USAO’s Updated Matrix Had Too Large Of A Community Pool For Fee Shifting-Purposes.
In DL v. District of Columbia, No. 18-7004 (D.C. Cir. May 21, 2019), the D.C. Circuit was faced with determining whether plaintiff was properly awarded attorney’s fees in an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) case after the district judge accepted the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s (USAO’s) updated Laffey matrix rather than the LSI’s Laffey matrix for purpose of determining the reasonable hourly rates for plaintiff’s counsel. The “swing” was that use of the USAO matrix reduced the fee award from $9.76 from $6.96 million in light of the refusal to use the LSI’s Laffey matrix.
On appeal, there was a split opinion authored by Circuit Judge Tatel for the majority, with a dissent authored by Senior Circuit Judge Sentelle.
The LSI’s updated Laffey matrix focuses predominantly on litigators in just D.C. with some adjustments for inflation. In contrast, the USAO’s matrix based hourly rates on a survey of all attorneys (not just litigators) from the broader D.C. metropolitan area inclusive of Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia.
The majority reversed because the two judges found, given that IDEA requires that prevailing attorney’s rates be tethered to community rates for the same kind of services (20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(C)), it was improper to use a survey involving all practitioners (not just complex litigators) and involving a broader metropolitan area (not just D.C.).
The dissenting justice believed that the matrix choice was a factual call for the district judge and that the community should not necessarily just be comprised of the most highly-priced professionals from D.C.
Comments