Reisman Carolla Gran LLPBig firm experience, small firm atmosphere
The attorneys at Reisman Carolla Gran LLP bring together more than sixty years of experience practicing law in many jurisdictions, including New Jersey and Pennsylvania. We pride ourselves in providing personal, high quality legal service with the cost-effectiveness a small firm has to offer. Reisman Carolla Gran specializes in the following areas:
Additional News and Publications
- Education Law
- Business Litigation
- Employment Law
- Appellate Litigation
Additional News and Publications
- On November 30-December 3, 2011, Judith Gran will present on the topic of "Inclusion in General Education as a Human Right: Beyond 'LRE,' " more...
- On November 16, 2011, Judith Gran will present for a program of the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education more...
- On November 6-8, 2011, Judith Gran will present a workshop entitled "Parents on the Road from Exclusion to Inclusion" more...
- In August, 2011, Amelia Carolla was named by her peers as a top attorney in the area of school law in SJ Magazine's poll. More...
- Between April and August, 2011, Catherine Reisman negotiated settlements providing public school funding of private school placements for six students, more....
Our Practice
Learn how Reisman Carolla Gran supports children through its Education Law Services.
Click here to learn more
News and Publications
Breaking News!!
- In an opinion approved for publication and released on September 15, 2011,
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has
explained that a school district may not deny a request for evaluations
and an Individual Education Plan (“IEP”) by a privately enrolled student
whom the district knows is disabled and domiciled in the district based
upon the grounds that the student is not enrolled in the public school.
The case involved a student with autism, M.D., living within the boundaries of the Moorestown School District. When his parents were unhappy with his progress within the district, they placed him at a small special education school at their own expense. After he had been there a year, they requested evaluations and an IEP from the district to see if he could return to district. The district claimed it did not have to offer the student a program at all, based on the fact that he was not enrolled. If his parents reenrolled him within the district he could have lost his place at his current school which accepted only 25-30 students. The district’s refusal continued for three years, and the parents privately funded their son’s placement, while suing for reimbursement as allowed under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA").
Notably, the Court used strong language to describe the position of the district – citing the requirement of enrollment as “gamesmanship,” “troubling,” and “indefensible.” The Court also said that the district’s requirement “that the student enroll in the public school before he would be considered for special education purposes served no purpose other than to circumscribe the IDEA’s obligations and create a barrier to the provision of a free and appropriate education.”
IDEA permits an award of attorneys’ fees to parents who are successful parties in litigation with districts. The Court found that M.D.’s parents obtained “significant relief and directed them to submit a fee application to the Court for approval.
A copy of the Court's decision and legal reasoning is attached.