Taking Off the Gloves
NonLawyer Chronology
1990's
1990 - The 90s exploded with multiple issues, cases and controversies in New York, Pennsylvania and Delaware, as well as New Jersey. Many of the cases involved dyslexia. States’ refused to recognize that specific diagnosis as a broad- based language disability and failed to provide appropriate services. As a result, I sought clarification from OSEP about the rights of dyslexic students, Letter to Arons, 16 IDELR 1028. The federal government clarified that dyslexic students were entitled to the same individualized services as all other disabled students, including a continuum of placement options.
Dyslexia Policy Paper (1.8MB PDF)
1990-1992 - Straube v. Florida Union Free School District, 19 IDELR 131. The Straube case was the first hearing in New York where the State of New York was added as a party, in addition to the local school district, at the administrative hearing. Jack Straube could not read at 15 years of age, having all of the attitudes and behaviors that come with such severe disability and above average intelligence. Three years were given to that case, an attorney agreeing to take the appeal on a contingency basis. She lost the federal case, a decision later used by the U.S. Supreme Court when it ruled in favor of Carter. The Straube attorney never asked for my input on IEP development and other educational issues Jack had. I will always believe that it was her incompetence in the purely educational issues that lost the Straube case. That was when I fully realized that being an educator was more important than being a lawyer when it came to developing and winning a case.
1990-1992 - Dacyna ex rel. Dacyna v. School Dist. Bd. Of Educ., 19 IDELR 956. In 1990 a Polish family with less than fluent English came to me from Philadelphia, seeking help for their son. He had Williams Syndrome, a disability without case law to use as a precedent. I worked that case for two years, encountering an unusual hearing system unique to Pennsylvania. It had not experienced the vigorous representation of parents that incorporated peer review. The Dacynas won certain aspects of their case, losing others. They filed an appeal, which was the first time I appeared as an expert witness for an attorney who had taken their case on a contingency.
1990-1993 - Woods ex rel. T.W. v. New Jersey Dept. of Educ., 19 IDELR 1092. The Woods case was a case of many firsts in special education law and practice, with at least four separate federal decisions. When the district appealed a lower court decision, it attempted to subpoena me to testify against the family and demanded all of my communications and work product developed during the administrative hearing. The attorney handling the appeal for the parents (the same one who did Straube) would not handle the subpoena of my records. Therefore, I was forced to retain counsel on the issue: Does a nonlawyer have privilege in the same manner that attorneys do? Eric Neisser, a spectacular constitutional attorney, agreed to represent me. The decision in Woods established the privileged relationship between the nonlawyer and his/her client.
Priviledge Extended to Lay Advocate (158K PDF)
1992-1993 - I ran for Governor of New Jersey as an independent candidate, my first and last decision to run for office. Those experiences led me to sue the Public Broadcasting Network in federal court for refusing to provide airtime for independent candidates, citing the news black out against me and PIC since the 80s.
1993-1995 - I participated and provided testimony in national hearings on Nonlawyer Practice In The United States, sponsored by the American Bar Association. The Discussion Draft for Comment of April, 1994, and the final report, Nonlawyer Activity in Law- Related Situations, A Report With Recommendations, August, 1995, addressed the issue of nonlawyer practice in special education. My work and that of PIC was specifically referenced within both reports. The final report concluded:
While all of the Commission members rightfully praised “the parents who have fought for legally required special educational facilities for their own disabled children (without lawyer assistance) and for assisting other parents of disabled children with comparable objectives”, the majority failed to comprehend that the legislation which provided for these rights for special education facilities for disabled children did not at the same time provide for the means for these parents to afford lawyers who could fight the well-funded school boards who pay prestigious law firms to deny these disabled children their rights. Ironically, if these school boards knew they might have to pay the child’s lawyer the same as their lawyers if they lost, most of these cases would be settled quickly. The majority (of the Commission) leaves these parents with praise and encouragement and no recommendations for how they can get affordable professional help and access to justice.
1994-2001 - This was the period of my work in Delaware. Many students received services without a hearing when the State understood that a nonlawyer approach was different than that used by an attorney. The existence and application of peer review at hearing and in the IEP process changed the dispute process. The State was joined automatically as a party in Delaware when residential placements were sought by parents because the State, not the district, funded them. The hearing system uses a hearing panel of a lawyer, educator and a parent, an attorney always the chairperson. Delaware repeatedly emphasized that it did not have to comply with federal law throughout all hearings. Published decisions included Brandywine School District, 19 LRP 2050, Brandywine School District, 21 IDELR 1013, Brandywine School District, 11 IDELR 517, Cape Henlopen School District, 23 IDELR 263, Coale v. State Dept. of Educ., 35 IDELR 149. Attorneys in the state were afraid to represent parents zealously because of fear of reprisal by state officials. My involvement was an unprecedented threat to the deadly control of funds and rights for children with disabilities in Delaware.
