requires a reversal of the district court decision here which held that the parents in this case who were prevailing parties under the idea they were not entitled to fees based on a rate above ninety dollars per hour the idea a requires that shifting provision be based on prevailing market rates in the community despite that requirement the district court here did not base the attorney fiord on prevailing market rates instead because the parent's attorney had been appointed under the c criminal justice act which provides for compensation at ninety dollars per hour the district court held that the parents could not recover fees at a rate above that amount but it's well established that the rate an attorney agrees to accept does not govern the rate for its court cannot base its decision attorney's fees and what rate to provide those at on just on the amount that the attorney agreed to accept in undertaking the representation so in bloom the supremes court held that the fact that an attorney client has a pro bono representation that the attorney is charging nothing doesn't mean that the client should have a feeling of nothing or zero hour a reduced rate just because he was requires that fees under the statute be based on prevailing market rates in the community so the i d s the set specifies what the attorneys fees have to be based on and the amount that's actually charged in the specific case without the attorney agree is true except in the specific case isn't relevant to that determination of what the prevailing market rate is and this court has held that that's also true when an attorney charges are reduced rate for public interest purposes  it held that in same or cumberland mountains that reduced rate is not the prevailing market rate for a few shipping purposes and the client is not bound to that reduced rate just because that's what the client the attorney charged under those circumstances what governs the shifting under the idea of the fear word that's a word that under it is the provision under the idea that states that attorneys fees will be based on the prevailing market rates in the community and ninety dollars is not the market rate for the work that was done here to begin with that's not what the district court held here he did not talk about market rates at all and again the fact that mr bergeron agreed to represent the clients at that rate doesn't make it the market rate nor does the fact that there is a panel of attorneys willing to represent indigent clients at that rate that talks about market rates for the kind and quality of work done making clear that the market is other attorneys who are doing work o this kind of quality it's based on what the market is for this type of work for a few paying clients not based on the pool of other attorneys who are representing indigent clients at a reduced hourly rate and all of the parties in this cases that have in which the district of columbia has argued that that ninety dollars rate applies have found it to be the prevailing market rate that congress enacted a few shifting the provision in idea because it thought that that's what was necessary to ensure that students in need of special education services received competent attorneys to help them get the services that they need and when a parent prevails on behalf of her child in an id a proceeding that demonstrates that up until that point the educational system has failed that child and in c j cases that's particularly apparent on the parents enough that this superior court appointed attorney for the students to make sure that student can get the educational services that they need as only with the help of that attorney that the student is able to get those services and that's what happened here once the attorney was appointed and could guide the parents and represent the parents in the due process hearings the students in these cases were able to obtain very much needed educational services  process hearings on behalf of their children that the rate at which the parents should be compensated i'm sure if you should think statute is the prevailing market rate and not just a practical question if it's the parents who are compensated how do the attorneys in that with the money the parents will eventually will give the money to the attorneys but technically it's the parents who are the pla and so it does provide additional incentive above the fee shifting regime already in place because of the id but it's at far below market rate and so that on its own does not provide the same incentive as the idea and this is no different from say for cumberland mountains they're reduced rate may have supplied the incentive for ideas of trying to understand what you're saying i'm just trying to figure out how do i mean in other words that idea a process is an administrative process which seems pretty straightforward i mean you know if you can show that your child is diagnosed with disabilities and that there is a recommendation or an obsessive it kind of program for them and that that wasn't provided well this you know that's that's basically all you have to show on the other hand criminal  representation can be quite complex certainly very significant and ninety dollars is enough for their jobs but not for representing somebody in this administration so i'm just trying to figure out witnesses including multiple experts so it's not simple proceedings it actually looks a lot like litigation and to the extent that it is fairly simple that will be reflected in the number of hours spent on the case so the complexity is already taken into account in that sense but it's that idea it doesn't just say reasonable it defines what it means by reasonable under the circumstances and what the law states is that and  if you wore it it has to be based on prevailing market rates so it's not unreasonable in a vacuum where the district court has the discretion to come up with any rate that it thinks is reasonable the idea is specified what the rate has to be and the rate that it requires is the prevailing market rate in the community i mean that's not what was awarded here one of the theories though is that there's a tradeoff so you get the ninety dollars either way that the clients were still in titles to the shooting at the prevailing market rate once they won so this is the exact same situation yes the attorney receives the ninety dollars whether or not they lose whatever lose but that doesn't foreclo or dictate what the hourly rate should be for fee shifting purposes once the client prevails no matter what the attorney is receiving from their client whether or on behalf of their client whether or not that's a rate that is a market rate compensation and indeed he's prohibited from it except that any compensation beyond that provided for in the statute but with he hasn't been compensated understand well well the district was paying him pursuant to the statute because the cat static regardless of the source of the funds it is still paying him pursuant to the statute which fixes the rate of compensation well that's that's that's correct but i think that's simply the source of the fungus wouldn't distinguish necessarily oh um the work that was being done what what i think is more critical than the source of the budget of where the funds come from is what was the work that was done and the work that was done here was exactly what he was appointed on to the c j a to do and that is represent the paris in an idea in ministry of here authorized the damage to do and that having agreed to do that work at ninety dollars an hour and it wasn't on reasonable for the court to find that that constituted the reasonable rate under the circumstances of this authorizes them access to records that they otherwise would have to move the court for on the end so the attorney and i think it's fair to say that the client the plaintiffs as well except a disappointment to those terms and are seeking here almost six times the amount that the statute fixes the rate of compensation in the fees have to be rates prevailing in which the action or proceeding arose for the kind and quality of services furnished again no no no i am i agree when i start with the statute it doesn't really matter what kind of contractual arrange are preexisting arrangement might have been going on in a particular case well i think the court could certainly have taken into consideration and viewed the market very narrowly as that the prevailing rate for the kind of quality of services furnished if you look at the idea cases more generally yet more generally it's a subset of that market there are thirty five at least on the administrative order of thirty five i believe attorneys that are listed on the special education advocate panel on but i think there's also case law that does i mean even if it won't it says there may be circumstances where parent who would be free to retain for the special education services the attorney that the other child had already engaged for that purpose but one point before i conclude if i could  whether the plaintiffs have provided sufficient evidence or very support for the rate they claim under laffey whether in second even if they did whether that rate was reasonable whether the ninety dollar out on our rate was the prevailing rate whether the two hundred fifty dollars an hour that missed the version on the invoice the public schools was a reasonable rate whether laffey is the reasonable prevailing rate or some percentage of it all those are still issues including whether all of the hours were were reasonable say that the district court never addressed those issues in that having not passed on it even at the district court cared though it should be remanded for that for the district court to address in the first instance well those issues including whether or not i mean five hundred five dollars is the current rate or that then current rate wasn't the historical rate at the time the work was gone that's another issue but there were several issues that were raised cases beginning with bloom and including save our cumberland mountains that make clear that the amount accepted does not govern the rate the fact that he accepted a claim and under the terms of the c j a does who seek reduced fees if that were the case then in bloom it could have been argued that the market was just the the group of people who provided representations to the market rate was zero but this court rejected that argument and said instead that clients were entitled to fees at prevailing market rates that's also what the i d f specifically provides in its tax and that's what should have been awarded here thank you thank you