Pardini v. Allegheny Intermediate Unit, No. 07-1403 (3d Cir. May 12, 2008)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (PA, NJ, DE, V.I.) has affirmed a U.S. district court order denying attorney’s fees for a Pennsylvania attorney-parent who brought a case on his daughter’s behalf under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). David and Jennifer Pardini sued the Allegheny Intermediate Unit (AIU) and its program director on behalf of their child, Georgia Pardini, who suffers from cerebral palsy and was receiving services pursuant to an Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) under IDEA. IDEA requires that a child make the transition to an Individualized Education Program (IEP) by age three. The Pardinis refused to sign AIU’s proposed IEP because it did not include the conductive education Georgia had been receiving pursuant to her IFSP. When AIU refused to alter the IEP and terminated services after Georgia’s third birthday, the Pardinis sued. The Third Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of their requested injunction and instructed the district court to determine what reimbursement, including any attorney’s fees, the Pardinis were entitled to. The district court denied attorney’s fees, and the Pardinis appealed this decision as well.
The Third Circuit affirmed, citing an earlier decision, Woodside v. School District of Philadelphia Board of Education, 248 F.3d 129 (3d Cir. 2001), in which it had concluded attorney-parents representing their children were not entitled to attorney’s fees under IDEA. The reasoning behind this decision was that attorney-parents, like pro se litigants, tend to let emotion rather than reason rule the litigation. Consequently, awarding attorney’s fees for attorney-parents does not support the goal of “fee-shifting” statutes to encourage retention of independent council that will foster effective litigation. The Third Circuit rejected arguments by the Pardinis that its decision on their first appeal in the case entitled them to attorney’s fees. The court explained that it had left that determination to the district court when it stated “any” attorney’s fees. The court also emphasized that the district court correctly decided the issue under controlling precedent.
Pardini v. Allegheny Intermediate Unit, No. 07-1403 (3d Cir. May 12, 2008)
[Editor’s Note: The concerns over allowing parents to represent themselves as pro se counsel proved unconvincing to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 127 S.Ct. 1994 (2007), allowed the practice in IDEA cases. An adage among lawyers states that “A person who represents himself has a fool for a client.”]
NSBA School Law pages on Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist.