Grievance_Hearing_08102026

Grievance Hearing 08102026: Counsel recruitment: optimal current strategy**

The merged counsel document contains three partly conflicting research reports. The updated, more disciplined ranking—not the older or Gemini-derived tables—should control:

1. Mark Hathaway / Hathaway Parker
2. James Kosnett / Kosnett Education Law Firm
3. Mandy Leigh / Leigh Law Group
4. Shanon Trygstad / Trygstad, Schwab & Trygstad
5. David German / Vanaman German, as a reserve or specialist rather than presumptive lead.

That ranking is methodologically preferable because it separates:

• California lead-hearing and writ capability;
• limited-scope affordability;
• disability-law depth;
• specialist-only roles;
• unresolved availability, conflict, and recent higher-education experience.

Hathaway Parker currently represents that it handles university investigations, formal hearings, grievances, appeals, and writ-of-mandate litigation, including discrimination and retaliation complaints. ([Hathaway Parker][3]) Kosnett’s California Bar profile is active, as are Mandy Leigh’s and Shanon Trygstad’s. Leigh Law Group expressly describes higher-education administrative-hearing and disability-accommodation work. ([leighlawgroup.com][4])

These public statements do not establish availability, competence for your specific matter, affordability, or lack of conflicts. Confirm all four directly.

Contact the top three in parallel

Do not wait for sequential responses. Send conflict-check/intake messages to Hathaway, Kosnett, and Leigh immediately, with Trygstad and German as parallel reserves. The package correctly identifies a procedural order arriving before counsel retention as the most important immediate operational risk.

Request:

a fixed-fee or capped Phase I of approximately $2,000–$4,000 for report triage, grounds refinement, witness/exhibit architecture, procedural communications, record preservation, and continuation-remedy strategy, with hearing appearance priced separately.

That structure is superior to an open-ended full retainer before UCLA has supplied a Hearing Officer, hearing date, or procedural order.

Updated five-document initial packet

After conflict clearance and secure-transfer instructions, send:

1. A new two-page current-case and representation brief dated August 4 or 5.
2. Notice of Outcome.
3. Searchable redacted Investigation Report.
4. One combined PDF containing the July 31 hearing request, correction, UCLA receipt confirmation, and August 3 grievance follow-up.
5. One combined PDF containing the August 4 DGE notice and SR01184644 acknowledgment.

Do not initially send:

• the complete 153 MB archive;
• all raw medical documentation;
• every historical AI analysis;
• every duplicate evidence file;
• all 119 exhibit pages without explanation;
• family communications.

After the lawyer clears conflicts and confirms the engagement scope, send Exhibits A–R, the contradiction matrix, omitted-evidence matrix, witness plan, and DGE mitigation crosswalk. The package likewise recommends a minimal first packet and controlled second-stage production.

OUTREACH: Optimal counsel strategy for Thursday, August 6

Tomorrow’s objective is not merely to obtain consultations. It is to identify one California attorney who can assume unified responsibility for:

• immediate pre-hearing strategy and procedural communications;
• witness and exhibit preparation;
• the Procedure 230.2 hearing and cross-examination;
• post-hearing comments and any Chancellor appeal;
• DGE/CDP coordination; and
• preservation of any California administrative-writ or external disability-rights claim.

Contact three private lead-counsel candidates and the principal nonprofit/referral channels in parallel. Do not wait for one candidate to decline before contacting the next. Do not designate William as the hearing representative tomorrow.

Procedure 230.2 permits representation by an attorney and gives the parties rights to present evidence, call witnesses, and conduct cross-examination. If you retain an attorney and the University is the subject of the grievance, UCLA must also be represented by counsel. A representative may not simultaneously be a party or witness. (Admin Policies)

That makes a qualified attorney preferable here because the report resolved motive, causation, pretext, and retaliation despite interviewing only you—no respondent and no proposed witness—and declined to itemize the hundreds of pages it did not rely upon. CRO had previously assured you that the evidence, witnesses, and theories you submitted would be considered and reflected in the final report.

Tomorrow’s sequence

Disability Rights California’s individual intake line is currently available Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday from 9:00 a.m.–3:00 p.m.; its online form is temporarily unavailable. DRC may provide information, referrals, advocacy, or representation, but cannot represent everyone. (Disability Rights California)

Ranked private lead-counsel wave

1. Mark Hathaway — Hathaway Parker

Best overall single-lead candidate if the firm can offer an acceptable fee structure. Its public practice expressly includes campus grievances, investigations, hearings, and later litigation, and it reports representation in several hundred campus matters, including UCLA matters. Mark Hathaway’s California license is active. (Hathaway Parker)

Contact: info@hathawayparker.com · 213-529-9000 Hours: 8:30 a.m.–5:00 p.m. The firm specifically instructs prospective clients not to send confidential details before conflicts are cleared. (Hathaway Parker)

Email 1

Subject: TIME-SENSITIVE CONFLICT CHECK — UCLA Procedure 230.2 disability hearing — Case 2025-07-00230-DPO

Dear Hathaway Parker Team,

I am seeking a California attorney to serve as counsel in a pending UCLA Procedure 230.2 disability-discrimination and retaliation hearing. I am contacting you because Hathaway Parker’s campus-grievance, hearing, evidentiary, and post-hearing litigation experience appears particularly suited for the matter.

For the purpose of conflict check, the matter involves the Regents of the University of California/UCLA and principally concerns Dr. Carrie Bearden and Dr. Felix Schweizer. The underlying Investigation Report also names Dr. James Bisley, although I am not seeking review of the investigation’s finding pertaining to him.

The Civil Rights Office issued its Investigation Report on July 29, 2026. I timely elected a formal hearing on July 31 and receipt has been confirmed. The hearing is expressly limited to Findings 2–5 concerning Drs. Bearden and Schweizer. No Hearing Officer, hearing date, or pre-hearing submission schedule has yet been provided.

The record presents substantial disputed issues concerning disability discrimination, retaliation, causation, pretext, omitted evidence and witnesses, the accommodation-process chronology, and the academic-disqualification process. My immediate objective is preservation or restoration of graduate-student status through reinstatement, remand, structured continuation, program transfer, mentor assignment, individualized accommodation, neutral review, or an alternative durable academic-access remedy.

I am seeking an attorney who can, where possible, provide counsel regarding:

1. immediate record and scope preservation;

2. hearing-ground, witness, and exhibit preparation;

3. representation and cross-examination at the hearing;

4. post-hearing comments and any internal appeal; and

5. coordination with my pending DGE academic disqualification appeal

If pro bono representation is unavailable, I would appreciate consideration of a reduced-fee, sliding-scale, or capped Phase I engagement of approximately $2,000–$4,000, with hearing appearance priced separately. I am also open to a reasonable hybrid arrangement if full representation cannot be accepted immediately.

Please let me know whether your firm can clear conflicts, whether a member of Hathaway Parker’s team can personally lead this matter, and the earliest available consultation. I will provide a concise five-document intake packet upon receipt of conflict clearance and secure-transfer instructions.

