Federal Judge Orders School District to Pay Attorneys' Fees in Special Education Due Process Hearing
The DRLC and co-counsel, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP, were awarded attorneys' fees for work related to a special education due process hearing. This case involved a 12-year old boy who has multiple disabilities, including learning disabilities, mental health issues and ADHD. The boy's mother requested an independent educational evaluation to establish that he had a disability and was entitled to special education services. The school district denied her request, and filed for an administrative proceeding to defend its determination. The DRLC and co-counsel Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP, prevailed in the administrative proceeding, resulting in an order from the administrative law judge directing the district to fund an independent evaluation. As a result of this evaluation, the boy was found eligible for special education services. This week, Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the U.S. District Court ordered the district to pay attorneys' fees for the successful prosecution of this case, noting, among other things, that the boy was represented in the matter by "leading practitioners in the field of disability rights law." Judge Phillips statement:
"Finally, Defendants' contention that the hourly rates here cannot be determined by reference to rates charged in complex civil rights litigation diminishes the importance of the right vindicated by Plaintiff's counsel's work. Here, Plaintiff disagreed with the District's determination that her son was not eligible to receive special education services and requested an independent assessment at public expense, as was her right under the IDEA. The District then affirmatively sought a due process hearing to enforce its finding. In doing so, the District presumably weighed the cost of the independent assessment requested by Plaintiff against the risk of its finding being overturned by the administrative law judge. To the extent that Defendants downplayed the risk of an adverse decision in the due process hearing, because they did not expect that Plaintiff would be represented by leading practitioners in the field of disability rights law, this case may serve to alter the cost-benefit analysis undertaken by Defendants in the future."