Taking Off the Gloves
NonLawyer Chronology
1980's
1978-1982 - All New Jersey hearings were done before an impartial hearing officer. I won 99% of them, parents from surrounding counties hearing of the work and asking for representation. In 1981, a school board attorney, Stanley Turitz, became angry about losing a hotly contested case, A.G. v. Ridgefield Park Board of Education. He accused me of practicing law without a license in order to stop the hearing. He demanded the issue of my representation be briefed. I contacted Dr. Bateman for help, briefed the question, and the hearing continued to decision. It was during this period that I saw written communications between the Bergen County Superintendent of Schools, the New Jersey Commissioner of Education, the Attorney General’s Office and the Ridgefield Park Superintendent. They agreed that I had to be stopped, was entirely too disruptive to the State, and cost districts too much money. They did not know why an attorney could not win a case from me.
1982 - Stanley Turitz appealed the A.G. case to the Superior Court of New Jersey. Parents of the child asked me to represent him in the appeal, preferring me to an attorney. The final result was that the judge, Sherwin Lester, let me represent the parent, assigning a guardian ad litem for the child. The day I crossed the bar to sit before Judge Lester on behalf of the parent, the local press quoted me, “History was made today.”
Parent Wants "Advocate" Instead of Lawyer(714K PDF)
1982 - TPIC had grown to become a national organization. As a result, its name was changed to the Parent Information Center of New Jersey (PIC).
PIC was the leading special education organization in America. In June of 2007 the corporation dissolved as a result of the national assault against it, including the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Arlington v. Murphy. That decision deprived PIC of its primary source of funding making it impossible for PIC to continue its mission of providing representation for families with few resources and politically volatile issues that other practitioners and organizations refused to represent. Though the corporation no longer exists, many of its consultants continue the mission and the model of PIC in their private practices. New families continue to discover the importance of the "Each One, Teach One" philosophy, and the importance of knowing and applying the law to meet their individual needs. Therefore, a new PIC for the future is always a possibility.
The archives for the organization can be accessed through this link: PICarchives 77-07.
1982 - B.M. on behalf of her infant child, A.M., et als. v. New Jersey State Board of Education, et als, Docket No. C-4564-81, Chancery Division, Middlesex County, Superior Court of New Jersey. As the result of a federal lawsuit against New Jersey’s system of due process, all due process hearings were to be heard within the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and not the Department of Education. Five of my cases were awaiting decision, but the federal ruling seemed to require all special education cases be reheard within the OAL. Five families I represented filed a class action lawsuit against the State, demanding that their hearings be allowed to go to decision with the impartial hearing officer. School districts were convinced that if I was forced to represent parents before a “real judge” I would fail. The five families won their class action. All five also won their cases.
1983 - R.B. v. West Paterson Board of Education; Passaic County Vocational School, (Robert Brindisi v. Passaic Valley Regional High School and Passaic County Technical and Vocational High School, EHLR 505:192, 6/24/83). This was my first case at the OAL and the nation’s first test case on the rights of disabled students preparing for employment after graduation. R.B had epilepsy and was not permitted entry into the vocational school because of it. The Director of OAL, Stephen LeFelt, was assigned to hear the case. This was my first experience within the more formal structure of an administrative law court and an administrative law judge. It was also the first time I faced two attorneys at the same time, representing two different boards of education as respondents. Reporters covered every day of the hearing. It ended with the student having a grand mal seizure in the courtroom before he testified. But he won his case and I gained instant celebrity. From that time on I refused more cases than I took, the most difficult referred to me by lawyers and major law firms. LRP published the R.B. decision, but printed no name for the parent’s representative, making it appear the parent appeared pro se. I wrote LRP to inquire. They replied that no name had been provided to them for the parent’s representative when the case was submitted for publication. I learned later that every OAL case I did in New Jersey was reported to the federal government as having the parents appear pro se at their hearing.
Throughout the period from 1977 through the mid-80s, I never received payment for any of the work done. Many parents were unable to afford even the photocopying of exhibits or payment for materials required in preparing and presenting due process cases. Ray and I paid a minimum of $6,000 a year for the costs of the work, that amount increasing each year. When I sought funding from the federal government and various agencies in New Jersey, all refused. However, those who were funded to do the work, sent me all of their cases when a hearing was required. I learned that New Jersey had distributed my name on a list as a possible representative to every parent who filed for due process. Since I was the only person who actually took cases for parents who could not pay, I was deluged with pleas for help. Many years later I learned that my work permitted New Jersey to assure the federal government that it provided free or low cost legal representation for parents when it filed its Annual State Plan. During the next five years, I often appeared at OAL five days a week on five different cases.
