Bancroft v. Acton

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “[a]n attorney may generally charge a fee for any services provided for representation before this Court”
• noting that \[a]n attorney may generally charge a fee for any services provided for representation before this Court\
• noting that any contingency fee collected must be offset against any EAJA fees already received under Court’s order granting parties’ joint motion to dismiss EAJA application
• reversing in part BVA fee-agreement decision denying eligibility for 4 Based on the above analysis, therefore, I would deny the EAJA application. past-due-benefits payment to attorney
• reversing in part BVA fee-agreement decision denying eligibility for past-due-benefits payment to attorney
• if attorney charges fee beyond 20% contingency fee to be paid directly by VA, for representation at the Board or VA on the issue successfully appealed to the Court, the amended fee agreement would violate the 20% contingency-fee limitation under section 5904(d)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).