34 C.F.R. § 300.517

Attorneys' fees

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In general. (1) In any action or proceeding brought under section 615 of the Act, the court, in its discretion, may award reasonable attorneys' fees as part of the costs to—

(i) The prevailing party who is the parent of a child with a disability;

(ii) To a prevailing party who is an SEA or LEA against the attorney of a parent who files a complaint or subsequent cause of action that is frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, or against the attorney of a parent who continued to litigate after the litigation clearly became frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation; or

(iii) To a prevailing SEA or LEA against the attorney of a parent, or against the parent, if the parent's request for a due process hearing or subsequent cause of action was presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, to cause unnecessary delay, or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation.

(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to affect section 327 of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2005.

(b) Prohibition on use of funds. (1) Funds under Part B of the Act may not be used to pay attorneys' fees or costs of a party related to any action or proceeding under section 615 of the Act and subpart E of this part.

(2) Paragraph (b)(1) of this section does not preclude a public agency from using funds under Part B of the Act for conducting an action or proceeding under section 615 of the Act.

(c) Award of fees. A court awards reasonable attorneys' fees under section 615(i)(3) of the Act consistent with the following:

(1) Fees awarded under section 615(i)(3) of the Act must be based on rates prevailing in the community in which the action or proceeding arose for the kind and quality of services furnished. No bonus or multiplier may be used in calculating the fees awarded under this paragraph.

(2)(i) Attorneys' fees may not be awarded and related costs may not be reimbursed in any action or proceeding under section 615 of the Act for services performed subsequent to the time of a written offer of settlement to a parent if—

(A) The offer is made within the time prescribed by Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the case of an administrative proceeding, at any time more than 10 days before the proceeding begins;

(B) The offer is not accepted within 10 days; and

(C) The court or administrative hearing officer finds that the relief finally obtained by the parents is not more favorable to the parents than the offer of settlement.

(ii) Attorneys' fees may not be awarded relating to any meeting of the IEP Team unless the meeting is convened as a result of an administrative proceeding or judicial action, or at the discretion of the State, for a mediation described in § 300.506.

(iii) A meeting conducted pursuant to § 300.510 shall not be considered—

(A) A meeting convened as a result of an administrative hearing or judicial action; or

(B) An administrative hearing or judicial action for purposes of this section.

(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(2) of this section, an award of attorneys' fees and related costs may be made to a parent who is the prevailing party and who was substantially justified in rejecting the settlement offer.

(4) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(5) of this section, the court reduces, accordingly, the amount of the attorneys' fees awarded under section 615 of the Act, if the court finds that—

(i) The parent, or the parent's attorney, during the course of the action or proceeding, unreasonably protracted the final resolution of the controversy;

(ii) The amount of the attorneys' fees otherwise authorized to be awarded unreasonably exceeds the hourly rate prevailing in the community for similar services by attorneys of reasonably comparable skill, reputation, and experience;

(iii) The time spent and legal services furnished were excessive considering the nature of the action or proceeding; or

(iv) The attorney representing the parent did not provide to the LEA the appropriate information in the due process request notice in accordance with § 300.508.

(5) The provisions of paragraph (c)(4) of this section do not apply in any action or proceeding if the court finds that the State or local agency unreasonably protracted the final resolution of the action or proceeding or there was a violation of section 615 of the Act.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1415(i)(3)(B)-(G))

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 26 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case: D.L. Ex Rel. J.L. v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 497, 596 F.3d 768 (10th Cir. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

D.L. Ex Rel. J.L. v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 497, 596 F.3d 768 (10th Cir. 2010). “§ 1415 (i)(S)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.517 . We express no opinion on the merits of this issue, but conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Plaintiffs abandoned their IDEA claim by not providing the necessary briefing.”

El Paso Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Richard R. Ex Rel. R.R., 591 F.3d 417 (5th Cir. 2009). “”); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.517 (c)(2)(iii). Accordingly, R.”

J.S. v. The Westerly Sch. Dist., 910 F.3d 4 (1st Cir. 2018). “"); 34 C.F.R. § 300.517 (a)(1)(i). We review de novo whether a party achieved a victory that rendered it "prevailing" for purposes of the IDEA's fee-shifting provision.”

Alief Indep. Sch. Dist. v. C.C., Ex Rel. Kenneth C., 655 F.3d 412 (5th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “34 C.F.R. § 300.517 . This provision explicitly references § 1415 as the authority under which it was promulgated.”

R.V. v. Rivera, 220 F. Supp. 3d 588 (E.D. Pa. 2016). “…that IDEA funds could be used for the payment of attorneys' fees. The statute specifically prohibits such use. 34 C.F.R § 300.517(b)(1).”

Lejeune v. Khepera Charter Sch., 327 F. Supp. 3d 785 (E.D. Pa. 2018). “" 34 C.F.R. § 300.517 (b). Although PDE is not liable for attorney's fees under Plaintiffs' agreements, the Court reserves any decision whether they may be entitled to attorney's fees in the context of a fee petition as a "prevailing party" in this federal action.”

D.A. v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 716 F. Supp. 2d 603 (S.D. Tex. 2009). “” 34 C.F.R. § 300.517 . A “prevailing party” is one that attains a remedy that both (1) alters the legal relationship between the school district and the parent and (2) fosters the purposes of the IDEA.”

M.M. v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 142 F. Supp. 3d 396 (E.D. Pa. 2015). “§ 1415 (i)(3)(D)(i), and 34 C.F.R. § 300.517 (e)(2)(i).” This is identical to the first line of the March 18, 2014 letter.”

Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty. v. C.B., 315 F. Supp. 3d 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2018). · cites it 2× “517 (b)(c)(2)(i) ("Attorneys' fees may not be awarded and related costs may not be reimbursed in any action or proceeding under section 615 of the Act for services performed subsequent to the time of a written offer of settlement....") (emphasis added).”

M.R. v. Dist. of Columbia, 841 F. Supp. 2d 262 (D.D.C. 2012). · cites it 2× “" 34 C.F.R. § 300.517 (c)(1). The facts in this case clearly demonstrate Plaintiffs are not entitled to attorney’s fees under the IDEA itself.”

Garcia ex rel. Garcia v. Bd. of Educ. of Albuquerque Pub. Schs., 436 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (D.N.M. 2006). “§ 1415 (m) (transfer of parental rights); 34 CFR § 300.517 (same). See, Doc. 92 (Pltff's IDEA brief).”

Cox v. Boone Cnty. Sch. Dist. (E.D. Ky. 2022). · cites it 3× “Fee Reduction under 34 C.F.R. 300.517 Regulation 34 C.F.R. 300.”

Show all 26 citing cases →

— 34 C.F.R. § 300.517(a)(1) — 3 cases

Cortes v. Kern Cnty. Superintendent (E.D. Cal. 2019).

Cortes v. Kern Cnty. Superintendent (E.D. Cal. 2020).

M.D. v. Reykdal (W.D. Wash. 2025).

— 34 C.F.R. § 300.517(b)(1) — 1 case

R.V. v. Rivera, 220 F. Supp. 3d 588 (E.D. Pa. 2016). “…that IDEA funds could be used for the payment of attorneys' fees. The statute specifically prohibits such use. 34 C.F.R § 300.517(b)(1).”

— 34 C.F.R. § 300.517(c)(4) — 1 case

Cox v. Boone Cnty. Sch. Dist. (E.D. Ky. 2022). “Fee Reduction under 34 C.F.R. 300.517 Regulation 34 C.F.R. 300.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.