3. Furthermore, she contends that her attorney’s sworn declaration contains sufficient proof of her counsel’s qualifications, and that she has satisfied her burden of establishing the reasonableness of her requested rates. Id. at 3-4. The party requesting attorney’s fees must submit evidence showing “the attorneys’ billing practices; the attorneys’ skill, experience, and reputation; and the prevailing market rates in the relevant community.” See Covington, 57 F.3d at 1107 (citing Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 896 n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984)). The prevailing market rate in the Laffey Matrix is “but one of the elements needed to establish the reasonableness of a billing rate sought in a fee application.” Jackson, 696 F.Supp.2d at 104; see also Covington, 57 F.3d at 1109 (<HOLDING>). The prevailing market rate “provide[s] merely
holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees holding that a billing rate in accordance with the laffey matrix was reasonable holding that the laffey matrix is the proper formula to determine the prevailing market rate for legal services rendered in connection with idea administrative proceedings holding that idea administrative proceedings which require expert testimony regarding whether a student has been denied a fape are sufficiently complex to warrant application of the laffey matrix holding that plaintiffs may provide evidence to supplement the laffey matrix including fees awarded to attorneys with similar qualifications in comparable cases