I am presently traveling on the east coast, however I remain fully available by phone or Zoom from this location through August 11, 8 AM to 8 PM PDT.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Cooper M. Beaman

(415) 317-6417

cooperbeaman@gmail.com

2. James Victor Kosnett — Kosnett Education Law Firm

Best immediate consultation and cost-structure candidate. His official education-law materials describe representation from elementary through postgraduate proceedings, including school hearings and court review. The firm advertises a free consultation and reports prior UCLA hearing representation. His California license is active. (Education Lawyer)

Submit through: Kosnett’s official contact form Email listed on the State Bar profile: jameskosnett@kosnettlaw.com Call: 310-445-5900

Email/form submission 2

Subject: Urgent UCLA graduate-student disability hearing — conflict check and free consultation

Dear Kosnett Law Team,

I am seeking a California attorney to serve as single lead counsel in a pending UCLA Procedure 230.2 disability-discrimination and retaliation hearing. Kosnett Law’s experience representing postgraduate students in university hearings and appeals, including UCLA proceedings, appears suited for this matter.

For the purpose of conflict check, the matter involves the Regents of the University of California/UCLA and principally concerns Dr. Carrie Bearden and Dr. Felix Schweizer. The underlying Investigation Report also names Dr. James Bisley, although I am not seeking hearing review of the finding concerning him.

The Civil Rights Office issued an adverse Investigation Report on July 29, 2026. I timely requested a formal hearing on July 31 and receipt has been confirmed. The hearing is limited to Findings 2–5 concerning Drs. Bearden and Schweizer. The hearing date and pre-hearing schedule have not been issued.

The record includes substantial disputed questions involving disability discrimination, retaliation, pretext, omitted material evidence and witnesses, accommodation-process timing, and academic disqualification. I am seeking prompt assistance with hearing scope, record preservation, witness and exhibit preparation, hearing representation and cross-examination, post-hearing review, and coordination with a separate pending DGE appeal.

My first preference is. If pro bono representation is unavailable, I am seeking a reduced-fee or capped Phase I engagement of approximately $2,000–$4,000, with a separate hearing-appearance proposal. I am also open to limited-scope representation if it can be structured to preserve a single coherent hearing strategy.

Please advise whether conflicts can be cleared, who would personally handle the matter, and the earliest time available for a consultation. I can provide a concise five-document packet after conflict clearance and secure-transfer instructions.

I am presently traveling on the east coast, however I remain fully available by phone or Zoom from this location through August 11, 8 AM to 8 PM PDT.

Thank you,

Cooper M. Beaman

(415) 317-6417

3. Mandy Leigh — Leigh Law Group

Best disability-law and reduced-fee candidate. Leigh Law Group expressly handles higher-education administrative hearings, academic expulsion or suspension, disability accommodations, ADA/Section 504, and retaliation. The firm publicly states that it sometimes uses sliding-scale or reduced attorney fees. Mandy Leigh’s California license is active. (Leigh Law Group)

Email: leighlaw@leighlawgroup.com Call: 1-800-424-5297

Email 3

Subject: TIME-SENSITIVE — UCLA higher-education disability hearing — pro bono/reduced-fee representation inquiry

Dear Leigh Law team,

I am seeking a California attorney to serve as counsel in a pending UCLA Procedure 230.2 disability-discrimination and retaliation hearing. Leigh Law Group’s combined higher-education, ADA/Section 504, retaliation, and administrative-hearing practice appears particularly suited for this matter.

For conflict check purposes, the matter involves the Regents of the University of California/UCLA and principally concerns Dr. Carrie Bearden and Dr. Felix Schweizer. The underlying Investigation Report also names Dr. James Bisley, although I am not seeking hearing review of the finding concerning him.

The Civil Rights Office issued an adverse Investigation Report on July 29, 2026. I timely requested a formal hearing on July 31, receipt has been confirmed, and the hearing is limited to Findings 2–5 concerning Drs. Bearden and Schweizer. A Hearing Officer, hearing date, and pre-hearing schedule have not been provided.

The record presents substantial disputed issues concerning disability-linked academic treatment, retaliation, interactive-process chronology, causation and pretext, omitted material evidence and witnesses, and the resulting academic-disqualification process. The principal objective is preservation or restoration of graduate-student status through reinstatement, remand, structured continuation, program transfer, mentor assignment, individualized accommodation, neutral review, or comparable academic-access relief.

I am seeking an attorney who can oversee the pre-hearing strategy, witnesses and exhibits, hearing representation and cross-examination, post-hearing submissions, and coordination with my pending DGE academic-disqualification appeal.

If pro bono representation is unavailable, I respectfully request consideration of the sliding-scale or reduced-fee arrangements described on your website, ideally through a capped Phase I of approximately $2,000–$4,000 with hearing appearance priced separately.

Please advise whether your firm can clear conflicts, who would personally lead the matter, and the earliest available consultation. I can send a concise five-document packet upon conflict clearance confirmation and receipt of secure-transfer instructions.

I am presently traveling on the east coast, however I remain fully available by phone or Zoom from this location through August 11, 8 AM to 8 PM PDT.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Cooper M. Beaman

(415) 317-6417

Free and pro bono lane

Disability Rights California — call first

Telephone: 1-800-776-5746 Call at 9:00 a.m. sharp. DRC expressly considers merits, self-advocacy capacity, other available resources, organizational priorities, and available resources when deciding whether to represent someone. (Disability Rights California)

Intake script

My name is Cooper Beaman. I am a UCLA neuroscience Ph.D. student with a documented disability. I have timely elected a formal UCLA disability-discrimination and retaliation hearing under Procedure 230.2 after receiving an adverse Civil Rights Office report. The hearing concerns academic disqualification, disability-linked treatment in a required research-rotation and faculty-mentor-placement process, accommodation requests, retaliation, and significant omitted evidence and witnesses. No hearing date has yet been issued, but the procedure requires completion within a limited period. I am seeking pro bono representation by one California attorney for preparation, hearing representation, cross-examination, and record preservation. If direct representation is unavailable, I am requesting an urgent attorney referral, co-counsel possibility, or limited legal assistance. May I complete an intake today?

Do not spend the first five minutes narrating the whole case. Answer the intake questions and emphasize:

• active UCLA hearing;
• graduate-level disability discrimination and retaliation;
• status-threatening academic disqualification;
• near-term procedural deadlines;
• requested direct representation or attorney referral;
• broader concern about programmatic accommodations in unstructured graduate research and mentor-placement requirements.

DREDF and Disability Rights Advocates

DREDF conducts disability civil-rights advocacy, litigation, representation, and co-counseling, but does not promise individual internal-hearing representation. DRA expressly prioritizes widespread systemic disability-rights violations and ordinarily does not accept isolated individual cases; it is currently collecting higher-education accommodation experiences. (DREDF)

DREDF: info@dredf.org · 510-644-2555 DRA higher-education contact: higher-ed@dralegal.org

Nonprofit email

Subject: Urgent higher-education disability hearing — representation, co-counsel, or referral request

Dear Disability Rights Legal Team,

I am a UCLA neuroscience Ph.D. student seeking urgent pro bono representation, co-counsel assistance, or a qualified referral concerning a pending disability-discrimination and retaliation hearing.

UCLA issued an adverse Civil Rights Office Investigation Report on July 29, 2026. I timely elected a formal hearing under UCLA Procedure 230.2 on July 31, limited to Findings 2–5 concerning disability-linked academic treatment, retaliation, harassment, and the resulting academic-disqualification process. No hearing date has yet been issued.

The matter raises both individual and potentially broader structural questions concerning disability accommodations in unstructured graduate research rotations and faculty-mentor-placement requirements, categorical treatment of executive-functioning needs, retaliation during a developing accommodation process, and the exclusion of potentially material witnesses and evidence.