1995 - Arons v. Donovan et al., 88 F. Supp. 377 (D.N.J. 1995). This was the first case law in New Jersey to require that public broadcasting give air time to all gubernatorial candidates prior to election.
1995-1998 - Conners v. Mills, 29 IDELR 946. 34 F. Supp. 2d 795. I represented Nancy Connors in her case against New Paltz. New York had a choke hold on the kinds of placements school districts could fund. The Connors’ case was the first in the 90’s to challenge the right of a parent to have the child placed in the appropriate school without fronting the money and then seeking reimbursement. The state edict permitted only reimbursement cases for unilateral placements and did not permit unapproved prospective placements at public expense. This was also the first time a parent requested that I be paid under prevailing party laws.
1997 - Schreiber v. Ridgewood Board of Education, 25 IDELR 421, 952 F. Supp., 205. The Schreiber case ran from 1994-1997. It involved their autistic daughter and her unmet needs. The parents lost the OAL case and appealed it to the U.S. District Court in Newark. It was assigned to Nicholas Politan, U.S.D.J., on an expedited basis. The parents could not find an attorney to do this appeal and a trial de novo in federal court during the time lines established by the judge. Therefore, Judge Politan agreed to let me represent them in the appeal, the first time a nonlawyer representative’s name actually appeared in the final decision of a civil case. Schreibers lost that decision and filed another OAL petition. This time, they won.
1999 - Borough of Palmyra Bd. of Educ. v. R.C., 31 IDELR 3, 2 F. Supp. 2d 637. I represented Maura and Bob Collinsgru from 1996-1999 in two separate cases concerning their son. The second hearing was the first complete 504 case done in New Jersey. At the conclusion of this precedent setting and difficult case, the parents refused to settle unless I was paid. Their attorney, the same as for Straube and Woods, did not want to seek my fees. As a result of the parent’s insistence, the first full decision occurred regarding nonlawyer payment to prevailing parties.
Collinsgru v Borough of Palmyra Bd. of Educ. (6MB PDF)
1990 - The 90s exploded with multiple issues, cases and controversies in New York, Pennsylvania and Delaware, as well as New Jersey. Many of the cases involved dyslexia. States’ refused to recognize that specific diagnosis as a broad- based language disability and failed to provide appropriate services. As a result, I sought clarification from OSEP about the rights of dyslexic students, Letter to Arons, 16 IDELR 1028. The federal government clarified that dyslexic students were entitled to the same individualized services as all other disabled students, including a continuum of placement options.
Dyslexia Policy Paper (1.8MB PDF)
1990-1992 - Straube v. Florida Union Free School District, 19 IDELR 131. The Straube case was the first hearing in New York where the State of New York was added as a party, in addition to the local school district, at the administrative hearing. Jack Straube could not read at 15 years of age, having all of the attitudes and behaviors that come with such severe disability and above average intelligence. Three years were given to that case, an attorney agreeing to take the appeal on a contingency basis. She lost the federal case, a decision later used by the U.S. Supreme Court when it ruled in favor of Carter. The Straube attorney never asked for my input on IEP development and other educational issues Jack had. I will always believe that it was her incompetence in the purely educational issues that lost the Straube case. That was when I fully realized that being an educator was more important than being a lawyer when it came to developing and winning a case.
1990-1992 - Dacyna ex rel. Dacyna v. School Dist. Bd. Of Educ., 19 IDELR 956. In 1990 a Polish family with less than fluent English came to me from Philadelphia, seeking help for their son. He had Williams Syndrome, a disability without case law to use as a precedent. I worked that case for two years, encountering an unusual hearing system unique to Pennsylvania. It had not experienced the vigorous representation of parents that incorporated peer review. The Dacynas won certain aspects of their case, losing others. They filed an appeal, which was the first time I appeared as an expert witness for an attorney who had taken their case on a contingency.
1990-1993 - Woods ex rel. T.W. v. New Jersey Dept. of Educ., 19 IDELR 1092. The Woods case was a case of many firsts in special education law and practice, with at least four separate federal decisions. When the district appealed a lower court decision, it attempted to subpoena me to testify against the family and demanded all of my communications and work product developed during the administrative hearing. The attorney handling the appeal for the parents (the same one who did Straube) would not handle the subpoena of my records. Therefore, I was forced to retain counsel on the issue: Does a nonlawyer have privilege in the same manner that attorneys do? Eric Neisser, a spectacular constitutional attorney, agreed to represent me. The decision in Woods established the privileged relationship between the nonlawyer and his/her client.
