The DOE’s contrary evidence came from data tracking the fees it had paid to counsel appearing in its administrative hearings. However, the Plaintiffs offered unrefuted evidence that these attorneys often supplement the fees paid them by the Board with money they charge their clients, so that the actual rate is substantially above the DOE’s figures. The DOE also challenges the District Court’s adjustment of the lodestar figure upwards to reflect Mr. Hampden’s considerable experience. It first argues, cursorily, that the statutory language of the IDEA prohibits such adjustments. We have repeatedly held that we apply the full Eckerhart procedure to IDEA fee awards. See, e.g., J.C., 278 F.3d at 124; see also Jason D.W. v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 158 F.3d 205, 208 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Moore v. District of Columbia, 907 F.2d 165,
holding that the legislative history of the idea indicates that this attorneys fees provision should be interpreted in accordance with hensley v eckerhart holding that buckhannon applies to the attorneys fees provision of the idea holding that hensley v eckerhart applies to a fee award for seeking fees recognizing that a school district must be a prevailing party in order to be entitled to attorneys fees under the idea holding that the invocation of the stayput provision of the idea does not entitle the party to attorneys fees