I am seeking one California attorney who can provide or coordinate pre-hearing preparation, witness and exhibit development, hearing representation and cross-examination, and preservation of the administrative record. My financial resources are limited, and pro bono representation is strongly preferred.

I can provide a concise five-document packet after conflicts and intake eligibility are reviewed. If direct representation is outside your current docket, I would be grateful for a referral to an attorney or organization with higher-education ADA/Section 504 and administrative-hearing experience.

Thank you,

Cooper M. Beaman [telephone] [email]

For DRA, retain the systemic paragraph. For DREDF, the same version is appropriate.

Certified referral calls

The State Bar certifies lawyer-referral services whose referred attorneys must be in good standing and insured; consultations are reduced-fee or free, and some services can identify reduced-rate counsel. (The State Bar of California)

SF–Marin Disability Rights LRIS

Call: 415-989-1616 Hours: 8:30 a.m.–5:30 p.m. Its disability-rights panel offers a half-hour consultation for a nominal $35 fee with a prescreened attorney. (San Francisco Bar Association)

LACBA SmartLaw

Call: 213-243-1525 or 866-762-7852 It is listed as a State Bar-certified Los Angeles referral service. (The State Bar of California)

Referral request script

I need a California attorney representing students—not universities—for a pending UCLA graduate-student disability-discrimination and retaliation hearing. The required experience is higher-education administrative hearings, ADA/Section 504, witness examination, academic dismissal, and administrative-record or writ preservation. I strongly prefer pro bono or reduced-fee counsel and need an attorney who could personally conduct the hearing, not merely advise behind the scenes.

Materials to prepare tomorrow

Do not attach anything to the initial conflict-check messages

Hathaway expressly warns prospective clients not to transmit confidential information before conflict clearance. The same restrained approach should be used with every candidate. (Hathaway Parker)

After clearance, send only this five-document packet:

1. 01_CONFIDENTIAL_Attorney_Intake_Overview_2026-08-06.pdf Two pages maximum.

2. 02_CRO_Notice_of_Outcome_2026-07-29.pdf

3. 03_Redacted_Investigation_Report_2026-07-29.pdf

4. 04_Hearing_Election_and_Post-Report_Correspondence_2026-07-31_to_2026-08-03.pdf Combine:

• July 31 hearing request;
• administrative correction;
• UCLA receipt confirmation;
• August 3 scope, record, scheduling, and extension request.
  5. 05_Core_Omitted_Evidence_and_Witness_Matrix_2026-08-06.pdf Five to eight pages, not the full evidentiary archive.

Do not initially send:

• the 108 MB or 153 MB ZIP archives;
• all 119 pages of Exhibits A–R;
• comprehensive medical records;
• prior AI-generated legal analyses;
• duplicate files;
• family correspondence;
• every historical grievance document.

Offer those materials through a secure portal after counsel identifies what is needed.

Exact two-page intake overview

CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY INTAKE OVERVIEW

UCLA CRO Case 2025-07-00230-DPO

Client and posture

Cooper M. Beaman is a UCLA neuroscience Ph.D. student challenging disability-related treatment and the resulting academic-disqualification process. UCLA’s Civil Rights Office transmitted an adverse Investigation Report on July 29, 2026. Cooper timely requested a formal hearing under UCLA Procedure 230.2 on July 31, 2026. UCLA has confirmed receipt.

The hearing election is expressly limited to Findings 2–5 concerning Dr. Carrie Bearden and Dr. Felix Schweizer. Finding 1 concerning Dr. James Bisley is not submitted for hearing review, and no finding or remedy is sought against him. Evidence concerning NEURO M203 may be used only where relevant to Findings 2–5, causation, harm, mitigation, or the stated disqualification rationale.

No Hearing Officer, hearing date, or pre-hearing submission schedule has yet been supplied.

Principal record concerns

1. The Investigator interviewed Cooper over four sessions but interviewed no Respondent and no identified witness.
2. The Report nevertheless resolved disputed motive, causation, legitimate-reason, pretext, comparator, and retaliation issues.
3. The Report states that hundreds of pages of additional documents were not relied upon but does not identify them document by document.
4. Before the Report, CRO stated that the submitted evidence, witnesses, and theories would be considered and reflected in the final report.
5. The Report substantively rejects a retaliation theory but contains no separately labeled formal retaliation finding.
6. The record contains potentially material direct witnesses and noncumulative evidence concerning fifth-rotation performance, funding and laboratory capacity, disability notice, the accommodation-process chronology, the timing and formation of academic-disqualification activity, comparators, shifting rationales, and available continuation alternatives.

Immediate legal work

• Confirm and preserve the hearing’s discrimination and retaliation scope.
• Obtain the procedural order, record index, disclosure deadlines, and rulings governing omitted evidence.
• Develop a focused Findings 2–5 witness and exhibit architecture.
• Prepare direct and cross-examination.
• Preserve objections, authentication issues, excluded evidence, and offers of proof.
• Coordinate the separate DGE nondiscrimination-based academic-disqualification appeal.
• Develop continuation-focused remedies and preserve any later writ or external civil-rights issues.

Primary objective

Preserve or restore academic status through reinstatement, remand, structured continuation, neutral academic review, individualized accommodation, facilitated mentor or program transfer, or another durable academic-access remedy.

Representation requested

One California lead attorney for pre-hearing preparation, the hearing, post-hearing comments and appeal, DGE coordination, negotiation, and administrative-record preservation.

Pro bono representation is preferred. If unavailable, Cooper seeks a reduced-fee, sliding-scale, or capped Phase I engagement of approximately $2,000–$4,000, with hearing appearance separately priced.

Core omitted-evidence matrix

Use one row per proposition, not one row per file:

The original witness schedule already identified direct institutional witnesses concerning accommodation timing, programmatic options, CAE determinations, executive-function resources, mentor-market barriers, and comparator treatment.

How to select the single attorney

Do not choose merely based on who responds first. Select the first candidate who affirmatively satisfies all of these:

1. Active California license and no conflict.
2. Will personally own the matter, rather than delegate intake to someone with no higher-education hearing experience.
3. Can appear and conduct direct and cross-examination.
4. Understands that the hearing is limited to Findings 2–5 but that omitted evidence may be offered for notice, timing, causation, pretext, comparator treatment, harm, and remedy.
5. Can coordinate the CRO hearing with the distinct DGE/CDP process.
6. Will preserve exclusions, objections, authentication, and offers of proof for potential administrative review.
7. Offers a written, comprehensible fee structure.
8. Does not promise guaranteed reinstatement or claim the case is certain to succeed.

Ask each attorney these questions

1. Would you personally serve as my representative and conduct the hearing?
2. Have you handled a California public-university disability or academic-disqualification hearing?
3. Can you own both the CRO hearing and DGE/CDP coordination?
4. How would you preserve evidence excluded by the Hearing Officer?
5. What work must be completed during the next seven days?
6. Can you accept the case pro bono or through a reduced, sliding, capped, or limited-scope arrangement?
7. What is included in Phase I, and what would the hearing itself cost?
8. Are there any facts that would cause you to decline before reviewing the complete record?

