UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARIA C. GARCIA, Plaintiff, ORDER 12-CV-2140 (NGG) (JO) -against-

ANDREW SAUL,1 Defendant. NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge. Following a successful appeal of the denial of Plaintiff’s social se- curity benefits, Charles E. Binder, counsel to Plaintiff, sought an award of $18,933.75 in attorney’s fees under

(b)(1). (See Mot. for Att’y Fees (Dkt. 32).) This court re- ferred Binder’s motion to Magistrate Judge James Orenstein for a report and recommendation. (See Oct. 24, 2018 Order Refer- ring Motion.) On November 2, 2018, Judge Orenstein issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in which he recom- mended the court grant Binder’s motion but, concluding that $18,933.75 in attorney’s fees (representing an effective hourly rate of $782.38) would amount to a windfall to Binder, reduce the fee award to $12,100.00 (representing an effective hourly rate of $500). (See R&R (Dkt. 36).) Binder timely filed an objec- tion to that portion of the R&R that recommended that the award be reduced to $12,100.00. (See Objection (Dkt. 37).) Accord- ingly, the court reviews that portion of the R&R de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(b)(3); US Flour Corp. v. Certified Bakery, Inc., No.

1 At the time of filing, Plaintiff named then-Commissioner of the Social Se- curity Administration Michael Astrue as Defendant. The clerk of court is respectfully DIRECTED to amend the caption to reflect the name of the current Acting Commissioner. 10-cv-2522 (JS),

, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2012).2 The court assumes familiarity with the factual and procedural history of this case, as set forth in greater detail Judge Orenstein’s R&R. In determining whether a proposed fee award would amount to a windfall to counsel, courts in this circuit are in- structed to consider “(1) whether the attorney’s efforts were particularly successful for the plaintiff; (2) whether the effort ex- pended by the attorney is demonstrated through non-boilerplate pleadings and arguments that involved both real issues of mate- rial fact and required legal research; and (3) whether the case was handled efficiently due to the attorney’s experience in han- dling social security cases.” Morris v. Saul, 17-cv-259 (PKC),

, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 26, 2019). In making this de- termination, “although the reviewing court may not use the lodestar method to calculate the fee due, a record of the number of hours spent on the case in federal court may assist a court in determining whether a given fee is reasonable.” Tamburri v. Saul, No. 16-cv-5784 (PKC),

, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2019) (alteration adopted). Upon an independent review of the record, the court agrees with Judge Orenstein that an award of $18,933.75 would be unrea- sonable and represent a windfall to Binder under the circumstances of this case. While Binder is correct that courts in this circuit have, in some instances, approved fee awards yielding considerably higher effectively hourly rates, many of those cases involved unusual issues or extensive litigation. See, e.g., Joslyn v. Barnhart,

(W.D.N.Y. 2005) (counsel submitted memorandum of law “which in part alleged bias on the part of the original administrative law judge … requir[ing]

2 As no party has objected to Judge Orenstein’s determination that Binder should be awarded attorney’s fees, the court reviews that determination only for clear error, see US Flour,

, at *2, and finds none. not only skilled legal research and analysis but also the gathering and compiling of data … in an attempt to establish the alleged bias”). Further, courts in this circuit routinely hold fee awards that result in effective hourly rates of more than $500 unreason- able absent special circumstances. See Tamburri,

, at *3 (collecting cases). Here, although the court rec- ognizes that Binder achieved a successful result for his client and that the case was handled efficiently, the issues presented were not so complex as to merit the proposed award of $18,933.75. The court thus agrees with Judge Orenstein that an award of $12,100.00, representing an effective hourly rate of $500, is suf- ficient to compensate counsel for the time spent on this case, the risk inherent in contingency-fee agreements, and the result he obtained for his client. The court further believes that this fee award satisfies the underlying policy goal of encouraging quali- fied counsel to represent individuals in social security appeals. Accordingly, Binder’s Objection is OVERRULED and Judge Oren- stein’s Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED IN FULL. Binder is awarded $12,100.00 in reasonable attorney’s fees un- der

(b)(1). Upon receipt of that award, Binder is DIRECTED to refund Plaintiff the $4,597.03 in fees previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act. SO ORDERED.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York July 28, 2020

_/s/ Nicholas G. Garaufis_ NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS United States District Judge