Special Education — Standard for FAPE
A.O. v. Los Angeles Unified School District – U.S. District Court, Central District (Case No. 2:21-cv-00757-ODW-PD)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: Los Angeles Unified School District

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), courts may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the parents of a child with disability who have prevailed in a special education matter. Reasonable fees awarded under the IDEA must be based on hourly rates prevailing in the community for the kind and quality of services provided. Unfortunately, in California, the rates requested by attorneys representing parents in special education disputes have risen exponentially, resulting in significant impacts on LEA budgets.

In this case, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) challenged a parents’ request for attorney’s fees following their successful litigation of a special education due process complaint and subsequent appeals. LAUSD did not dispute parents’ entitlement to fees as prevailing party; however, it did dispute the claimed hourly rates, which included one attorney billing an exorbitant $975 per hour. As noted above, the law requires rates to be based on those typically earned in the community for similar work, i.e., based on hourly rates charged in other single student special education cases. Unfortunately, as is too common in these cases, the evidence used to support the requested rate is based on declarations from other special education attorneys with a vested interest in higher prevailing rates, and on comparisons to hourly rates earned in far more expensive and complex fields of law. This trend has led to significant increase in attorney’s fee awards throughout California, which often must be paid from LEAs’ general funds.

SUMMARY OF THE CASE:
This underlying case involved a 3-year-old deaf and hard-of-hearing student whose parents had filed a request for due process based on their disagreement with LAUSD’s proposed individualized education program (IEP). In the IEP, LAUSD had offered to place the student in a special day class (SDC) with speech therapy provided one to 10 times per week for a total of 30 minutes. The IEP did not specify whether the speech therapy would be in an individual or group setting. Following a six-day due process hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found that LAUSD’s proposed program failed to specify the duration and frequency of services, would not provide the student with a meaningful benefit, and did not ensure the student was placed in the least restrictive environment as required by the IDEA. The ALJ ordered LAUSD to pay for the parents’ preferred nonpublic school program. On appeal, the district court affirmed the majority of the ALJ’s decision except for the finding that LAUSD needed to specify whether the student would receive individual speech therapy.

On Feb. 15, 2024, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the parts of the district court’s decision that agreed with the ALJ and reversed the pieces that did not; thus, the ALJ’s decision was essentially affirmed in all respects. LAUSD requested rehearing of the matter, en banc, but the request was denied.

Following the Ninth Circuit’s decision, attorneys for the parents filed a motion for attorney fees in which they requested a total of nearly $875,000. This amount was based on billing rates of $850-$975 per hour for lead attorneys, $650-$795 per hour for supporting attorneys and $550 per hour for junior attorneys. While LAUSD did not challenge that the parents were the prevailing party and entitled to recover some fees, LAUSD did object to the amount requested. Specifically, LAUSD challenged some individual time entries as well as the overall rates charged by the parents’ counsel. Both sides submitted a litany of declarations and evidence in support of their respective positions regarding the requested fees.

On Oct. 22, 2024, the ELA filed an amicus brief to address the importance of how hourly rates are set in IDEA cases, and to provide a statewide perspective on the impact of special education litigation on LEAs in California. The ELA did not address the specific billing entries that LAUSD was challenging but focused instead on the hourly rates requested. The ELA argued that these rates should not be based on awards in complex or litigation unrelated to special education, or on self-serving declarations provided by other attorneys.

The magistrate judge issued their recommendations on May 23, 2025, which were adopted by the district court on June 24, 2025.

On LAUSD’s challenge to specific billing entries by the parents’ counsel, the court did agree to trim some where the time was overbilled or unreasonable, such as when the hours billed for a hearing did not match hearing times noted in the transcript. For the most part, however, the time entries were allowed with a few minor cuts, disallowances and reductions. The court also reduced the total hours that the parents’ attorneys spent replying to LAUSD’s opposition to their fee request by 10 percent.

When deciding the appropriate hourly rates, the court began its analysis by determining what evidence regarding rates was relevant. The court acknowledged that orders from other cases setting a rate for the specific attorneys are particularly good evidence of the prevailing market rate. Thus, the court spent time looking at each attorney’s credentials and fees awarded to them by other courts, finding all such information relevant. When reviewing the declarations provided in support of and opposed to the requested fees, the court deemed relevant only the declarations that discussed fees awarded in single-student IDEA cases, noting that the highest IDEA rate awarded to that point was approximately $250 per hour lower than the $975 per hour requested. The court essentially rejected the basis for inflated rates where those rates were based on non-IDEA cases or other litigation matters unrelated to special education where higher rates had been awarded.

To support their request for higher fees, the student’s attorneys submitted declarations from lawyers who handle complex civil rights litigation. However, the court determined (and as was argued in the ELA’s brief) that litigation under the IDEA is not considered “complex litigation” that would support a finding that higher rates are reasonable. This led the court to reject the argument that fees awarded in complex civil litigation should serve as a basis to raise hourly rates awarded in this case.

Ultimately, based on a review of all the information deemed relevant, the court awarded counsel for the student rates of $700 per hour to the lead attorneys, $600 per hour to supporting attorneys and $450 per hour for junior attorneys. Overall, the court reduced the requested award by approximately $170,000.

While $700 per hour may still be on the high side and may represent an increase from prior IDEA cases where $600 per hour was awarded, it is significantly lower than the rates requested, which were between $850 and $975.

CURRENT STATUS AND/OR OUTCOME:
Neither party has appealed the court’s decision, and the deadline for an appeal has passed. Thus, the district court’s decision stands.
Back to Report