for those counsel. See Cox, 602 F.3d at 290. We observe that claimant’s counsel did not include in the record submitted to the ALJ or the BRB the actual awards reflecting such rates. The better practice surely would have been for counsel to attach such documentation to its fee petitions, especially when, as here, the prior fee awards were not readily accessible. In marginal cases, a failure to provide such documentation could undermine counsel’s showing of a prevailing market rate. In this case, however, claimant’s counsel made representations, which Eastern did not dispute, about the rates fixed in those prior awards. Moreover, the ALJ was familiar with and reviewed prior fee awards he personally had rendered in several cases cited by claimant’s counsel. See Spell, 824 F.2d at 1402 (<HOLDING>). In sum, the ALJ’s determination of prevailing
holding that with respect to the eaja the local or national market rate for legal services cannot be a special factor used to increase the rate beyond the statutory rate holding that absent other evidence of prevailing market rates the district judge may establish a reasonable rate based on his familiarity with the prevailing rates in the area recognizing that rates awarded in other cases do not set the prevailing market rateonly the market can do that holding that rowe applied to both statutory and contractual prevailing party fee awards holding that the prevailing market rate can be established with reference to information concerning recent fee awards by courts in comparable cases