Documentation for &quot;appropriate, standard legal practice&quot; in rendering written decisions
<p>A question arose while reading <a href="http://www.nasdse.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=nTeBfmZi_Aw%3D&amp;tabid=36" rel="nofollow noreferrer">&quot;Impartial hearings under the IDEA: legal issues and answers.&quot;</a> IHO = Impartial Hearing Officer in a special education impartial hearing (a type of administrative hearing).</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Does the IDEA provide any standards for IHO competence?</p>
<p>The IDEA competency standards require IHOs to: [...]</p>
<p>(iv) possess the knowledge and ability to <strong>render and write decisions in accordance with appropriate, standard legal practice</strong>.</p>
<p>20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(A) (2008).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The IHO who wrote the decision I'm appealing did an incredibly slapdash job, with spelling errors, grammar errors, factual errors and incorrect references.  I would like a reference I can cite that shows that submitting a decision by &quot;appropriate, standard legal practice&quot; means, among other things, proofreading your document, or at least running your decision through a spell checker!  (I don't mean the documentation would say that specifically, of course.)</p>

<p>You are wasting your time trying to argue that spelling errors, grammar errors or incorrect references are examples of "<strong>in</strong>appropriate, standard legal practice" because they aren't. They are certainly examples of poor English and writing skills and possibly of a less than professional approach, however, that is <strong>not</strong> what is required.</p>

<p>You are on slightly better ground with an argument about incorrect facts except that it is quite likely that such errors will not be overturned by a court because providing the IMO has complied with the general requirements of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_administrative_law#Adjudication" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Adjudication</a> under administrative legal principles or the specific requirements of the statute <em>they are entitled to be wrong</em>. That is the adjudicator is expected to carry out their <em>decision making</em> role in accordance with the law and providing they have done so, it doesn't matter how many other people (including judges) think they made the wrong decision - it was their decision to make.</p>

<p>Further, even if you could demonstrate that the particular IHO was not competent to be an IMO, it does not follow that a decision made while they were an IMO is therefore void.</p>

<p>To have the decision reviewed you would need to demonstrate that it violated a general provision of administrative law, such as by failing to hold a hearing in accordance with the relevant law or failing to afford one of the parties <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice" rel="nofollow noreferrer">natural justice</a> or that the IMO had acted outside jurisdiction.</p>

reference-request