45 C.F.R. § 1609.3

Authorized representation in a fee-generating case

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

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a recipient may not use Corporation funds to provide legal assistance in a fee-generating case unless:

(1) The case has been rejected by the local lawyer referral service, or by two private attorneys; or

(2) Neither the referral service nor two private attorneys will consider the case without payment of a consultation fee.

(b) A recipient may provide legal assistance in a fee-generating case without first attempting to refer the case pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section only when:

(1) An eligible client is seeking benefits under Subchapter II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 401 et seq., as amended, Federal Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Benefits; or Subchapter XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., as amended, Supplemental Security Income for Aged, Blind, and Disabled;

(2) The recipient, after consultation with appropriate representatives of the private bar, has determined that the type of case is one that private attorneys in the area served by the recipient ordinarily do not accept, or do not accept without prepayment of a fee; or

(3) The director of the recipient, or the director's designee, has determined that referral of the case to the private bar is not possible because:

(i) Documented attempts to refer similar cases in the past generally have been futile;

(ii) Emergency circumstances compel immediate action before referral can be made, but the client is advised that, if appropriate, and consistent with professional responsibility, referral will be attempted at a later time; or

(iii) Recovery of damages is not the principal object of the recipient's client's case and substantial statutory attorneys' fees are not likely to be available.

[62 FR 19399, Apr. 21, 1997, as amended at 75 FR 6818, Feb. 11, 2010; 76 FR 23504, Apr. 27, 2011; 82 FR 20447, May 2, 2017]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1977–1982 · leading case: Rodriguez v. Taylor

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rodriguez v. Taylor (1977) ca3 “It is unnecessary to determine here whether all suits brought under statutes which authorize discretionary fee awards, as distinct from mandatory awards under ADEA, bear a reasonable expectation of a fee award. Moreover, the probability of success on the merits may be so low in…”

Glover v. Johnson (1982) mied “45 C.F.R. § 1609.3 . Fees may be accepted if other representation is unavailable and a court or administrative body approves the award.”

Central Florida Legal Services, Inc. v. Eastmoore (1981) flmd “45 C.F.R. § 1609.3 . Attorneys appointed to represent insolvent defendants are to be paid a fee, costs and expenses, Fla.”

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.