Recommended acceptance order

• Retain Hathaway if the firm clears conflicts, identifies a capable lead, accepts an affordable structure, and demonstrates sufficient disability-law command.
• Retain Kosnett if he personally commits to the matter and presents the strongest concrete hearing plan at a sustainable cost.
• Retain Leigh if she demonstrates adequate graduate-level hearing and California record-preservation experience; her disability-law and reduced-fee orientation may make her the strongest overall value.
• Continue DRC and nonprofit intake until a written engagement agreement is signed. A consultation or encouraging response is not representation.

William’s role

Tomorrow, William should remain a support person and document/logistics assistant, not the designated representative.

He can:

• maintain the outreach tracker;
• organize the intake packet;
• attend consultations with your permission;
• help locate source records;
• maintain the chronology and contact log; and
• assist you emotionally and practically.

He should not:

• contact proposed witnesses;
• independently argue the case to UCLA;
• be designated as representative while he may be a witness;
• receive confidential counsel communications unless counsel agrees; or
• replace a California attorney merely because the first outreach wave does not immediately succeed.

Procedure 230.2 prohibits a representative who is otherwise a party or witness. (Admin Policies)

Twenty-four-hour follow-up

Send this Friday morning only to candidates who have not responded:

Subject: Follow-up — UCLA Procedure 230.2 disability hearing conflict check

Dear [Name],

I am following up on my August 6 conflict-check and representation inquiry concerning UCLA CRO Case 2025-07-00230-DPO. No hearing date has yet been issued, but prompt counsel involvement is important for scope preservation, witness and exhibit preparation, and anticipated pre-hearing deadlines.

Please let me know whether your office can clear conflicts and schedule a consultation, including whether pro bono, reduced-fee, capped, or limited-scope representation may be available.

I remain available by telephone or Zoom today.

Thank you,

Cooper M. Beaman

Until a retainer is signed, continue meeting every UCLA deadline yourself and do not represent that counsel has been retained. A reasonable extension may be requested for good cause, but no extension should be assumed unless granted in writing. (Admin Policies)

KOSNETT

Kosnett Reply: Beaman re UCLA Re: Urgent UCLA graduate-student disability hearing — conflict check and free consultation

James Kosnett jameskosnett@kosnettlaw.com
To: cooper beaman cooperbeaman@gmail.com
Cc: Admin admin@kosnettlaw.com
Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2026 at 12:32 PM PDT

Dear Mr. Beaman,

My firm, with myself, the senior attorney with 5 decades of experience successfully representing UCLA students, as primary counsel, is ideally suited to your representation. No one does more work at UCLA. I am very well known by the administration and counsel and enjoy an outstanding professional relationship with many administrators and campus attorneys, including the Vice Chancellor Monroe Garden, the Dean of Students Jasmine Rush, the head of the Office of Student Conduct Dean Benito Nieves, and others.

I would offer you a Phase I reduced flat fee of $4000, typically covering an interview with you, review of background material, advice, and possible settlement. Should the matter proceed to hearing, I would charge you a reduced flat fee of $2000 per hearing session.

There are no conflicts whatsoever. I am available for a free consultation from now, throughout various times this weekend, and on Monday. The best way to schedule is to call the office during business hours today and speak directly to Santiago, who will schedule you. But if you miss him during work hours today, email me and I will get back to you this evening or on the weekend.

Cordially,

James Victor Kosnett

KOSNETT LAW FIRM
11400 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (310) 445-5900
Fax: (424) 238-2257
http://www.educationlawyer.org
www.professionallicensedefense.org
www.kosnettlawfirm.com

Kosnett’s reply is sufficiently positive that the optimal move is to reply tonight on the existing thread, request the Saturday consultation, and use the call primarily to determine whether to retain him as single lead counsel—not to spend the hour narrating the entire evidentiary record.

His response materially advances the posture: he expressly says there are “no conflicts whatsoever,” proposes himself as primary counsel, offers a $4,000 reduced flat-fee Phase I plus $2,000 per hearing session, and specifically invites you to email him tonight/weekend if office scheduling was missed. His public education-law materials independently support substantial experience representing students through postgraduate-level hearings and court proceedings and advertise free consultations. (Education Lawyer)

The fee proposal is promising but materially underspecified. “Review of background material, advice, and possible settlement” does not yet tell you whether the $4,000 includes drafting your hearing grounds, reviewing the omitted-evidence record, preparing witnesses/exhibits, corresponding with UCLA, handling DGE, preparing examination outlines, or pre-hearing appearances. Those questions should be resolved before signing.

Send this tonight

Use Reply All so Kosnett and admin@kosnettlaw.com remain on the thread. Preserve the existing subject.

Dear Mr. Kosnett,

Thank you very much for your prompt and detailed response, conflict clearance, and openness to serving as primary counsel.

I would be grateful for a free consultation tomorrow, Saturday, August 8, if your schedule permits. I am available any time between 9:00 and 11:00 AM PDT / 12:00 and 2:00 PM EDT. If this window is unavailable, I can make myself available at an alternative time this weekend. A telephone consultation at (415) 317-6417 is preferred; however, I can also meet via Zoom.

I am interested in the proposed reduced-fee structure and would like to discuss the scope of Phase I, hearing representation, and the likely overall engagement.

As of this reply, UCLA has not yet responded to my August 3 request for hearing scope confirmation, the assignment of the Grievance Coordinator and Hearing Officer, the hearing schedule and pre-hearing deadlines, record clarification, and the disposition of my written good-cause extension request. The Hearing Officer, hearing date, and pre-hearing schedule have not been provided.

Please find the attached five-document case packet for your review. If acceptable, I would like to use our consultation to obtain your assessment of potential settlement feasibility, preferred hearing strategy, the immediate procedural actions for next week, the appropriate relationship between my pending Procedure 230.2 hearing and Division of Graduate Education nondiscrimination-based academic-disqualification appeal, and the scope and economics of a potential engagement.

Thank you again. I look forward to speaking in greater detail.

Cordially,

Cooper M. Beaman
(415) 317-6417
cooperbeaman@gmail.com

Do not attach the full packet to this reply yet

Your original message expressly told Kosnett you would provide the packet “after conflict clearance and secure-transfer instructions.” He has now cleared conflicts, but he has not yet specified his preferred transfer method.

Accordingly:

• Tonight: send the scheduling email above with no attachment.
• If he replies that ordinary email is acceptable, send the complete packet immediately.
• If he provides a portal/link, upload all five there.
• If he schedules the consultation without answering the transfer question, do not delay the consultation. Keep all five documents open and offer to transmit them during the call.

Optimal one-hour consultation strategy

The central principle is: do not use the consultation to persuade Kosnett that every allegation is correct. Use it to discover how he would win, preserve, settle, or narrow the case.

UCLA’s procedure gives you the right to present evidence and witnesses and cross-examine opposing witnesses; the Hearing Officer determines admissibility, and if you are represented by an attorney while the University is the subject of the grievance, UCLA must itself be represented by counsel. (Admin Policies) That makes counsel’s hearing architecture—not merely general advice—especially important.

Before the call

Have these open, in this order:

1. 01_CONFIDENTIAL_Attorney_Intake_Overview
2. Notice of Outcome
3. Investigation Report
4. Hearing-election correspondence
5. Omitted-evidence/witness matrix
6. Your DGE correspondence, available only if he asks

Also have a blank note titled:

KOSNETT CONSULT — AUG 8 2026

1. His merits assessment
2. Immediate UCLA action
3. Hearing scope
4. Witness/exhibit strategy
5. Settlement/remedy
6. DGE
7. External preservation
8. Phase I scope
9. Hearing cost
10. Engagement decision/next steps

Do not record the consultation without his explicit consent.

