CINCINNATI (Legal Newsline) - Two clients of an attorney who scammed Social Security for millions of dollars in a disability fraud scheme can bill the government for work their lawyers did fighting the disallowance of their benefits, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.
Attorney Eric Conn submitted more than 1,700 disability applications that the Social Security Administration believes were tainted by fraud after it emerged Conn bribed doctors for fake disability diagnoses and an administrative law judge to approve those applications.
After years of litigation, the Sixth Circuit ruled against 57 of Conn’s former clients who sought legal fees for their fight to reclassify their disability applications as valid. But in a more recent ruling, the appeals court said two former clients were treated unfairly by a trial court that refused or reduced their legal fees.
Daniel Ducette and Sherry Taylor sought about $10,000 in legal fees for filing replies to the government’s denial of benefits. Taylor sought $1,846.30 for 9.1 hours of work at $203 an hour, which the SSA said was too high. Taylor filed a reply and requested additional fees for the hours spent preparing it. The trial court decided the statutory rate of $125 an hour was appropriate and denied the additional fees.
Doucette sought $8,680.61 for 41.8 hours at $207.67 an hour. The trial court lowered that to $150 an hour.
In its Sept. 2 ruling, the Sixth Circuit reversed both decisions, citing a federal law that the U.S. Supreme Court has said has the “specific purpose” of eliminating “for the average person the financial disincentive to challenge unreasonable governmental actions.” Fees for filing refusals of fees are also allowed, the Supreme Court has ruled.
“Here, the SSA has conceded that fee awards are appropriate; the only question is how much those awards should be,” the Sixth Circuit said.
While Taylor’s case had ended in a final judgement, the appeals court said, the Supreme Court has interpreted the rules more liberally, allowing fee awards for “all phases of successful civil litigation.” The appeals court sent her case back to determine whether additional fees are due for preparing Taylor’s reply on the fee issue.
The court also abused its discretion by lowering the fees to $150 an hour when the plaintiffs cited market rates of $205 to $500.
“There is no evidence that any lawyer in the relevant communities would accept these rates for any kind of service on even the simplest of case,” the appeals court said.