1982-1984 - The FBI and the Committee on Education and Labor of the U.S. House of Representatives investigated New Jersey’s misuse of federal funds in special education. As the result of my work in the state, I was asked by the FBI to wear a wire to help indict specific State officials, including Fred Burke, Commissioner of Education, and Paul Winkler, Commissioner of Special Education. I participated in the public hearings on these issues in both Washington, D.C., and Trenton, New Jersey. The report, dated September 1983, was titled:
Subcommittee Staff Report on Investigation of New Jersey Department of Education in the Administration of Certain Programs Under The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Prepared by the Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education of the Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, Together With Views of Representative Marge Roukema From the State of New Jersey and Minority Staff Views.
As a result of my involvement with the investigation into New Jersey’s misuse of federal funds, a news blackout occurred directed at me and PIC. No State newspaper would print PIC meeting notices, newspersons not permitted to cover any story in which my name might appear.
1985 - I filed Arons v. New Jersey State Board of Education et als in 1985, alleging multiple violations of my constitutional rights. The basic relief sought was the right to be paid for my work. The Honorable H. Lee Sarokin presided over the case. His bench decision was never published but portends the dispute that still rages today - representation for parents and the need to pay nonlawyers for their work. This is the first time his first decision is publicly available.
Arons v NJ - Sarokin Bench Decision (5.2MB PDF)
New Jersey was horrified to learn that the case would go forward, and that I had discovery rights for what officials thought were private documents. Through discovery I learned about the political connections and corruption imbedded in the state fabric of special education, not known during federal investigation.
Once that action was filed, many of the OAL judges reacted negatively, some becoming overtly hostile both to me and the parents who sought me out. For the first time I began loosing case after case, with personal attacks on and off the record from certain judges who seemed to be assigned to me over and over again.
1987 - Sarokin’s District Court decision in Arons was issued. After extensive depositions, discovery, briefs, and oral argument, Judge Sarokin held that the Court had no authority to award me fees for my work, but that “Legislation seems appropriate, and possibly necessary, to compensate those persons such as plaintiff, who are providing a vital service to the handicapped which may not be available otherwise.” Judge Sarokin inquired of the State about the news blackout. It was not denied.
In what can only be Divine Providence, I was referred to David Vladeck at Public Citizen Litigation Group after receiving the Sarokin decision in the mail. I was in Mr. Vladeck’s office 24 hours after making the first call to him. Public Citizen accepted my case and many subsequent cases. I will be, and families will be forever in their debt.
Sarokin District Court Decision (5.3MB PDF)
1987-1990 - A New Jersey parent, Edward Heldman, moved to Minisink, New York with his wife and son, a child I had represented in 1984 at OAL. The family could not find representation in New York and, as a result, asked me to represent them in their dispute with Minisink, a precedent setting case which Mr. Heldman later took to the federal level. (Heldman ex rel. T.H. v. Sobol, 962F.2d 148); (2d Cir.1992). This case introduced me to the peculiarities of the New York system of due process, as well as the tightly controlled political structure around it.
1988 - The 3rd circuit ruling was published in Arons v. New Jersey Board of Education, 842 F.2d 58; (3rd Cir.1988), EHLR 559:358. The Third Circuit held that I could be paid as a consultant or expert, but that individual States controlled who practiced law there. On August 12, 1988, Mr. Vladeck and Public Citizen filed an appeal of the 3rd Circuit decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was not accepted. This was to be the first of my three strikes at bat at the U.S. Supreme Court.
3rd Circuit Ruling (2.2MB PDF)
1989 - Following the 3rd Circuit decision, New Jersey attempted to pass a rule disallowing nonlawyer representation at OAL. The proposed rule change was published in the New Jersey Register, specifically naming me as the object of the new rule governing representation in special education hearings. As a result, over 10,000 signatures and letters were received by the State on the issue. Three public hearings were held in different regions of the state. The only group who supported the proposed rule was the Education Law Center. Everyone else, including Governor James Florio, supported withdrawal of the proposed rule. An OAL judge, Beatrice Tylecki, was assigned to write a decision based on input from the public hearings. Her decision supported passing of the rule. It was later vacated when the State passed a specific rule permitting nonlawyer representation in hearings, provided the representative had special knowledge in special education.
