The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”)
filed a response indicating that it “neither supports nor opposes counsel’s request for
attorney’s fees.” (Doc. 17 at 2.) The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Motion.
I. BACKGROUND
The Commissioner initially denied Plaintiff Caprice Mallett (“Mallett”) Disability
Insurance Benefits, and she sought judicial review of that decision in this Court. (Doc. 1
at 1.) The Commissioner then admitted that remand for further administrative proceedings
was needed (Doc. 5 at 2), and the Court granted the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Remand
(Doc. 10). The Clerk entered judgment in favor of Mallett and remanded the case to the
Social Security Administration (“SSA”). (Doc. 11.) The Court also granted the parties’
Stipulation for Award and Payment of Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to
Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), in the amount of $807.25. (Doc. 14.)
Case 2:23-cv-02307-MTL Document 19 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On remand, the SSA found that Mallett was entitled to disability benefits beginning
in December 2017. (Doc. 16-1 at 1.) In its Notice of Award, the SSA notified Mallett that
it withheld $44,807.68 to pay attorney fees. (Id. at 2 (“We usually withhold 25 percent of
past due benefits in order to pay the approved lawyer’s fee.”)) Phillips now asks the Court
to direct the Commissioner to award him $5,000, minus the previously awarded EAJA fee
of $807.25, for a total award of $4,192.75 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). (Doc. 16 at 13.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD
When a court renders a favorable judgment to a Social Security claimant represented
by an attorney, the court may determine a reasonable fee for the representation, provided
that fee is not more than 25 percent of the total of past-due benefits. 42 U.S.C.
§ 406(b)(1)(A). A court gives primacy to a contingent-fee agreement between the claimant
and her attorney. Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 793 (2002). A court then determines
reasonableness based on the character of the representation and the results achieved. Id.
at 808; Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1149, 1151 (9th Cir. 2009). A court can adjust
downward if “the attorney provided substandard representation or delayed the case, or if
the requested fee would result in a windfall.” Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151.
The SSA has no direct interest in how much of the award goes to counsel, so district
courts have an affirmative duty to determine whether the fee is reasonable. Id. at 1149. If
a claimant’s attorney receives fees under both EAJA and § 406(b), the claimant’s attorney
must “refund to the claimant the amount of the smaller fee.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796.
III. DISCUSSION
The Court finds that the requested $5,000 fee is reasonable under the Gisbrecht
factors. Under their contingent-fee agreement, Mallett agreed to pay 25 percent of all
past-due benefits awarded to her, which would be $44,807.68 if enforced. (Doc. 16-2 at 1.)
Phillips requests a substantially lower $5,000 fee, only 2.8 percent of the total award.*
* While the Notice of Award does not provide the total amount of past-due benefits awarded
to Mallett, the Court infers that withholding $44,807.68 as 25 percent of the total results in
an award of $179,230.72 ($44,807.68*4). Maske v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,
No. CV-18-04891-PHX-DWL, 2026 WL 2424858, at *1 (D. Ariz. Jan. 29, 2026) (“In the
Court’s experience, the amount withheld is consistently 25% of the total amount.”).
Case 2:23-cv-02307-MTL Document 19 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(Doc. 16 at 13.) Philips’ itemization of services indicates that he spent 3.3 hours rendering
services to Mallett, resulting in a request for $1,515.15 per hour ($5,000/3.3). This is at
“the high end of acceptable rates” in the District of Arizona, but is still “within the range
of reasonableness.” Williams v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin, No. CV-20-00136-PHX-JAT,
2025 WL 1342821, at *2 (D. Ariz. May 8, 2025) (holding that a hourly rate of $1,482.05
was reasonable); see also Roegner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No.
CV-20-01974-PHX-DLR, 2024 WL 5106647, at *1 (D. Ariz. Dec. 13, 2024) (holding that
a hourly rate of $1,912.35 was reasonable); McCabe v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No.
CV-22-00192-PHX-DLR, 2025 WL 460744, at *1 (D. Ariz. Feb. 11, 2025) (holding that
a hourly rate of $1,513.51 was reasonable).
The record gives no indication of substandard representation or delay on behalf of
Phillips. Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151. A $5,000 award would also not result in a windfall.
Id. Phillips was also able to achieve the results that Mallett requested, namely that the
Commissioner awarded the requested disability benefits. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808.
Considering the Gisbrecht reasonableness factors, the Court finds that a $5,000 fee award
is reasonable and will approve the award in this amount.
Because he also received an EAJA award, Phillips must “refund to the claimant the
amount of the smaller fee.” Id. at 796. Instead of refunding the smaller EAJA award,
Phillips asks the Court to “credit” the $807.25 EAJA fee and direct the Commissioner to
send him $4,192.75. (Doc. 16 at 13.) Mallett would presumably receive her EAJA refund
in the remainder of what the Commissioner has withheld. But Gisbrecht directs the
claimant’s attorney to refund the smaller fee award; the Commissioner cannot do it for
him. See 535 U.S. at 796. While it would result in the same awards to the parties involved,
the Court must therefore deny Phillips’ request.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Motion for Attorney Fees
Under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), (Doc. 16), is GRANTED in the amount of $5,000.
. . . .
. . . .
Case 2:23-cv-02307-MTL Document 19 Filed 02/17/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s counsel must, after receipt of the
above-awarded fee, refund to Plaintiff the fee previously awarded under the EAJA in the
amount of $807.25.
Dated this 17th day of February, 2026.
Case 2:23-cv-02307-MTL Document 19 Filed 02/17/26 Page 4 of 4