context: Furthermore, this court has rejected the suggestion that IDEA administrative litigation is categorically less complex than other forms of litigation, and reaffirms that IDEA cases are sufficiently complex to allow application of the Laffey Matrix.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 754 F.Supp.2d 76, 76
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that counsel must have specialized knowledge of the bureaucracy and practices of DCPS to handle IDEA cases
citation_a.sentence: See Jackson, 696 F.Supp.2d at 102 (holding that IDEA administrative proceedings, which require expert testimony regarding whether a student has been denied a FAPE, are sufficiently complex to warrant application of the Laffey Matrix); Nesbit, Civ. No. 01-2429, at 1 (refusing to create an exception to the application of the Laffey Matrix for IDEA litigation); see also Cox, 754 F.Supp.2d at 76 (holding that counsel must have specialized knowledge of the bureaucracy and practices of DCPS to handle IDEA cases).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 696 F.Supp.2d 102, 102
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that IDEA administrative proceedings, which require expert testimony regarding whether a student has been denied a FAPE, are sufficiently complex to warrant application of the Laffey Matrix
citation_b.sentence: See Jackson, 696 F.Supp.2d at 102 (holding that IDEA administrative proceedings, which require expert testimony regarding whether a student has been denied a FAPE, are sufficiently complex to warrant application of the Laffey Matrix); Nesbit, Civ. No. 01-2429, at 1 (refusing to create an exception to the application of the Laffey Matrix for IDEA litigation); see also Cox, 754 F.Supp.2d at 76 (holding that counsel must have specialized knowledge of the bureaucracy and practices of DCPS to handle IDEA cases).