in Bowman were appointed by the court to make educational decisions for children who were wards of the district, so that the advocates effectively acted as “parents” under the IDEA. See id. Accordingly, even though they were licensed attorneys, they could not recover fees as educational advocates because they were not acting in an attorney-client capacity. See id. Pressley distinguishes from this scenario because she was employed by the Chris Anwah Law Firm, instead of being appointed by the court as an advocate. See Adewusi Deck ¶ 1. Furthermore, Pressley’s work on this matter was similar to that performed by the billing attorneys. See PL’s Mot., Ex. B. Yet because she is not a member of the D.C. Bar, Pressley is not entitled to attorney rates. See Dickens, 724 F.Supp.2d at 120 (<HOLDING>); Agapito v. District of Columbia, 477
holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees holding that the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion in considering the prevailing hourly rates in the southern district of new york when awarding attorneys fees holding that lexis fees are not taxable as costs but reserving ruling on whether such fees are recoverable as attorneys fees holding that attorneys not admitted to the dc bar are not entitled to reimbursement but awarding fees at paralegal rates as equitable relief holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal because it was filed before the final order awarding attorneys fees