COVID-19   Law    Advocacy    Topics A-Z     Training    Wrights' Blog   Wrightslaw Store    Yellow Pages for Kids 
Home > Law > IDEA 2004 > Rule 11 and Attorneys Fees


The Special Ed Advocate newsletter
It's Unique ... and Free!

Enter your email address below:

2024
Training Programs

Apr. 11 - Denver, CO

June 5-8 - San Antonio, TX

Sept. 24 - MD via ZOOM

Full Schedule


Wrightslaw

Home
Topics from A-Z
Free Newsletter
Seminars & Training
Yellow Pages for Kids
Press Room
FAQs
Sitemap

Books & Training

Wrightslaw Storesecure store lock
  Advocate's Store
  Student Bookstore
  Exam Copies
Training Center
Mail & Fax Orders

Advocacy Library

Articles
Cool Tools
Doing Your Homework
Ask the Advocate
FAQs
Newsletter Archives
Short Course Series
Success Stories
Tips

Law Library

Articles
Caselaw
Fed Court Complaints
IDEA 2004
McKinney-Vento Homeless
FERPA
Section 504

Topics

Advocacy
ADD/ADHD
Allergy/Anaphylaxis
American Indian
Assistive Technology
Autism Spectrum
Behavior & Discipline
Bullying
College/Continuing Ed
Damages
Discrimination
Due Process
Early Intervention
  (Part C)

Eligibility
Episodic, such as
   Allergies, Asthma,
   Diabetes, Epilepsy, etc

ESSA
ESY
Evaluations
FAPE
Flyers
Future Planning
Harassment
High-Stakes Tests
Homeless Children
IDEA 2004
Identification & Child Find
IEPs
Juvenile Justice
Law School & Clinics
Letters & Paper Trails
LRE / Inclusion
Mediation
Military / DOD
Parental Protections
PE and Adapted PE
Privacy & Records
Procedural Safeguards
Progress Monitoring
Reading
Related Services
Research Based
  Instruction

Response to Intervention
  (RTI)

Restraints / Seclusion
   and Abuse

Retention
Retaliation
School Report Cards
Section 504
Self-Advocacy
Teachers & Principals
Transition
Twice Exceptional (2e)
VA Special Education

Resources & Directories

Advocate's Bookstore
Advocacy Resources
Directories
  Disability Groups
  International
  State DOEs
  State PTIs
Free Flyers
Free Pubs
Free Newsletters
Legal & Advocacy
Glossaries
   Legal Terms
   Assessment Terms
Best School Websites

 

IDEA 2004: Rule 11 & Attorneys Fees
by Pete Wright

Parents and advocates are concerned about the new attorney fee statute in IDEA 2004 that permits school districts to recover fees from parents. In this article, we look at the text of the new statute, improper litigation, and the practical implications of the attorney fee statute.

IDEA
2004 states:

(i) IN GENERAL - In any action or proceeding brought under this section, the court, in its discretion, may award reasonable attorneys' fees as part of the costs--

(I) to a prevailing party who is the parent of a child with a disability;
(II) to a prevailing party who is a State educational agency or local educational agency against the attorney of a parent who files a complaint or subsequent cause of action that is frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, or against the attorney of a parent who continued to litigate after the litigation clearly became frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation [bold added for emphasis by me]; or
(III) to a prevailing State educational agency or local educational agency against the attorney of a parent, or against the parent, if the parent's complaint or subsequent cause of action was presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, to cause unnecessary delay, or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation. 20 U.S.C. Section 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)


Any attorney or “pro se” party in a U. S. District Court lawsuit is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). Rule 11 states that the filing of a pleading or document is an automatic representation and certification that:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.

The language in IDEA 2004 that permits fees against an attorney states:

“who files a complaint or subsequent cause of action that is frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, or . . . continued to litigate after the litigation clearly became frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation ...”


is very similar to the standard of Rule Eleven which prohibits litigation for:

“any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation . . .”

In essence, adding Rule 11 language to IDEA 2004 is not a change in law but simply restates the law of Rule 11, both in FRCP and case law interpretations of Rule 11. Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 US 412 (1978) is the leading case about this issue.

The full text of Section 1415 in IDEA 2004 with language deleted from IDEA 2004 crossed out and language added in italics is at:

https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/idea/section1415.pdf

Improper Litigation
The fact that IDEA 2004 includes Rule 11 language does not give school board attorneys a pass on frivolous actions. They are still accountable under Rule 11.

In my practice, I cannot recall a single case where a school board initiated a due process hearing as the moving party for reasons that would fall under Rule 11.

Unfortunately, I have had far too many consultations with parents in pro se litigation who went forward with cases that should not have been brought and risked having to pay the school board's attorney fees. In most cases, they consulted with me after they lost the due process hearing and wanted me to pick up the appeal.

Practical Impact of This Statute
The practical impact of this statute may be to reduce the number of parents who shoot from the hip, request a due process hearing out of anger and emotion, do not prepare their case, and simply want to get back at the school district for perceived wrongs.

Parents, advocates, and parent attorneys will benefit if it has this effect.

Many federal judges and hearing officers view parents of children with disabilities as "loose cannons." This perception poisons the well for other parents. As attorneys, we must overcome this perception of our client and convince the hearing officer or judge that our parent and the facts in this case are different.

To Top


 

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon The Special Ed Advocate: It's Free!

March Sale - SAVE 25%

Print, Immediate Downloads
and Advocacy Supplies
Order Wrightslaw Product
s
and Save 25% Now!



Check Out
The Advocate's Store!

Wrightslaw on FacebookWrightslaw on TwitterWrightslaw YouTube Channel 

Wrightslaw Books
Wrightslaw: Special Education Law, 3rd Edition, by Pam and Pete Wright
About the Book

Wrightslaw: From Emotions to Advocacy, 2nd Edition
About the Book

Wrightslaw: All About IEPs
About the Book

Wrightslaw: All About Tests and Assessments
About the Book

Wrightslaw: Special Education Legal Developments and Cases 2019
About the Book

Surviving Due Process: Stephen Jeffers v. School Board
About the DVD Video


The Advocate's Store


Understanding Your Child's
Test Scores (1.5 hrs)

Wrightslaw Special: $14.95