Spec. Ed Champion Wins Lawyer's Rights (372K PDF)
1978-1982 - All New Jersey hearings were done before an impartial hearing officer. I won 99% of them, parents from surrounding counties hearing of the work and asking for representation. In 1981, a school board attorney, Stanley Turitz, became angry about losing a hotly contested case, A.G. v. Ridgefield Park Board of Education. He accused me of practicing law without a license in order to stop the hearing. He demanded the issue of my representation be briefed. I contacted Dr. Bateman for help, briefed the question, and the hearing continued to decision. It was during this period that I saw written communications between the Bergen County Superintendent of Schools, the New Jersey Commissioner of Education, the Attorney General’s Office and the Ridgefield Park Superintendent. They agreed that I had to be stopped, was entirely too disruptive to the State, and cost districts too much money. They did not know why an attorney could not win a case from me.
1982 - Stanley Turitz appealed the A.G. case to the Superior Court of New Jersey. Parents of the child asked me to represent him in the appeal, preferring me to an attorney. The final result was that the judge, Sherwin Lester, let me represent the parent, assigning a guardian ad litem for the child. The day I crossed the bar to sit before Judge Lester on behalf of the parent, the local press quoted me, “History was made today.”
Parent Wants "Advocate" Instead of Lawyer(714K PDF)
1982 - TPIC had grown to become a national organization. As a result, its name was changed to the Parent Information Center of New Jersey (PIC).
PIC was the leading special education organization in America. In June of 2007 the corporation dissolved as a result of the national assault against it, including the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Arlington v. Murphy. That decision deprived PIC of its primary source of funding making it impossible for PIC to continue its mission of providing representation for families with few resources and politically volatile issues that other practitioners and organizations refused to represent. Though the corporation no longer exists, many of its consultants continue the mission and the model of PIC in their private practices. New families continue to discover the importance of the "Each One, Teach One" philosophy, and the importance of knowing and applying the law to meet their individual needs. Therefore, a new PIC for the future is always a possibility.
The archives for the organization can be accessed through this link: PICarchives 77-07.
1982 - B.M. on behalf of her infant child, A.M., et als. v. New Jersey State Board of Education, et als, Docket No. C-4564-81, Chancery Division, Middlesex County, Superior Court of New Jersey. As the result of a federal lawsuit against New Jersey’s system of due process, all due process hearings were to be heard within the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and not the Department of Education. Five of my cases were awaiting decision, but the federal ruling seemed to require all special education cases be reheard within the OAL. Five families I represented filed a class action lawsuit against the State, demanding that their hearings be allowed to go to decision with the impartial hearing officer. School districts were convinced that if I was forced to represent parents before a “real judge” I would fail. The five families won their class action. All five also won their cases.
1983 - R.B. v. West Paterson Board of Education; Passaic County Vocational School, (Robert Brindisi v. Passaic Valley Regional High School and Passaic County Technical and Vocational High School, EHLR 505:192, 6/24/83). This was my first case at the OAL and the nation’s first test case on the rights of disabled students preparing for employment after graduation. R.B had epilepsy and was not permitted entry into the vocational school because of it. The Director of OAL, Stephen LeFelt, was assigned to hear the case. This was my first experience within the more formal structure of an administrative law court and an administrative law judge. It was also the first time I faced two attorneys at the same time, representing two different boards of education as respondents. Reporters covered every day of the hearing. It ended with the student having a grand mal seizure in the courtroom before he testified. But he won his case and I gained instant celebrity. From that time on I refused more cases than I took, the most difficult referred to me by lawyers and major law firms. LRP published the R.B. decision, but printed no name for the parent’s representative, making it appear the parent appeared pro se. I wrote LRP to inquire. They replied that no name had been provided to them for the parent’s representative when the case was submitted for publication. I learned later that every OAL case I did in New Jersey was reported to the federal government as having the parents appear pro se at their hearing.
Throughout the period from 1977 through the mid-80s, I never received payment for any of the work done. Many parents were unable to afford even the photocopying of exhibits or payment for materials required in preparing and presenting due process cases. Ray and I paid a minimum of $6,000 a year for the costs of the work, that amount increasing each year. When I sought funding from the federal government and various agencies in New Jersey, all refused. However, those who were funded to do the work, sent me all of their cases when a hearing was required. I learned that New Jersey had distributed my name on a list as a possible representative to every parent who filed for due process. Since I was the only person who actually took cases for parents who could not pay, I was deluged with pleas for help. Many years later I learned that my work permitted New Jersey to assure the federal government that it provided free or low cost legal representation for parents when it filed its Annual State Plan. During the next five years, I often appeared at OAL five days a week on five different cases.
