Print This Post Print This Post

May

7

NYT covers Cleveland Bar misstep re: special education advocacy [updated]


Update: Here’s a link to a letter from the Cleveland Bar Association, published in the Plain Dealer on Friday, 5/5/06.

This issue is complicated, there’s no question and I no longer am as up to date on the IDEA as I once was. This post from Friday has all the relevant links.

But, because of my education and experience, I know a few things about parents and special needs kids for whom those parents must work with the child’s school in order to be sure the child receives a free and appropriate education.

So, after I read this New York Times story from yesterday’s paper, I emailed Adam Liptak and shared some of those perspectives with him. I’d intended to copy the text before signing off but, having been whipped into a frenzy as I tried to collect my thoughts at 10pm on a Saturday night, well, I forgot.

However, I did email the Cleveland Bar Association’s president, Subodh Chandra (a member of the Bar’s board of trustees; the PD’s article Friday said that the board hadn’t approved the Bar’s suit against the parents for alleged unauthorized practice of law) and Ann Zimmerman of the Bar’s legal counsel department (and a law school classmate from Case). Here’s what I wrote:

Dear Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Chandra and Ms. Zimmerman,

I’m writing to you (Mr. Tompkins, as the Bar president, Mr. Chandra because he is a member of your board of trustees with whom I’m acquainted, and Ms. Zimmerman because she is legal counsel to the Bar and a classmate of mine from law school) to offer my perspective, based on the media’s coverage plus some first-person research I’ve done, on the allegations that Mr. Woods’ was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

First, let me say, I haven’t a clue as to who Mr. Woods is. I only learned of your complaint againt him when I read about it in the Plain Dealer on 4/27/06.

Second, I have a joint degree in law and social work from Case (’92), though I am currently registered as inactive as an attorney. I maintained my law and social work licenses through 2004 and worked at Bellefaire JCB from 1992-2000 in a variety of capacities (Ombudsman, Director of Risk Management and independent contractor). During that time, I handled several cases (as in, individuals receiving services from Bellefaire, as opposed to legal complaints) that involved education law, and even more specifically, IDEA, due process hearings and so on. I occasionally sat in on IEP conferences and also communicated with well-known education lawyers such as Margaret Cannon on education law questions.

Additionally, I am the parent of a profoundly gifted child and have been the member of a parent volunteer group for over seven years in the Orange School District that brings informational presentation to parents of gifted and/or special needs students.

Why am I writing you?

First, I want to say that I am pleased that you’ve dropped your case against Mr. Woods at this point in time. I don’t know what he’s done – I’m not suggesting that he hasn’t commited the unauthorized practice of law. But what I do know is that as a parent – and a legally trained individual who has spent many years in and around juvenile and domestic relations courts, I find it offensive for other attorneys to assert that parents, similarly situated to Mr. Woods, should not represent their children in court because they lack a law license.

First, in my experience, parents of such children often have an excellent understanding of the law. Assisting their children, and the schools, requires them to have that understanding. In fact, Ohio dependency, abuse and neglect laws could conceivably penalize a parent for not knowing that law and allowing a child who needs an IEP to languish. The fact the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court has an intervention program in place to identify which kids coming into the detention center have unmet or undetected learning disabilities and special education needs indicates that someone somewhere believes that a significant youth population isn’t served. And I have to believe that’s partially due to parents who fail to pursue the schools for those services.

Second, if there are so many lawyers lined up to offer their skills for these types of clients at cost-effective rates, they’re doing a lousy job of revealing themselves.

Why not just acknowledge that there is a dearth, that the parents are forced to learn the law if they want to get their children a proper education and that as a system, perhaps, we need to improve?

True, it’s a bit of an esoteric, regulation-laiden section of law, but sadly, more and more parents and more and more children seek the services. Yes, that puts a strain on the school districts. Believe me, I see the people moving into my district just to get the special needs services offered.

But to pit the schools against the parents in no way benefits the child. And to throw the lawyers in on top of that? How is that helpful?

Everyone can recognize resource strains. But this is Ohio. We’ve got some serious education problems as a big picture. Is the construction of even more hurdles for parents to jump in order to get their kids what they need helpful for anyone in the long run?

Finally, does the Bar truly mean to threaten the existence of entities such as H.O.P.E. Mentoring, an enterprise through which two parents with experience dealing with educating exceptional kids share their expertise? Although they may not enter courtrooms with the intention of representing clients, is what they do provide any different from what the Woods or Winkelmans are doing?

In sum, I support your dismissal of the action, but I pray that in the future, the Association will apply its resources to assist parents and children in need of special education law advice, especially if SCOTUS either leaves the 6th Court of Appeals decision in place, or decides on its own that parents cannot represent their children in such cases.

Thank you very much for your time and attention.

Very truly yours,

Jill Miller Zimon, JD, MSSA

Extremely coincidentally, while I was digressing from the email to Liptak and writing the email to the Bar, I received an email from Brian Woods, the parent whom the Bar alleges has commited the unauthorized practice of law. I do not know Mr. Woods, but I appreciated the information he forward to me and I’m seeking permission from him to share it.

Finally, I should add that I’m a bit uncomfortable with what H.O.P.E. Mentoring is doing. They charge for services that myself and many, many other parents with knowledge and experience volunteer for free through district-oriented groups. I applaud them for organizing and assisting, but I’m not totally copacetic with it. Crains Cleveland Business had an article about the enterprise in the 4/10-16/06 issue.

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:09 pm May 7th, 2006 in Politics 

Comments

Comments are closed.

"));