Minute 0–3: establish the objective

Open with this:

Thank you for making time. I would like to use the hour primarily to determine the strongest legal and procedural strategy and whether it makes sense for you to serve as single lead counsel. I do not want to spend the consultation retelling every fact. I can give you a two-minute procedural overview, then I would particularly value your independent assessment of what is strongest, what should be narrowed or dropped, what needs to happen immediately, and what your proposed engagement would cover.

That signals organization and invites him to exercise independent judgment.

Minute 3–7: give the two-minute case summary

Use essentially this:

I am a UCLA neuroscience Ph.D. student who was academically disqualified after difficulties securing a permanent faculty mentor through the program’s rotation process.

I pursued a nondiscrimination grievance, and the Civil Rights Office issued an adverse Investigation Report on July 29. I timely elected a Procedure 230.2 hearing on July 31 limited to Findings 2 through 5 concerning Carrie Bearden and Felix Schweizer; I am not seeking review or a remedy against James Bisley. UCLA confirmed receipt August 3.

The investigation interviewed me four times but interviewed none of the three respondents and none of the additional identified witnesses. The report also says that hundreds of pages of additional documents were not relied upon and were not individually itemized.

There are substantial disputed issues involving Bearden’s fifth-rotation standards and assessment, mentor/funding constraints, accommodation requests, the chronology and reasons for disqualification, comparator/program-flexibility evidence, and retaliation. The report actually analyzes retaliation but rejects the theory as speculative.

Separately, my nondiscrimination-based DGE academic-disqualification appeal remains important because UCLA’s Graduate Standards treat that inquiry as whether Investigation Materials reflect substantive mitigating circumstances affecting academic performance. (UCLA Graduate Programs)

My primary goal is continued or restored graduate status—not damages—through the strongest realistic combination of reinstatement, remand, structured continuation, individualized accommodation, neutral review, or a viable mentor/program transition.

No Hearing Officer, hearing date, or pre-hearing schedule has yet been supplied, and UCLA has not answered my August 3 procedural and record-clarification request.

Then stop.

Minute 7–20: get his independent merits assessment

This is the most valuable part of the free consultation.

Ask, in this exact order:

1.

Based on what I have summarized and what you know of UCLA Procedure 230.2, what do you presently see as the two or three strongest theories or leverage points?

Do not suggest the answer first.

2.

What aspects of the case as I have framed it would you narrow, avoid, or stop emphasizing because they could distract from the strongest hearing case?

This question is unusually important because your record is huge. A capable attorney should be able to tell you what not to litigate.

3.

How would you frame Finding 3 given that the report substantively analyzes retaliation but the formal findings are phrased as discrimination based on disability and/or a request for accommodation? Would you seek an express scope ruling that retaliation is before the Hearing Officer?

The current Procedure expressly describes the hearing inquiry as whether Disability Discrimination and/or Retaliation occurred. (Admin Policies)

4.

How much legal significance would you assign to the investigator making disputed motive, causation, comparator, and legitimate-reason determinations without interviewing Bearden, Schweizer, or the other proposed witnesses?

Do not tell him it necessarily invalidates the report. You want his assessment.

5.

How would you use the hundreds of pages the investigator says were considered but not relied upon? Would you try to litigate investigative inadequacy itself, or primarily use the hearing to put the strongest omitted evidence affirmatively into the new record?

The latter has strong procedural logic because the Hearing Officer’s authority is expressly tied to evidence presented at the hearing. (Admin Policies)

Minute 20–32: immediate procedural action

This section should produce an actionable Monday plan.

Ask:

If I retain you, should you enter an appearance immediately and take over communication with UCLA?

Then:

Given that UCLA has not answered the August 3 request, would you send a short counsel follow-up Monday, wait for the Grievance Coordinator, or take some other step?

Then specifically ask whether he would seek early rulings/clarification on:

1. retaliation within Finding 3;
2. admission of previously submitted but nonrelied-upon evidence;
3. nonrespondent evidence for limited purposes such as notice, chronology, causation, pretext, comparator treatment, harm, and remedy;
4. witness participation;
5. the exact hearing record;
6. less-redacted/unredacted materials;
7. authentication/stipulations;
8. offers of proof if evidence is excluded;
9. the good-cause extension request.

Your August 3 correspondence already requests much of this and expressly says no deadline change is assumed absent written approval.

Ask one especially important question:

What should I not send or do myself from this point forward while counsel retention is being resolved?

Minute 32–40: witnesses, exhibits, and record construction

Give him the matrix, not the entire archive.

Ask:

Would you organize the case around proposition-level exhibits and a small set of direct witnesses, rather than attempt to place the full investigative archive into evidence?

Then ask him to rank these witness categories:

1. Bearden;
2. Schweizer;
3. Jenny Lee / program administrative decisionmaking;
4. committee or records custodian;
5. Dylan Hughes for direct fifth-rotation project evidence;
6. Jaine Park;
7. Betteena Marco;
8. Patty Violi;
9. Victoria Turnbill as potential comparator/program-practice witness;
10. investigator Anwandter, if methodology becomes relevant.

The existing witness proffers contain direct proposed testimony concerning mentor-placement conditions, six-rotation experience, fifth-rotation work, accommodation chronology, and CAE decisions.

Ask:

Which witnesses would you actually call, and which would you avoid as cumulative or distracting?

Then:

What evidence do you want preserved through a formal offer of proof if the Hearing Officer excludes it?

This matters because the Hearing Officer determines admissibility and may exclude irrelevant or repetitive evidence. (Admin Policies)

Minute 40–47: settlement and remedy

Kosnett specifically volunteered “possible settlement” as a Phase I component. His claimed long UCLA relationships may therefore be most valuable here—not merely at the hearing.

Ask:

Based on your UCLA experience, would you recommend exploring settlement before the hearing, and if so, at what point?

Then:

What continuation remedy would you regard as most realistic and negotiable here?

Give the hierarchy only after he answers:

1. reinstatement;
2. structured continuation/probation;
3. neutral academic reconsideration;
4. program/home-area transfer;
5. facilitated mentor placement;
6. individualized programmatic accommodation;
7. a combination thereof.

Ask:

When you say Phase I includes “possible settlement,” does that include developing a written proposal, contacting UCLA counsel or decisionmakers, negotiating terms, and reviewing any settlement agreement?

And:

If UCLA requires a release, confidentiality term, waiver, or other broad settlement language, would review and negotiation of those provisions be within your representation?

Do not negotiate settlement with UCLA yourself once counsel is being seriously considered.

Minute 47–52: DGE and external preservation

Ask:

Can you personally coordinate the CRO hearing with the separate DGE nondiscrimination-based academic-disqualification appeal, or would you treat DGE as a separate engagement?

The current DGE Standards explicitly say DGE holds the appeal decision in abeyance while the investigative office processes the allegations and then uses the resulting “Investigation Materials” to determine whether possible substantive mitigating circumstances affected academic performance. (UCLA Graduate Programs)

Then:

Do you agree that the hearing merits case and the DGE mitigation case should remain analytically distinct even though they use overlapping evidence?

Then:

What external limitations or preservation dates—OCR, administrative mandamus, or otherwise—would you calendar immediately so the UCLA process does not inadvertently prejudice another remedy?

