top of page

You think it’s hard to get a remand? Try getting paid.

  • Feb 10, 2025
  • 2 min read
tower law group disability case

The recent Eleventh Circuit case, Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security, on January 22, 2025 highlights just how tricky it can be to secure fair attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Let’s break it down.


The Background


Smith and Ackerman, successful plaintiffs in Social Security cases, secured remands at the district court level. As prevailing parties, they applied for EAJA attorney’s fees with detailed timesheets. The Commissioner didn’t oppose their requests, but the district court flagged certain entries as block-billed and imposed a 40% reduction on those entries.


The Eleventh Circuit’s Take


The appellate court acknowledged that block billing, where multiple tasks are lumped into one time entry, can be problematic. For example, Smith’s time entry read: “Continue reviewing administrative record, conduct research, continue drafting arguments.” The court noted that such entries made it “impossible to determine the amount of time counsel spent on each of the specific tasks mentioned in the block-billed entries.”


However, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the district court went too far with its “arbitrary” 40% cut. As the court put it:


  • “A district court must do more than eyeball the request and if it seems excessive cut it down by an arbitrary percentage.” (Citing Johnston v. Borders)

  • It further stressed the need for “principled reasons” and clear calculations when making reductions, reminding courts of their obligation to “articulate the decisions [they] made.”


The district court’s failure to justify its across-the-board reduction led the Eleventh Circuit to vacate and remand the fee determination.


Why This Decision Is Important


  1. Transparency in Billing: Even for closely related tasks (like reviewing records and drafting arguments), attorneys must break down their time entries to avoid reductions.

  2. Judicial Consistency: This case spotlights the need for courts to articulate their reasoning behind fee adjustments, ensuring fairness and predictability.

  3. Advocacy for Attorneys: Getting a remand is only part of the battle, ensuring proper compensation for our work is equally crucial.


Practice Pointers


  • Avoid block billing entirely. A little extra effort in your records can save a lot of headache later.

  • If faced with reductions, push for a well-reasoned explanation and challenge arbitrary percentages.

  • Use this case as a reminder to refine your billing practices and support fee petitions with meticulous detail.


Have you ever faced challenges with EAJA fees or other fee petitions?

alt="Tower Law Group homepage"
Phone Icon - TLG Yellow

STAY UP TO DATE

Subscribe to our newsletter and stay up to date with Tower Law Group®.

Facebook Logo - Gold
IG Logo - Gold
TLG X Logo
TLG Linked In Footer Logo

 

Copyright © 2026 Tower Law Group® All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy Disclaimer Law Firm Accessibility Statement  |  Terms of Use​​​​​​​​​​​

 

​​

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: 

We appreciate your interest in Tower Law Group®. This website is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Visitors should not act or rely on any information on this site without first consulting a qualified attorney.

Your use of this website or submission of information does not create an attorney-client relationship with Tower Law Group® or any of its attorneys. Please do not send confidential or sensitive information through this website or via email.

An attorney-client relationship is only formed after Tower Law Group® confirms that it does not have a conflict of interest and agrees to represent you.

Any information submitted prior to such confirmation will not be treated as confidential and will not prevent Tower Law Group® from representing other clients with adverse interests.

 

This website was last updated on June 4, 2026 to reflect current legal information, statutes, and guidance.

bottom of page