considering the ALJ’s award as not final, thereby delaying its enforcement, creates a needless ethical conflict between claimants and their counsel in LHWCA proceedings: in order to secure payment of fees and costs sooner, counsel may be tempted to advise clients not to appeal compensation awards. Although we are concerned about the possible ethical implications of section 921(a), it is Congress’ role or that of the agency to address them. Indeed, recognizing the economic penalty claimants’ counsel may incur by filing an appeal, the Benefits Review Board has held that counsel may request fee enhancements as supplemental fee petitions and not as requests to reopen fee awards that have become final. See Bellmer, 32 B.R.B.S. 245, 1998 WL 850155, at *1; see also Johnson, 183 F.3d at 1171 (<HOLDING>). In this way, counsel may seek additional fees
recognizing the publics interest in receiving the best value in public services holding that a 103day delay in payment did not amount to bad faith because the carrier gave a reasonable explanation for the delay in payment it was continuing its investigation recognizing claimants interest in receiving compensation for delay in payment of fee awards partially addressed by bellmers supplementalfee ruling holding that mere delay in payment for a while would not be a material breach holding that the plaintiffs counsel were not entitled to compensation for a seventeenmonth delay in the payment of approximately 11500 in attorneys fees in one matter and a fourteenmonth delay in the payment of approximately 8000 in fees in another matter because the delay itself was not very long and the amount of fees not very high