20 C.F.R. § 702.132

Fees for services

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Any person seeking a fee for services performed on behalf of a claimant with respect to claims filed under the Act shall make application therefor to the district director, administrative law judge, Board, or court, as the case may be, before whom the services were performed (See 33 U.S.C. 928(c)). The application shall be filed and serviced upon the other parties within the time limits specified by such district director, administrative law judge, Board, or court. The application shall be supported by a complete statement of the extent and character of the necessary work done, described with particularity as to the professional status (e.g., attorney, paralegal, law clerk, or other person assisting an attorney) of each person performing such work, the normal billing rate for each such person, and the hours devoted by each such person to each category of work. Any fee approved shall be reasonably commensurate with the necessary work done and shall take into account the quality of the representation, the complexity of the legal issues involved, and the amount of benefits awarded, and when the fee is to be assessed against the claimant, shall also take into account the financial circumstances of the claimant. No contract pertaining to the amount of a fee shall be recognized.

(b) No fee shall be approved for a representative whose name appears on the Secretary's list of disqualified representatives under § 702.131(b).

(c) Where fees are included in a settlement agreement submitted under § 702.241, et seq. approval of that agreement shall be deemed approval of attorney fees for purposes of this subsection for work performed before the Administrative Law Judge or district director approving the settlement.

[50 FR 394, Jan. 3, 1985]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: Van Skike v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
Van Skike v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (2009) ca9 · cites it 4× “After reviewing the evidence submitted by both parties as to what hourly rate was appropriate, and after accounting for the applicable attorney-fee regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 702.132 (a), the ALJ granted Robinowitz a rate of $250 per hour for his time expended litigating before the…”
Jeffboat, LLC v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (2009) ca7 · cites it 4× “Jeffboat and 20 C.F.R. 702.132, which provides that an ALJ can consider the quality of an attorney’s representation when making an award of attorneys’ fees.”
Pittsburgh & Conneaut Dock Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States (2007) ca6 · cites it 2× “Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. . The legislative history leaves the question open.”
Shirrod v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (2015) ca9 · cites it 2× “; 20 C.F.R. §§ 702.132 , 802.203. The term “reasonable attorney’s fee” has evolved toward a uniform definition in all federal fee-shifting statutes, including the Longshore Act.”
John R. Hobbs v. Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs (1987) ca9 · cites it 4× “See 20 C.F.R. § 702.132 . The Board also vacated that part of the order awarding prospective post-judgment interest as “without legal support.”
Christensen v. Stevedoring Services of America (2009) ca9 “203 (e)-(f) is specific to the Benefits Review Board but mirrors, with one exception, 20 C.F.R. § 702.132 (a), which pertains to all entities that award attorney's fees under the LHWCA.”
Warren Iopa v. Saltchuk-Young Brothers, Ltd. (2019) ca9 “See 20 C.F.R. § 702.132 (a). On June 8, 2015, Iopa’s counsel instead improperly filed a fee petition for work done before the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (“OWCP”).”
The George Hyman Construction Company v. James E. Brooks (1992) cadc “Bruno—was apparently the only report to mention specifically a twenty percent disability rating for the left foot.”
C & D Production Services v. Director (2010) ca5 · cites it 2× “See 20 C.F.R. § 702.132 . Second, petitioners contend the Board erred in awarding benefits where claimant’s counsel utilized quarter-hour minimum billing periods, specifically pointing to billing entries where counsel listed .”
Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. v. Perdue (1976) ca5 “20 C.F.R. § 702.132 (1975). The statutory basis for this regulation is 33 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.