Whyte Noise
Senior Member
I don't know how it works when you actually release one attorney and retain another.
In my case, my attorney I contacted initially was in Chicago, Illinois. I was living in Missouri at the time and that's where any hearing would take place. I retained him in November 2002. I got my denial in January 2003 and he filed for a hearing. (Missouri is one of those "test states" where you go straight from the first denial to a hearing and don't have to have the reconsideration phase between the 2). We got word in February of 2004 that the hearing was scheduled for March 2004. In my fee agreement, I'd agreed to pay all of his travel costs above $400 for him to represent me in a hearing. I had no problem with that. When he got the notice he called me, and asked me if I'd mind if he got another attorney that was in Missouri to represent me at the actual hearing. He explained that between air travel, car rental, hotel room if needed, etc. I'd go quite a bit over that $400 "window". I agreed to this.
He contacted someone in St. Louis that he'd dealt with before and that firm is who was actually at the hearing with me, and that attorney is the one that actually came to my home. I only lived about 20 miles from the town the hearing would be held in (Hannibal, MO) and he had a court date in Hannibal for another claimant one day and stopped by my home on his way back to St. Louis since it was on the way. We talked that day, and then I saw him at the hearing in March.
I had to sign another fee agreement stating that he would be representing me at the actual hearing and not the original attorney. The original attorney wasn't released, the second attorney was more like co-counsel. When I was approved, however, SSA sent the entire $5,300 to the second attorney and nothing to the original attorney (the one who'd done all the work. The second attorney got my complete file from the original attorney a month or so before the hearing. The first attorney had compiled the file, got medical records, etc.). Now, what THEY agreed to do with that $5,300 I have no clue. I don't know how they decided to split it or whatever... wasn't my concern. But, when the SSA told me that the second attorney had received payment on X date, I called the firm to confirm that and was told that they had indeed received it. I called the first attorney and asked him if the second had been in touch with him about the fee and he said no. I let him know that the second attorney had received the entire $5,300 fee and that maybe he needed to call the guy and get whatever HE was owed from that. I didn't ask specifics of what they agreed on, because like I said... it wasn't my business. But I wanted him to know that the SSA had released the attorney's fee and released it ALL to the second attorney and he needed to get his payment too. After all, he was the one that did all the work. The second attorney was just physically at the hearing with me.
So... based on personal experience (not legal expertise) I'd tend to agree with your attorney. Even though he was released, he's still entitled to some compensation for the work that he did do... no matter how little. I do believe that it's up to SSA to make the final decision about that though. Regulations state that a fee agreement is 25% or $5,300 and that they will not approve an agreement that has a minimum financial requirement in it.. like "Agree to pay 25% or $5,300 but no less than $1,500" for example. They won't approve that. Here's a link for the fee agreement issues:
http://www.ssa.gov/representation/fee_agreements.htm#fee_agreement_process
In my case, my attorney I contacted initially was in Chicago, Illinois. I was living in Missouri at the time and that's where any hearing would take place. I retained him in November 2002. I got my denial in January 2003 and he filed for a hearing. (Missouri is one of those "test states" where you go straight from the first denial to a hearing and don't have to have the reconsideration phase between the 2). We got word in February of 2004 that the hearing was scheduled for March 2004. In my fee agreement, I'd agreed to pay all of his travel costs above $400 for him to represent me in a hearing. I had no problem with that. When he got the notice he called me, and asked me if I'd mind if he got another attorney that was in Missouri to represent me at the actual hearing. He explained that between air travel, car rental, hotel room if needed, etc. I'd go quite a bit over that $400 "window". I agreed to this.
He contacted someone in St. Louis that he'd dealt with before and that firm is who was actually at the hearing with me, and that attorney is the one that actually came to my home. I only lived about 20 miles from the town the hearing would be held in (Hannibal, MO) and he had a court date in Hannibal for another claimant one day and stopped by my home on his way back to St. Louis since it was on the way. We talked that day, and then I saw him at the hearing in March.
I had to sign another fee agreement stating that he would be representing me at the actual hearing and not the original attorney. The original attorney wasn't released, the second attorney was more like co-counsel. When I was approved, however, SSA sent the entire $5,300 to the second attorney and nothing to the original attorney (the one who'd done all the work. The second attorney got my complete file from the original attorney a month or so before the hearing. The first attorney had compiled the file, got medical records, etc.). Now, what THEY agreed to do with that $5,300 I have no clue. I don't know how they decided to split it or whatever... wasn't my concern. But, when the SSA told me that the second attorney had received payment on X date, I called the firm to confirm that and was told that they had indeed received it. I called the first attorney and asked him if the second had been in touch with him about the fee and he said no. I let him know that the second attorney had received the entire $5,300 fee and that maybe he needed to call the guy and get whatever HE was owed from that. I didn't ask specifics of what they agreed on, because like I said... it wasn't my business. But I wanted him to know that the SSA had released the attorney's fee and released it ALL to the second attorney and he needed to get his payment too. After all, he was the one that did all the work. The second attorney was just physically at the hearing with me.
So... based on personal experience (not legal expertise) I'd tend to agree with your attorney. Even though he was released, he's still entitled to some compensation for the work that he did do... no matter how little. I do believe that it's up to SSA to make the final decision about that though. Regulations state that a fee agreement is 25% or $5,300 and that they will not approve an agreement that has a minimum financial requirement in it.. like "Agree to pay 25% or $5,300 but no less than $1,500" for example. They won't approve that. Here's a link for the fee agreement issues:
http://www.ssa.gov/representation/fee_agreements.htm#fee_agreement_process