The U.S. Supreme Court case Gary E. Gisbrecht, Barbara A. Miller, and Nancy Sandine v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security (2001) revolved around the issue of attorney fees in social security disability cases. The plaintiffs were three disabled individuals who had hired attorneys to represent them on a contingency fee basis in their successful claims for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits before the Social Security Administration (SSA). They argued that federal law allowed them to pay their lawyers out of their past-due benefits based on the terms negotiated in their contracts with these attorneys - typically 25% as per industry standard practice. However, SSA reduced these fees citing its statutory authority to determine "reasonable" fee amounts under Section 206(b) of the Social Security Act which was designed to protect claimants' award from unreasonable legal costs. In a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it ruled that while SSA has authority over determining reasonable attorney's fees from past-due benefits awarded; this does not mean disregarding contingent-fee agreements within statutory limit but rather requires approval after ensuring they yield reasonable results in particular cases.

In the dissenting opinion for Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's decision to allow contingency fee agreements in Social Security disability cases could potentially lead to excessive attorney fees. She pointed out that Congress had intended for these fees to be "reasonable" and not necessarily reflective of market rates. In her view, allowing such high fees would divert funds away from disabled individuals who are often in desperate financial situations and towards attorneys instead. Furthermore, she expressed concern over potential exploitation by lawyers who might take advantage of vulnerable clients by charging them exorbitant rates under a contingency fee agreement.