Priviledge Extended to Lay Advocate (158K PDF)
1992-1993 - I ran for Governor of New Jersey as an independent candidate, my first and last decision to run for office. Those experiences led me to sue the Public Broadcasting Network in federal court for refusing to provide airtime for independent candidates, citing the news black out against me and PIC since the 80s.
1993-1995 - I participated and provided testimony in national hearings on Nonlawyer Practice In The United States, sponsored by the American Bar Association. The Discussion Draft for Comment of April, 1994, and the final report, Nonlawyer Activity in Law- Related Situations, A Report With Recommendations, August, 1995, addressed the issue of nonlawyer practice in special education. My work and that of PIC was specifically referenced within both reports. The final report concluded:
While all of the Commission members rightfully praised “the parents who have fought for legally required special educational facilities for their own disabled children (without lawyer assistance) and for assisting other parents of disabled children with comparable objectives”, the majority failed to comprehend that the legislation which provided for these rights for special education facilities for disabled children did not at the same time provide for the means for these parents to afford lawyers who could fight the well-funded school boards who pay prestigious law firms to deny these disabled children their rights. Ironically, if these school boards knew they might have to pay the child’s lawyer the same as their lawyers if they lost, most of these cases would be settled quickly. The majority (of the Commission) leaves these parents with praise and encouragement and no recommendations for how they can get affordable professional help and access to justice.
1994-2001 - This was the period of my work in Delaware. Many students received services without a hearing when the State understood that a nonlawyer approach was different than that used by an attorney. The existence and application of peer review at hearing and in the IEP process changed the dispute process. The State was joined automatically as a party in Delaware when residential placements were sought by parents because the State, not the district, funded them. The hearing system uses a hearing panel of a lawyer, educator and a parent, an attorney always the chairperson. Delaware repeatedly emphasized that it did not have to comply with federal law throughout all hearings. Published decisions included Brandywine School District, 19 LRP 2050, Brandywine School District, 21 IDELR 1013, Brandywine School District, 11 IDELR 517, Cape Henlopen School District, 23 IDELR 263, Coale v. State Dept. of Educ., 35 IDELR 149. Attorneys in the state were afraid to represent parents zealously because of fear of reprisal by state officials. My involvement was an unprecedented threat to the deadly control of funds and rights for children with disabilities in Delaware.
1995 - Arons v. Donovan et al., 88 F. Supp. 377 (D.N.J. 1995). This was the first case law in New Jersey to require that public broadcasting give air time to all gubernatorial candidates prior to election.
1995-1998 - Conners v. Mills, 29 IDELR 946. 34 F. Supp. 2d 795. I represented Nancy Connors in her case against New Paltz. New York had a choke hold on the kinds of placements school districts could fund. The Connors’ case was the first in the 90’s to challenge the right of a parent to have the child placed in the appropriate school without fronting the money and then seeking reimbursement. The state edict permitted only reimbursement cases for unilateral placements and did not permit unapproved prospective placements at public expense. This was also the first time a parent requested that I be paid under prevailing party laws.
1997 - Schreiber v. Ridgewood Board of Education, 25 IDELR 421, 952 F. Supp., 205. The Schreiber case ran from 1994-1997. It involved their autistic daughter and her unmet needs. The parents lost the OAL case and appealed it to the U.S. District Court in Newark. It was assigned to Nicholas Politan, U.S.D.J., on an expedited basis. The parents could not find an attorney to do this appeal and a trial de novo in federal court during the time lines established by the judge. Therefore, Judge Politan agreed to let me represent them in the appeal, the first time a nonlawyer representative’s name actually appeared in the final decision of a civil case. Schreibers lost that decision and filed another OAL petition. This time, they won.
1999 - Borough of Palmyra Bd. of Educ. v. R.C., 31 IDELR 3, 2 F. Supp. 2d 637. I represented Maura and Bob Collinsgru from 1996-1999 in two separate cases concerning their son. The second hearing was the first complete 504 case done in New Jersey. At the conclusion of this precedent setting and difficult case, the parents refused to settle unless I was paid. Their attorney, the same as for Straube and Woods, did not want to seek my fees. As a result of the parent’s insistence, the first full decision occurred regarding nonlawyer payment to prevailing parties.
Collinsgru v Borough of Palmyra Bd. of Educ. (6MB PDF)