1982-1984 - The FBI and the Committee on Education and Labor of the U.S. House of Representatives investigated New Jersey’s misuse of federal funds in special education. As the result of my work in the state, I was asked by the FBI to wear a wire to help indict specific State officials, including Fred Burke, Commissioner of Education, and Paul Winkler, Commissioner of Special Education. I participated in the public hearings on these issues in both Washington, D.C., and Trenton, New Jersey. The report, dated September 1983, was titled:
Subcommittee Staff Report on Investigation of New Jersey Department of Education in the Administration of Certain Programs Under The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Prepared by the Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education of the Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, Together With Views of Representative Marge Roukema From the State of New Jersey and Minority Staff Views.
As a result of my involvement with the investigation into New Jersey’s misuse of federal funds, a news blackout occurred directed at me and PIC. No State newspaper would print PIC meeting notices, newspersons not permitted to cover any story in which my name might appear.
1985 - I filed Arons v. New Jersey State Board of Education et als in 1985, alleging multiple violations of my constitutional rights. The basic relief sought was the right to be paid for my work. The Honorable H. Lee Sarokin presided over the case. His bench decision was never published but portends the dispute that still rages today - representation for parents and the need to pay nonlawyers for their work. This is the first time his first decision is publicly available.
Arons v NJ - Sarokin Bench Decision (5.2MB PDF)
New Jersey was horrified to learn that the case would go forward, and that I had discovery rights for what officials thought were private documents. Through discovery I learned about the political connections and corruption imbedded in the state fabric of special education, not known during federal investigation.
Once that action was filed, many of the OAL judges reacted negatively, some becoming overtly hostile both to me and the parents who sought me out. For the first time I began loosing case after case, with personal attacks on and off the record from certain judges who seemed to be assigned to me over and over again.
1987 - Sarokin’s District Court decision in Arons was issued. After extensive depositions, discovery, briefs, and oral argument, Judge Sarokin held that the Court had no authority to award me fees for my work, but that “Legislation seems appropriate, and possibly necessary, to compensate those persons such as plaintiff, who are providing a vital service to the handicapped which may not be available otherwise.” Judge Sarokin inquired of the State about the news blackout. It was not denied.
In what can only be Divine Providence, I was referred to David Vladeck at Public Citizen Litigation Group after receiving the Sarokin decision in the mail. I was in Mr. Vladeck’s office 24 hours after making the first call to him. Public Citizen accepted my case and many subsequent cases. I will be, and families will be forever in their debt.
Sarokin District Court Decision (5.3MB PDF)
1987-1990 - A New Jersey parent, Edward Heldman, moved to Minisink, New York with his wife and son, a child I had represented in 1984 at OAL. The family could not find representation in New York and, as a result, asked me to represent them in their dispute with Minisink, a precedent setting case which Mr. Heldman later took to the federal level. (Heldman ex rel. T.H. v. Sobol, 962F.2d 148); (2d Cir.1992). This case introduced me to the peculiarities of the New York system of due process, as well as the tightly controlled political structure around it.
1988 - The 3rd circuit ruling was published in Arons v. New Jersey Board of Education, 842 F.2d 58; (3rd Cir.1988), EHLR 559:358. The Third Circuit held that I could be paid as a consultant or expert, but that individual States controlled who practiced law there. On August 12, 1988, Mr. Vladeck and Public Citizen filed an appeal of the 3rd Circuit decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was not accepted. This was to be the first of my three strikes at bat at the U.S. Supreme Court.
3rd Circuit Ruling (2.2MB PDF)
1989 - Following the 3rd Circuit decision, New Jersey attempted to pass a rule disallowing nonlawyer representation at OAL. The proposed rule change was published in the New Jersey Register, specifically naming me as the object of the new rule governing representation in special education hearings. As a result, over 10,000 signatures and letters were received by the State on the issue. Three public hearings were held in different regions of the state. The only group who supported the proposed rule was the Education Law Center. Everyone else, including Governor James Florio, supported withdrawal of the proposed rule. An OAL judge, Beatrice Tylecki, was assigned to write a decision based on input from the public hearings. Her decision supported passing of the rule. It was later vacated when the State passed a specific rule permitting nonlawyer representation in hearings, provided the representative had special knowledge in special education.
Spec. Ed Champion Wins Lawyer's Rights (372K PDF)