October Term 2001 · Docket 01-131
Should courts use the lodestar method to set Social Security attorney fees?
the sides that brought the case seek the lodestar method for fee awards. the opposing sides oppose this approach.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
the sides that brought the case argue the lodestar method aligns with the statute's purpose.
the opposing sides argue the lodestar method is inefficient for courts.
questions_asked_by_justices
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 41-13 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 41-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 37-55 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 37-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 33-19 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 33-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 21-23
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case concerns how courts calculate attorney fees under the Social Security Act.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 41-13 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 41-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 37-55 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 37-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 33-19 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 33-19
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 20, 2002.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 21-23
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want courts to use the lodestar method for fee awards.
the opposing sides want courts to reject the lodestar method for fee awards.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 41-13 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 41-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 37-55 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 37-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 33-19 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 33-19
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the lodestar method best reflects the statute's plain language.
the opposing sides argue the lodestar method is not the most efficient way to determine fees.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 41-13 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 41-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 37-55 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 37-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 33-19 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 33-19
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked about statistics on fee reductions in contingency circuits.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 21-23
Why it matters
The outcome determines how courts calculate attorney fees in Social Security cases.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 41-13 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 41-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 37-55 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 37-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 33-19 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 33-19
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-19 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 21-23
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 41-13 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 41-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 37-55 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 37-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 33-19 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 33-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 41-13 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 41-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 21-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 21-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 37-55 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 37-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 52, lines 33-19 — Transcript, file page 52, lines 33-19
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.