Fee Agreement language

John Polofka · Joined: 13 May 2004 Posts: 46

Is there anything wrong with this fee agreement language:

"I will pay my representative a fee ezual to 35% of the past due benefits from any and all claims, subject to the maximum anount of $5300.00."

It has been approved in the past but now a question is being raised.

David Traver · Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 03:52 pm Post subject:

Yep, it's wrong. Somebody at ODAR finally read the contact. (I assume the ezual typo was not in the fee agreement and the 35% rate is in the contract.)

See generally,

John Polofka · Joined: 13 May 2004 Posts: 46

sorry David, two typo's. It should have read:

"I will pay my representative a fee equal to 25% of the past due benefits from any and all claims, subject to the maximum anount of $5300.00."

David Traver · Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 05:18 pm Post subject:

It is not clear why that sentence would be objectionable. Perhaps the "any and all claims" is construed to include costs?

Was there an explanation in the disapproval of the contract that explained what was objectionable? Perhaps there is something else at play, such as the contract not being associated with the claims folder until after the date of the favorable decision?

Or, the ALJ may have thought the attorney did not do adequate work to justify the fee?

"Insufficient data, Captain. Ask Scotty, if he is not unconscious."

John Polofka · Joined: 13 May 2004 Posts: 46

The fee agreement was not approved because:

"The fee agreement sets a fee that is more than the lesser of 25percent of the past-due benefits or $5,300.00."

I don't think the judge made the determination, probably someone from his office.

David Traver · Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 09:43 pm Post subject:

As bizarre as this may sound, it appears that somebody at SSA made a mistake.

Amazing, eh?