You want him, not you, to determine the actual external deadline analysis.

Minute 52–58: dissect the fee proposal

Do not end the call with “$4,000 Phase I” still undefined.

Ask:

Could we define exactly what the $4,000 Phase I includes in the engagement agreement?

Specifically obtain yes/no answers on:

1. complete intake/interview;
2. review of the five-document packet;
3. review of the underlying omitted-evidence archive as reasonably necessary;
4. legal/policy analysis;
5. communication with UCLA;
6. entry of appearance/designation;
7. follow-up on the unanswered August 3 request;
8. hearing-scope/retaliation issues;
9. record-access/redaction issues;
10. witness selection and proffers;
11. exhibit selection/index;
12. written hearing grounds;
13. pre-hearing conference;
14. settlement strategy;
15. actual settlement negotiations;
16. DGE coordination;
17. examination/cross-examination preparation.

Then ask:

What precisely counts as a “hearing session” for the additional $2,000 flat fee—a full hearing day, half day, or each separately convened sitting?

And:

Is preparation for the hearing sessions included in Phase I, included in the $2,000 session fee, or separately charged?

Also:

How would post-hearing comments, the Vice Chancellor decision stage, any Chancellor appeal, and any writ work be priced?

Procedure 230.2 provides only five Days for comments after the hearing report and five Days to appeal following the Vice Chancellor’s decision, so continuity of counsel matters. (Admin Policies)

Then:

Given my financial circumstances as a graduate student, is there any possibility of a further reduced fee, payment plan, deferred component, or other arrangement without compromising your ability to serve as lead counsel?

That is the right way to ask. Do not haggle before establishing value and scope.

Minute 58–60: force a concrete next step

End with:

Based on what you have heard, do you believe you would recommend taking this case and personally serving as lead hearing counsel?

Then:

If so, what are the first three things you would do, and by when?

Then:

Please send me the proposed engagement agreement and written scope. I will review it promptly.

If you are favorably impressed, say:

My preference is one attorney owning the strategy from pre-hearing through hearing and immediate post-hearing stages, so continuity is important to me.

That directly matches your stated objective.

What to listen for

A strong consultation should leave you with more than “you have a good case.” You want Kosnett to demonstrate that he can:

1. identify the strongest two or three issues without getting lost in the archive;
2. explain what evidence he would exclude from his own presentation;
3. formulate a Monday procedural move;
4. explain how he would handle Bearden and Schweizer as witnesses;
5. distinguish the CRO merits case from DGE mitigation;
6. describe a realistic continuation-focused settlement;
7. explain how exclusions and objections would be preserved;
8. clearly define what the $4,000 buys;
9. give you a plausible total-cost range.

Be cautious if the consultation instead consists primarily of generalized assurances, relationship-name-dropping, guaranteed outcomes, or pressure to pay before he can articulate the first procedural steps.

His statement that he is “very well known” by UCLA administrators and campus counsel is his own representation. His public materials do independently substantiate long-standing student/postgraduate hearing work, but they do not independently verify every claimed UCLA relationship or predict success in this matter. (Education Lawyer)

One diligence question about those UCLA relationships

Ask it neutrally:

You have confirmed that there are no conflicts. Given your extensive professional relationships with UCLA administrators and counsel, is there any present or recent representation, relationship, or other circumstance that would limit your willingness or ability to take a fully adversarial position—including post-hearing or writ litigation—if that became necessary?

A good professional relationship with opposing counsel can be an asset. The question is simply whether it constrains the representation. He has already represented that no conflict exists.

Do not stop the pro-bono track yet

Kosnett is currently the most concrete counsel opportunity, but you have not retained him. Continue the nonprofit outreach in parallel until a written engagement is executed. If DRC/DREDF later offers meaningful assistance, ask Kosnett whether it can be integrated while preserving one lead attorney and one coherent strategy.

For now, though, the highest-value next action is straightforward: send the scheduling reply tonight and secure the Saturday consultation.

NONPROFIT PRO BONO

Nonprofit Pro Bono Outreach

I re-audited the three emails you actually sent yesterday against the operative hearing record, the omitted-evidence record, the counsel-recruitment research, and the current public intake information for DRC, DREDF, and DRA. The private-firm outreach is already strong enough that I would not send corrective or duplicative emails today. All three accurately identify the Findings 2–5 limitation, the absence of a Hearing Officer/date/schedule, the desired academic-access remedy, and the need for hearing preparation and representation.

The nonprofit strategy should now run in parallel. DRC is the highest-priority individual-representation prospect; DREDF is the strongest impact/disability-law representation or co-counsel/referral prospect; and DRA is the strongest higher-education systemic-investigation prospect. That distinction materially changes how each should be approached.

1. Disability Rights California — call today [9:00 AM – 3:00 PM]

DRC’s current online intake form is temporarily unavailable, so telephone intake is the correct route: 1-800-776-5746. Its line is open Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday from 9:00 a.m.–3:00 p.m. PT. DRC expressly considers the merits, other available advocacy resources, self-advocacy ability, organizational priorities, and resources when deciding whether it can provide representation. (Disability Rights California) DRC also publishes dedicated higher-education disability guidance and has previously represented a college student in obtaining accommodations, so this is not a speculative referral category. (Disability Rights California)

Because it is Friday and still within the posted intake window, call DRC before 3:00 p.m. PT today.

Optimal DRC opening script

Hi, my name is Cooper M. Beaman. I am a UCLA neuroscience Ph.D. student with a documented disability, and I am calling for legal assistance in an active higher-education disability-discrimination and retaliation matter.

UCLA’s Civil Rights Office issued an adverse Investigation Report on July 29. I timely elected a formal hearing under UCLA Procedure 230.2 on July 31, limited to Findings 2 through 5 concerning two faculty and program decisionmakers, and UCLA confirmed receipt on August 3. No Hearing Officer, hearing date, or pre-hearing schedule has yet been issued.

The case could determine my ability to preserve or restore my graduate-student status. The hearing involves disability discrimination, retaliation related to accommodation requests, academic disqualification, and substantial disputed evidence. The Investigation Report identifies me as the only person interviewed; none of the three respondents or twenty-three other identified individuals were interviewed, and the Report states that hundreds of pages of additional submitted documents were not relied upon or individually itemized.

I am seeking pro bono California counsel, ideally one attorney who can handle immediate hearing preparation, witnesses and exhibits, representation and cross-examination at the hearing, and preservation of the administrative record. I contacted three private student-side California firms yesterday, but no attorney has been retained and private representation may be financially prohibitive.

My principal objective is an academic-access remedy—preservation or restoration of graduate status, remand, structured continuation, individualized accommodation, neutral review, or an appropriate program or mentor transition.

Could DRC open an intake today for direct representation? If full representation is unavailable, I would also appreciate consideration for limited legal assistance, hearing-strategy consultation, or an expedited referral to qualified California higher-education disability counsel.

That characterization is carefully record-grounded. The report itself identifies only your four interviews and says Bearden, Schweizer, Bisley, and twenty-three additional identified individuals were not interviewed. It also says the additional documents spanning hundreds of pages were not relied upon because they were deemed insufficiently relevant and/or redundant and were not individually itemized.

