Parents Prevail in D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ Decision Reversing Use of New USAO Matrix for Calculating Prevailing Attorney's Fees

On May 21, 2019, parents prevailed in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in D.L., et al. v. District of Columbia, A Municipal Corp., et al., which reversed the district court’s decision to apply a new matrix from the United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) instead of the historically used LSI Laffey matrix as urged by parents’ counsel for calculating prevailing attorney’s fees following a successful fifteen-year complex IDEA class action.  The district court’s use of the USAO’s new matrix reduced parents’ counsels’ fee award by over three million dollars. 
In reversing the use of the USAO’s matrix, the Court of Appeals found that the USAO’s matrix did not incorporate rates for the applicable type of practitioner—in this case, those who practice complex federal class action litigation.  Instead, the USAO’s matrix incorporated rates from all types of lawyers, such as real estate, family, and insurance lawyers, all of whom do not provide the same kind and quality of services as parents’ counsel provided in this complex class action litigation.   In addition, the Court of Appeals found that the USAO’s matrix compiled data from practitioners in a wide radius—covering three states and including rural counties.  Obviously, rates from lawyers in more rural areas outside the District of Columbia are not applicable in determining the reasonable hourly rate for experienced complex federal litigators within the District of Colombia, where this litigation took place.   

Accordingly, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the USAO’s new matrix did not accurately reflect that of similarly experienced attorneys practicing within the relevant population, and therefore, it reversed and remanded the issue back to the district court for appropriate fee calculation. 
This litigation began in 2005 The named plaintiffs in this lawsuit—former preschool-age children in the District with various disabilities—allege that defendants have systemically failed to provide, or failed to timely provide, special education and related services to them and other children, in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), and District of Columbia law. Margaret Kohn, long time COPAA member has represented the plaintiffs along with Todd Gluckman, Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP. COPAA filed an amicus group with other amici including: CITIZEN, INC., HOWARD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC, NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM, WASHINGTON LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS, COUNCIL OF PARENT ATTORNEYS AND ADVOCATES, INC., ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, THE JUDGE DAVID L. BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, NATIONAL WOMENS LAW CENTER, AND AARP. Michael Kirkpatrick of Public Citizen wrote the brief for amici.
Read the decision in D.L., et al. v. District of Columbia, a Municipal Corporation, et al.

---