October Term 2018 · Docket 17-773

Can attorneys keep EAJA fees when they also collect a percentage of benefits?

Attorneys argue they may retain both statutory fees and a share of client benefits. Clients argue this double-dipping violates the law.

Official caption
Culbertson v. Berryhill
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Ortiz argued the case turns on the phrase such representation.

    Mr. Yang asserted Section 406(b)(1)(A) is the only operative provision.

    Ms. Weil stated Section 406 is a piecemeal statute with unclear language.

    Justice Sotomayor expressed concern about attorneys hounding clients for payment.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests how courts handle attorney fees in Social Security cases. The dispute centers on whether lawyers can keep both an EAJA award and a percentage of the client's back benefits.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 7, 2018.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the court to limit attorney fees to one statutory source.

the opposing side wants the court to allow attorneys to keep both fee types.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues Section 406(b) restricts fees to a single operative provision.

the opposing side argues the statute is unclear and allows multiple fee sources.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Breyer asked if attorneys can keep fifty percent of the recovery.

Justice Sotomayor asked if attorneys can garnish client assets for fees.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute affects how many Social Security recipients receive their full benefits. It determines whether attorneys can collect fees directly from clients. It impacts the financial burden on disabled individuals seeking legal help.

Official sources for this section

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 Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON