Hastings Law Journal Volume 33 | Issue 6 Article 2 1-1982 Handicapped Advocacy: Inherent Barriers and Partial Solutions in the Representation of Disabled Children David H. Neely Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation David H. Neely, Handicapped Advocacy: Inherent Barriers and Partial Solutions in the Representation of Disabled Children, 33 Hastings L.J. 1359 (1982). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol33/iss6/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact
[email protected]. Handicapped Advocacy: Inherent Barriers and Partial Solutions in the Representation of Disabled Children By DAVID H. NEELY* Children who are disabled' in their movement, speech, sensation, behavior, or thought processes have evoked both heroism and retreat in lawyers. From the landmark litigation that prohibited the pervasive * B.A., 1976, Wesleyan University; J.D., 1981, Yale Law School. The Author wishes to express his sincere thanks to Jane Gaughran, Professor Robert Burt, Professor Peter Schuck, Professor Owen Fiss, June Neely, and Barbara Neely, for their encouragement, advice, and inspiration. I. The terms "disabled" and "handicapped" are used interchangeably in this Article. Both have been used to refer to a wide range of conditions. This Article adopts the expan- sive definition of "handicapped children" found in the Education for All Handicapped Chil- dren Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C.