If the intake worker asks “What is the strongest accommodation issue?”, use this concise answer:

The record concerns whether disability-related executive-function limitations were treated as academic deficiencies in a required, comparatively unstructured graduate research-rotation and faculty-mentor-placement process, and whether prospective accommodation requests and alternatives were meaningfully considered before or while academic-disqualification action proceeded. The Report itself quotes a CAE communication stating that CAE did not provide accommodations for my executive-functioning needs because those were considered a student responsibility. I am seeking counsel to assess that record rather than asking DRC to accept my legal characterization at intake.

The report does indeed reproduce that CAE communication.

Do not volunteer the five PDFs over the phone unless DRC asks for them. Say you have a concise attorney-intake packet ready and ask for the correct secure submission method.

2. DREDF — send this email today

DREDF’s current public materials confirm direct disability-rights litigation, representation, co-counseling, and strategic impact-case work. Its general legal-contact channel remains info@dredf.org and 510-644-2555. (DREDF)

There is an additional reason to treat the initial contact carefully: DREDF is presently counsel for disabled UCLA students in a separate federal action against the Regents/UCLA concerning architectural and policy accessibility barriers. (DREDF) That does not establish a conflict with your case, but it makes a clean conflict/fit screen before transmitting confidential records especially appropriate.

To: info@dredf.org

Subject: TIME-SENSITIVE — UCLA Ph.D. disability hearing — pro bono representation, co-counsel, or referral inquiry

Dear DREDF Legal Advocacy Team,

I am a UCLA neuroscience Ph.D. student seeking urgent pro bono legal assistance concerning an active disability-discrimination and retaliation hearing under UCLA Procedure 230.2.

UCLA’s Civil Rights Office issued an adverse Investigation Report on July 29, 2026. I timely elected a formal hearing on July 31, limited to Findings 2 through 5 concerning Dr. Carrie Bearden and Dr. Felix Schweizer, and UCLA confirmed receipt on August 3. I am not seeking hearing review of Finding 1 concerning Dr. James Bisley. No Hearing Officer, hearing date, or pre-hearing schedule has yet been provided.

The hearing concerns disability-linked academic treatment, retaliation related to requests for accommodation, the accommodation-process chronology, and the resulting academic-disqualification process. The record also presents significant evidentiary and administrative-record issues: the Investigation Report identifies me as the only person interviewed; no Respondent or other identified witness was interviewed; and the Report states that hundreds of pages of additional submitted documents were not relied upon and were not individually itemized.

The matter also raises potentially broader disability-access questions concerning how an unstructured graduate research-rotation and faculty-mentor-placement requirement interacts with executive-functioning disabilities, prospective requests for programmatic accommodation, and academic-status decisions. I do not assume that the present record establishes a systemic violation; I am seeking counsel to evaluate that question rigorously.

My principal objective is preservation or restoration of graduate-student status through reinstatement, remand, structured continuation, individualized accommodation, neutral academic review, program or mentor transition, or another durable academic-access remedy.

I am seeking, in order of preference:

1. pro bono representation by a California attorney who can own pre-hearing preparation and the Procedure 230.2 hearing;

2. DREDF co-counseling or limited disability-law assistance in coordination with a California hearing attorney; or

3. an expedited referral to qualified student-side higher-education ADA/Section 504 counsel.

I contacted three private California firms yesterday—Hathaway Parker, Kosnett Law, and Leigh Law Group—but no attorney has been retained or designated.

I understand that DREDF presently represents disabled UCLA students in a separate matter against the Regents/UCLA. I do not assume that matter creates either a conflict or substantive overlap with mine, and for that reason I have not attached confidential case records to this initial inquiry. I have a concise five-document attorney-intake packet ready and can provide it promptly after any appropriate conflict/intake screening and secure-transfer instructions.

I am presently on the East Coast but remain fully available by telephone or Zoom through August 11, including during Pacific business hours.

Thank you very much for considering whether DREDF can assist directly, through co-counseling, or by referral.

Sincerely,
Cooper M. Beaman
(415) 317-6417
cooperbeaman@gmail.com
UCLA CRO Case 2025-07-00230-DPO

That is preferable to the earlier generic DREDF draft because it does three things simultaneously: it presents an individual matter serious enough to warrant urgent attention, identifies the potential impact dimension that fits DREDF’s case-selection model, and does not overstate your archive as already establishing institution-wide discrimination.

If there is no acknowledgment by Monday afternoon, call 510-644-2555 and say:

I emailed the Legal Advocacy Team Friday regarding an active UCLA graduate-student disability-discrimination and retaliation hearing. No hearing date has yet been issued, but I am seeking urgent pro bono representation, co-counseling, or a qualified referral. Could you confirm the appropriate person or intake channel for the matter?

DREDF contact information

3. Disability Rights Advocates — tailor it to its active higher-education investigation

DRA should not receive the same generic nonprofit email. Its present intake model is highly specific: DRA says it accepts widespread systemic civil-rights cases rather than isolated disputes involving only a few individuals. (Disability Rights Advocates) At the same time, it is actively investigating disability rights and accommodations in higher education, expressly including college and graduate students, and invites students to contact its higher-education investigation by email at higher-ed@dralegal.org. (Disability Rights Advocates)

That is a unusually direct fit for an initial systemic-screening inquiry.

To: higher-ed@dralegal.org

Subject: UCLA Ph.D. disability accommodations — active hearing and potential systemic graduate-program issue

Dear DRA Higher Education Team,

I am writing in connection with Disability Rights Advocates’ ongoing investigation of disability rights and accommodations in higher education.

I am a UCLA neuroscience Ph.D. student with a documented disability who is presently pursuing a formal disability-discrimination and retaliation hearing under UCLA Procedure 230.2. UCLA’s Civil Rights Office issued an adverse Investigation Report on July 29, 2026; I timely elected a hearing on July 31; and UCLA confirmed receipt on August 3. The hearing is limited to Findings 2 through 5 concerning Dr. Carrie Bearden and Dr. Felix Schweizer. No Hearing Officer, hearing date, or pre-hearing schedule has yet been provided.

My individual matter concerns the interaction among disability-related executive-function limitations, a required and comparatively unstructured graduate research-rotation/faculty-mentor-placement process, requests for prospective programmatic accommodation, and academic-disqualification activity.

The underlying record raises questions that may be relevant to DRA’s broader higher-education work, including:

1. whether accommodations are meaningfully available for disability-related functional limitations affecting graduate research and mentor-placement requirements rather than conventional classroom examinations;

2. how categorical statements concerning executive-functioning needs interact with individualized accommodation obligations;

3. whether accommodation processes can operate effectively when adverse academic-status proceedings are developing concurrently; and

4. whether institutional mentor availability, funding constraints, and discretionary additional-rotation practices create barriers that are attributed to individual student performance.

I want to be precise: I am not asserting in this intake message that my record by itself proves a classwide or systemic violation. I do, however, have extensive contemporaneous records and identified institutional/comparator witnesses that may permit DRA to assess whether my experience reflects a broader practice rather than an isolated event.

The immediate individual matter is time-sensitive because the forthcoming hearing will involve evidence, witnesses, cross-examination, and preservation of an administrative record that could affect my graduate-student status. I am therefore also seeking pro bono representation if DRA determines that the matter fits its docket, or otherwise assistance connecting with California counsel capable of handling the internal hearing while preserving any broader disability-rights issues.

I contacted three private California student-side firms yesterday but have not retained counsel. My financial resources are limited, and pro bono representation remains strongly preferred.

I can promptly transmit a concise five-document attorney-intake packet promptly if DRA would like to review the matter further.

