Culbertson v. Berryhill

Background

Richard Culbertson, an attorney, represented Katrina Wood in a Social Security disability case after the agency denied her claim. Wood signed a contingency agreement for 25% of past-due benefits for court work and excluded agency work. The district court reversed the denial; on remand the agency awarded past-due benefits and paid Culbertson fees for agency work. Culbertson then sought a full 25% fee for his court representation under §406(b). The Eleventh Circuit reduced the award, holding that §406(b)’s 25% limit applies to the total of agency and court fees. The Supreme Court granted review because circuits disagreed.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the 25% cap in §406(b) limits only court fees or the combined fees from both stages. It focused on the statute’s language, noting that §406(b) authorizes a fee "for such representation"—meaning representation before the court. The Court explained that §406(a) separately governs agency fees, provides different methods for calculating them, and in some cases allows fees set as "reasonable" rather than capped at 25%. The agency’s practice of withholding a single 25% pool for direct payment, the Court said, does not change the statute. For these reasons the Court concluded §406(b)’s cap applies only to court-stage fees and reversed the Eleventh Circuit.

Real world impact

The ruling means attorneys can be awarded separate fees for agency work under §406(a) and for court work under §406(b), so combined fees may exceed 25% of past-due benefits. That could change how lawyers, claimants, and the Social Security Administration handle fee collection and withholding. The Court suggested that any practical problems from a single withheld pool should be addressed by the agency, Congress, or by the parties themselves.