it is true that the touchstone of awarding attorneys’ fees in civil rights litigation is to attract competent counsel without providing a windfall, the D.C. Circuit has held explicitly that it "is a- fee award based on prevailing market rates ... [that] accomplishes Congress’ express goals.” See SOCM, 857 F.2d at 1521. Competent counsel are expected to be attracted by market rates and the SOCM three part test, which the plaintiff has met here, establishes that market rate. Similarly, the mere fact that attorneys practicing special education law in this District may at times be forced to accept seventy-five percent of Laffey rates instead of their actual market value does not change that market value. But see McAllister v. District of Columbia, No. 11-2173, 53 F.Supp.2d 55 (D.D.C.2014) (<HOLDING>). If anything, consistently applying
holding that plaintiffs may provide evidence to supplement the laffey matrix including fees awarded to attorneys with similar qualifications in comparable cases holding that because counsel was competent and had accepted seventyfive percent of laffey rates in the past the reduced laffey rates were adequate to attract competent counsel holding that absent other evidence of prevailing market rates the district judge may establish a reasonable rate based on his familiarity with the prevailing rates in the area holding that a carrier has a property interest in telecommunication rates and therefore is entitled to due process in the calculation of said rates holding that a billing rate in accordance with the laffey matrix was reasonable