MICHAEL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
On February 24, 2015, Judge Rice approved the undersigned's Report and Recommendation, reversed the Commissioner's non-disability finding, and remanded this case to the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings. Doc. 17. This case is back before the undersigned on a motion by Plaintiff's counsel for an award of attorney's fees under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). Doc. 19. Plaintiff's counsel requests a 25% contingency fee award, minus $6,000 already paid to counsel by Plaintiff pursuant to a separate agreement,
In support of the motion, counsel attaches, among other documentation, a contingency fee agreement executed by Plaintiff and a copy of the Commissioner's award letter informing Plaintiff that he will receive $51,603.00 in past-due benefits. Docs. 19-2, 19-3. Counsel also submits a summary of all legal services provided to Plaintiff in this Court. Doc. 19-1.
In Social Security SSI cases, the Court is authorized to award attorney's fees following the successful prosecution of a Social Security disability appeal. See 42 U.S.C. § 1383(d)(2). However, such fees may not exceed 25% of the past-due benefits which the claimant receives as a result of the appeal. Id. Furthermore, the attorney must show, and the Court must affirmatively find, that a contingency fee sought, even one within the 25% cap, is reasonable for the services rendered. Gisbrecht v. Barnhard, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002).
The Social Security Act "does not displace contingen[cy]-fee agreements," but rather "calls for court review of such arrangements as an independent check, to assure that they yield reasonable results in particular cases." Id. A 25% contingency fee agreement "should be given the weight ordinarily accorded a rebuttable presumption." Rodriquez v. Brown, 865 F.2d 739, 746 (6th Cir. 1989). A reduction of a contingency fee award may be appropriate when counsel acts improperly or provides ineffective assistance, or when "counsel would otherwise enjoy a windfall because of either an inordinately large benefit award or from minimal effort expended." Id. Such an award is not improper merely because it results in an above-average hourly rate. Royzer v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 900 F.2d 981, 981-82 (6th Cir. 1990).
As the Sixth Circuit explained:
Id. "A hypothetical hourly rate that is less than twice the standard rate is per se reasonable, and a hypothetical hourly rate that is equal to or greater than twice the standard rate may well be reasonable." Hayes v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 923 F.2d 418, 422 (6th Cir. 1990). The Sixth Circuit has recognized that a "conservative" reasonable hourly rate for Social Security cases is between $165.00 and $180.00. Lasley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 771 F.3d 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2014).
Here, counsel represents that he performed 46.75 hours representing Plaintiff in this case before this Court. See doc. 19-1 at PageID 561-62. Counsel's requested contingency fee of $12,900.75 divided by the 46.75 hours spent working on the case, results in a hypothetical hourly rate of $275.95. In the past, this Court has approved a hypothetical hourly rate of $470.00 per hour for Plaintiff's counsel, noting that counsel "represented plaintiffs in about 70 [S]ocial [S]ecurity cases over the last 30 years." Welty v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:12-cv-776, 2016 WL 554302, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 12, 2016). Further, the hypothetical hourly rate of $275.00 is less than twice the "conservative" standard rate of $165.00 per hour. See Lasley, 771 F.3d at 310. The undersigned — based upon a review of all of the foregoing — finds the requested fee reasonable. Moreover, no allegations of improper conduct, ineffectiveness, or insufficient effort by counsel are present. Quite the contrary: the record reveals that counsel, an experienced Social Security practitioner, diligently and zealously worked on behalf of Plaintiff, and did so in a timely fashion. In light of counsel's extensive experience in these matters, the fee sought will not result in an undeserved windfall.
Accordingly, it is
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within