Z.A. v. San Bruno Park School Dist.
| Decision Date | 28 January 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-16692,97-16692 |
| Citation | 165 F.3d 1273 |
| Parties | 132 Ed. Law Rep. 68, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 797, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 951 Z.A., parent; Bobby A., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SAN BRUNO PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant, San Mateo County Superintendent of Schools, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Michael A. Zatopa, Law Offices of Michael A. Zatopa, San Francisco, California, for the plaintiffs-appellants.
Leigh Herman, Deputy County Counsel, Redwood City, California, for the defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Fern M. Smith, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-96-3122-FMS.
Before: FLETCHER and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges, and BRYAN, 1 District Judge.
I.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Bobby A., a "child with a disability" pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1485, and Z.A., Bobby's mother, appeal the district court's ruling that they are not entitled to attorney's fees for the successful administrative resolution of a dispute regarding Bobby's special education placement. The Defendants-Appellees are the San Bruno Park School District and the San Mateo County Superintendent of Schools (collectively "San Mateo Schools"). The district court denied the appellants' motion for fees because their attorney, Mr. Paul Foreman, was not a member of the California State Bar at the time of the administrative proceedings. We must decide whether a party, represented by an attorney who is admitted to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California but is not admitted to the California State Bar, may be awarded attorneys' fees for a state administrative proceeding under the IDEA.
II.
The San Mateo Schools are responsible for providing special education services to qualified students pursuant to the California Special Education Programs Act, Cal. Educ.Code § 56000-56885 and the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1485. Bobby A., a student in the San Mateo Schools, is a qualified special education student because of significant cognitive deficits.
In 1995, Z.A., Bobby A.'s mother, disputed the San Mateo Schools' special education placement of Bobby. To assist her, Z.A. retained the services of Mr. Foreman, a staff member of the Community Alliance for Special Education (CASE), a California nonprofit corporation that advocates for parents of disabled children. Mr. Foreman is an attorney who, at the time of his representation of Z.A., was admitted to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Mr. Foreman was not admitted to the California State Bar.
State administrative proceedings were conducted by the California Special Education Office in December 1995 and January 1996. Mr. Foreman, on behalf of Z.A. and Bobby A., prevailed. Thereafter, Z.A. and Bobby A. sought to recover attorneys' fees, first demanding the fees directly from the San Mateo Schools. When the demand was rejected because Mr. Foreman was not admitted to the California State Bar, Z.A. and Bobby sued the San Mateo Schools in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The district court granted San Mateo Schools' Motion for Summary Judgment and denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, holding that an attorney licensed to practice in the federal bar of the Northern District of California, but not the state bar, is not entitled to recover attorneys' fees for work performed in a state administrative hearing. This appeal followed.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. We review de novo both the district court's grant of summary judgment (Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 852 (9th Cir.1998)), and the district court's conclusions of law (Torres-Lopez v. May, 111 F.3d 633, 638 (9th Cir.1997)).
III.
The first question raised by this appeal is whether the administrative proceedings were state or federal in nature. For a California school district to receive federal funding for the special education of disabled children under the California Special Education Programs Act, Cal. Educ.Code § 56000-56885, it must comply with the impartial due process safeguards required by the IDEA in 20 U.S.C. § 1415. Section 1415 specifically states that a due process hearing shall be conducted by the state educational agency or by local educational agency "as determined by State law or by the State educational agency." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1). Accordingly, California prescribes due process hearing rights, including "[t]he right to a fair and impartial administrative hearing at the state level, before a person knowledgeable in the laws governing special education and administrative hearings ...". Cal. Educ.Code § 56501(b)(4).
In compliance with the California Special Education Programs Act and the IDEA, the parties here appeared before the California Special Education Hearing Office, and administrative proceedings were conducted. Those proceedings were state proceedings. The existence of federal requirements does not convert state proceedings into federal proceedings. The only federal proceeding involved in this case is the present appeal to reverse the adverse decision on attorneys' fees.
IV.
