David M. Grey, Esq. is a partner with the law firm of Grey & Grey in California. David is an experienced special education attorney who has successfully handled a lot of due process hearings and appeals in state and federal court. He has experience with a broad range of special education matters. A significant number of his cases involve people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing.
Prior to his special education practice, David focused on employment and real estate disputes, where he had many jury trials, arbitrations and administrative hearings. David has lectured and written extensively on a variety of legal topics. He was successful in convincing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse summary judgment against two of his clients in K.M. v. Tustin Unified School District, 725 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2013)(cert. denied). In K.M. the Ninth Circuit made clear that compliance with IDEA does not foreclose rights available under the Americans with Disabilities Act for school children with hearing loss. Other cases of note include: S.P. by and through Palacios v. East Whittier City School District, 735 Fed. Appx. 320 (9th Cir. 2018)(failure to correctly identify a child’s eligibility as deaf or hard-of-hearing under IDEA resulted in a denial of FAPE); B.H. v. Manhattan Beach Unified School District, 35 Cal. App. 5th 563 (2019)(Adoption Assistance Program funding for residential treatment center did not constitute “placement” by a non-educational public agency and did not excuse the school district from complying with IDEA) and Los Angeles Unified School District v. A.O. by and through Owens, 92 F.4th 1159 (9thCir. 2024)(Failure of IEP to state frequency and duration of services for a child with cochlear implants was not harmless error).
Prior to his special education practice, David focused on employment and real estate disputes, where he had many jury trials, arbitrations and administrative hearings. David has lectured and written extensively on a variety of legal topics. He was successful in convincing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse summary judgment against two of his clients in K.M. v. Tustin Unified School District, 725 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2013)(cert. denied). In K.M. the Ninth Circuit made clear that compliance with IDEA does not foreclose rights available under the Americans with Disabilities Act for school children with hearing loss. Other cases of note include: S.P. by and through Palacios v. East Whittier City School District, 735 Fed. Appx. 320 (9th Cir. 2018)(failure to correctly identify a child’s eligibility as deaf or hard-of-hearing under IDEA resulted in a denial of FAPE); B.H. v. Manhattan Beach Unified School District, 35 Cal. App. 5th 563 (2019)(Adoption Assistance Program funding for residential treatment center did not constitute “placement” by a non-educational public agency and did not excuse the school district from complying with IDEA) and Los Angeles Unified School District v. A.O. by and through Owens, 92 F.4th 1159 (9thCir. 2024)(Failure of IEP to state frequency and duration of services for a child with cochlear implants was not harmless error).