Price Ex Rel. J.P. v. District of Columbia
416 U.S. App. D.C. 451
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- Parents (Appellants) prevailed in IDEA administrative proceedings against DC Public Schools and sought attorney’s fees under IDEA’s fee-shifting provision.
- The attorney (Pierre Bergeron) was appointed by D.C. Superior Court Juvenile Branch from its Special Education Advocate Panel; appointment orders promised CJA payment at $90/hr if DCPS did not compensate him.
- Appellants asked DCPS to reimburse fees; DCPS paid only $90/hr and refused higher rates (Appellants sought $250/hr initially and alternatively a market Laffey rate).
- District Court granted summary judgment for DCPS, holding the CJA-appointed fallback $90/hr precluded any greater IDEA fee award.
- D.C. Circuit reversed: held the CJA appointment and its $90/hr fallback do not preempt IDEA’s requirement that fees be based on prevailing community rates for the services rendered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the D.C. Criminal Justice Act (CJA) appointment order preempts IDEA fee-shifting | Price: CJA appointment does not displace IDEA; plaintiffs remain entitled to prevailing market rates | DCPS: CJA statutory compensation governs and limits recovery to $90/hr | Court: CJA does not preempt IDEA; appointment terms cannot nullify statutory fee-shifting entitlement |
| Whether the $90/hr fallback actually sets the "prevailing" rate | Price: $90 was a fallback promise, not proof of market rate; prevailing-market method applies | DCPS: Bergeron’s willingness to accept $90 shows that higher fees would be windfalls | Court: $90 fallback is not an appropriate factor; prevailing market rate governs regardless of fallback offer |
| Whether attorney’s reduced or pro bono willingness controls rate analysis | Price: Prevailing-market standard applies even where lawyers accept reduced rates for non-economic reasons | DCPS: Reduced-acceptance evidence implies market compensation lower than requested | Court: Prevailing market rates apply regardless of private reduced-rate practices; reduced-rate acceptance doesn’t cap fee-shifting award |
| Whether Laffey matrix (complex-federal-litigation rates) automatically applies to IDEA administrative hearings | Price: Market benchmarks like Laffey may be relied on to show prevailing rates | DCPS: High federal-litigation benchmarks would be inappropriate here | Court: Did not adopt automatic Laffey applicability; fees must be based on prevailing community rates for the kind and quality of services; Laffey relevant only if the relevant market corresponds to complex federal litigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir.) (discussing Laffey matrix and prevailing market rates)
- Laffey v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 354 (D.D.C. 1983) (establishing a benchmark matrix for complex federal litigation fees)
- Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc., 390 U.S. 400 (1968) (prevailing plaintiffs ordinarily recover fees absent special circumstances)
- Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U.S. 148 (1976) (specific statute not controlled by general statute absent clear intent)
- Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U.S. 542 (2010) (fee awards should be sufficient to attract competent counsel)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (fee-shifting calculated by prevailing market rates regardless of reduced nonprofit or private rates)
- Save Our Cumberland Mountains, Inc. v. Model, 857 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (prevailing-market method applies even for reduced-rate attorneys)
- Venegas v. Mitchell, 495 U.S. 82 (1990) (fee-shifting enables plaintiffs to hire competent counsel without cost)
- Calloway v. District of Columbia, 216 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (Congressional concern about growth of IDEA legal expenses)
- Whatley v. District of Columbia, 447 F.3d 814 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (Congress exercised authority to cap certain IDEA fee awards in D.C.)