The second, and primary issue presented in this appeal is whether a lawyer who prevails in a state administrative proceeding must be admitted to the California State Bar in order to collect attorney's fees under the IDEA.
The IDEA provides that, after a final decision of a state educational agency, the parents of a disabled child may, in the discretion of the court, be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees if they are the prevailing parties. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(4)(B). In California, no person may recover compensation for services as an attorney in California unless he or she was a member of the state bar at the time the services were rendered. Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon, & Frank v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.4th 119, 127, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 304, 949 P.2d 1, cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 119 S.Ct. 291, 142 L.Ed.2d226(1998). See also Longval v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd., 51 Cal.App.4th 792, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 463, 469 (Cal.Ct.App.1996) (); Arons v. New Jersey State Bd. of Educ., 842 F.2d 58 (3d Cir.1988) ().
Mr. Foreman was admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in February 1992, in compliance with Northern Dist. Cal. Rule 11.1(a) which did not require admission to the California State Bar. 2 At the time he represented the appellants, Mr. Foreman was on inactive status with the Pennsylvania State Bar, and had not been admitted to the bar of the State of California. The appellants argue that Mr. Foreman's admission to the local federal bar is sufficient because his representation of the appellants pertained to federal law. The appellees contend that any person practicing law in a state proceeding, and seeking attorney's fees, must be admitted to the California State Bar.
In the state of California, a person must be an active member of the California State Bar in order to practice law. Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 6125. Any person advertising or holding himself out as practicing or entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing law, who is not an active member of the state bar, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Cal. Bus. &...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Augustine v. Department of Veterans Affairs
...court proceedings. Cowen v. Calabrese, 230 Cal.App.2d 870, 872-73, 41 Cal.Rptr. 441 (Cal.Ct.App.1964). In Z.A. v. San Bruno Park School District, 165 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir.1999), the Ninth Circuit determined that section 6125 covered practice before state agencies even when the state agencies ......
-
Noyes v. Grossmont Union High School Dist.
...fees paid to Dr. Edwards. Defendant maintains Dr. Edwards' consultation services are not compensable under Z.A. v. San Bruno Park School District, 165 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir.1999). The Court disagrees because Z.A. is inapposite. In Z.A., an attorney who was not licensed in California sought att......
-
Winterrowd v. American General Annuity Ins. Co.
...Maj. op. at 820-21, 822. Rather, in my view, California substantive law applies. Mangold, 67 F.3d at 1478; Z.A. v. San Bruno Park Sch. Dist., 165 F.3d 1273, 1276 (9th Cir. 1995). As we said in Z.A., "[t]he Birbrower decision defined the practice of law in California within the meaning of Ca......
-
Shapiro ex rel. Shapiro v. Paradise Valley Unified
...orally and that he did so by approving of Walker's representation of the Shapiros. The district court relied on Z.A. v. San Bruno Park Sch. Dist., 165 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir.1999), in deciding that the Shapiros were not entitled to fees prior to February 2000. In Z.A., the issue was whether "a ......
-
Miracle On Eagle Street: New York's Temporary Practice Rule
...counsel may be paid for work performed assisting client's Hawaii counsel in Hawaii lawsuit); but see Z.A. v. San Bruno Park School Dist., 165 F.3d 1273 (1999) (denying fees to out-of-state lawyer who appeared in California administrative proceedings). The California legislature amended Sect......
-
Lawyer and law firm web pages as advertising: proposed guidelines.
...6125 a misdemeanor. Id. at 308; CAL. BUS. & PROFS. CODE [section] 6126 (West 1990). See also Z.A. v. San Bruno Park Sch. Dist., 165 F.3d 1273, 1275 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Birbrower and holding that a lawyer admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Northern Distr......
-
The interstate practice of law: are you crossing the line?
...in a state administrative proceeding by a lawyer residing but not admitted in California. Z.A.v. San Bruno Park Sch. Dist., 165 F.3d 1273, 1276 (9th Cir. 1998). In re Fla. Bar Advisory Op. on Nonlawyer Representation in Sec. Arbitration, 696 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 1997), held representation in se......