I am presently on the East Coast but remain fully available by telephone or Zoom through August 11, including during Pacific business hours.

Thank you for considering both the immediate hearing-related need and whether these facts are relevant to DRA’s ongoing higher-education investigation.

Sincerely,

Cooper M. Beaman
(415) 317-6417
cooperbeaman@gmail.com
UCLA CRO Case 2025-07-00230-DPO

This is materially better for DRA than leading with “please represent my individual case.” DRA publicly says it does not ordinarily take isolated few-person disputes, while its current higher-education page specifically solicits experiences involving denied accommodations and other accessibility issues. (Disability Rights Advocates)

Use your personal Gmail, not the UCLA account, which also conforms to DRA’s current higher-education intake form requesting a personal/non-school-affiliated email. (Disability Rights Advocates)

I would use email rather than telephone because DRA’s current official higher-education pages display two slightly different phone extensions/numbers while consistently identifying higher-ed@dralegal.org; the dedicated email is therefore the cleaner route. (Disability Rights Advocates)

DREDF DRA: Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund

TIME-SENSITIVE — UCLA Ph.D. disability hearing — pro bono representation, co-counsel, or referral inquiry

Dear DREDF Legal Advocacy Team,

I am a UCLA Neuroscience Ph.D. student seeking urgent pro bono legal assistance concerning an active disability discrimination and retaliation hearing under UCLA Procedure 230.2.

UCLA’s Civil Rights Office issued a solely adverse Investigation Report on July 29, 2026. I timely elected a formal grievance hearing on July 31, limited to Findings 2 through 5 concerning Drs. Carrie Bearden and Felix Schweizer. The UCLA ADA/Section 504 Compliance Office confirmed receipt on August 3. I am not seeking hearing review of Finding 1 concerning Dr. James Bisley. The Hearing Officer, hearing date, and pre-hearing schedule have not been provided.

The matter concerns disability-associated academic treatment, retaliation for accommodation requests, accommodation process chronology, and the ensuing academic disqualification process. The matter also presents significant evidentiary and administrative-record issues: the Investigation Report identifies Complainant (me) as the only interviewed party; no Respondents or identified witness were interviewed; and the Report discloses hundreds of pages of additional submitted documents that were not relied upon nor individually itemized.

Last, the matter also raises potentially broader disability-access questions pertaining to interactions among unstructured graduate research-rotation and faculty-mentor-placement degree requirements, documented functional limitations arising from variable executive dysfunction, prospective requests for programmatic accommodation, and terminal academic-status decisions. I do not intend to claim that the present record establishes a systemic violation; however, I am seeking counsel to rigorously evaluate this question.

My principal objective is to secure the preservation or restoration of graduate-student status via reinstatement, structured continuation, facilitation of primary faculty mentor matching, individualized accommodation, neutral academic review, postgraduate program/major or degree objective transition, or an alternative durable academic-access remedy.

I am seeking the following, in order of preference:

1. pro bono representation/council provided by a California attorney for pre-hearing preparation and the Procedure 230.2 hearing;

2. DREDF co-counseling or limited disability-law assistance in coordination with a California hearing attorney; or

3. an expedited referral to qualified student-side higher-education ADA/Section 504 counsel.

On Thursday, Aug 6, 2026, I contacted three private firms, but have yet to designate or retain counsel. I understand that DREDF presently represents disabled UCLA students in a separate matter against the Regents/UCLA. I am not assuming that matter creates either a conflict or substantive overlap with my own, and I have not attached confidential case records to this initial inquiry. A concise, five-document attorney-intake packet is ready and can be provided immediately upon the completion of any necessary conflict/intake screening and communication of secure-transfer instructions.

I am presently on the East Coast but remain fully available via phone or Zoom through 11:59 PM EDT on August 10.

Thank you very much for considering whether DREDF can assist directly, through co-counsel, or via referral.

Sincerely,
Cooper M. Beaman

Disability Rights California (DRC) Voicemail

Details

• Caller: Cooper Beaman
• Recipient: Disability Rights California (DRC)
• Phone Number: +1 (800) 776-5746
• Reason for Call: Requesting pro bono legal counsel, co-counsel, or a referral for an upcoming hearing regarding a disability-related academic disqualification grievance with the Civil Rights Office.
• Phone Number: (415) 317-6417
• Email: cooperbeaman@gmail.com

Audio

[DISABILITY\_RIGHTS\_CALIFORNIA\_VOICEMAIL\_MON\_08102026\_06.15-18\_PM-EDT.mp3](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Mb_6jI8rw93YjJU8d3grCKRbSIQwREpZ/view?usp=drivesdk)

Transcript

Automated Voicemail Message

• [00:00] So if you still need assistance, please call our intake line again at 1-800-776-5746. Thank you and have a good day.
• [00:13] Please leave a message after the tone. When you have finished, please hang up or press the pound key for more options.

Caller Message

• [00:23] Hello, my name is Cooper Beaman. I am a Ph.D. student at UCLA in the Neuroscience Program, and I have an ongoing disability-related academic disqualification matter that I’ve been engaged in over the last year without legal counsel or representation.

• [00:52] I’m now at the hearing stage of my grievance investigation with the Civil Rights Office, and I’m seeking pro bono legal counsel because my financial resources are very limited, but I believe I would benefit significantly from that during the hearing and in preparation for the hearing.

• [01:22] And so I’m hoping that through the assistance of DRC, I might be able to receive either counsel directly, co-counsel, or even a referral related to my matter.

• [01:43] If that’s something that DRC feels it might be able to provide, or if DRC needs any additional information about my case to determine if that’s something that can be provided, please give me a call back or send me an email.

• [02:02] My contact information: for phone, please give me a call back at (415) 317-6417. Again, that’s (415) 317-6417.

• [02:22] And if email is preferred, the best email address to reach out would be cooperbeaman@gmail.com. Again, c-o-o-p-e-r-b-e-a-m-a-n@gmail.com.

• [02:45] Thank you very much, and I look forward to learning more about DRC and discussing my matter in greater detail. Take care. Bye-bye.

Disability Rights Advocates

UCLA Ph.D. disability accommodations — active hearing and potential systemic graduate-program issue

Dear DRA Higher Education Team,

I am reaching out regarding Disability Rights Advocates’ ongoing investigation of disability rights and accommodations in higher education.

I am a UCLA neuroscience Ph.D. student with a documented disability who is presently pursuing a formal disability-discrimination and retaliation hearing under UCLA Procedure 230.2. UCLA’s Civil Rights Office issued an adverse Investigation Report on July 29, 2026; I timely elected a hearing on July 31; and UCLA confirmed receipt on August 3. The hearing is limited to Findings 2 through 5 concerning Dr. Carrie Bearden and Dr. Felix Schweizer. The Hearing Officer, hearing date, and pre-hearing schedule have not been provided.

My individual matter pertains to interactions among disability-related executive-function limitations, a required and comparatively unstructured graduate research-rotation/faculty-mentor-placement process, requests for prospective programmatic accommodation, and academic-disqualification activity.

The underlying record raises questions that may be relevant to DRA’s broader higher-education work, including:

1. whether programmatic accommodations are meaningfully available for disability-related functional limitations affecting graduate research and mentor-placement requirements, as distinct from standard academic and exam accommodations;

2. how categorical statements concerning executive-functioning needs interact with individualized accommodation and interactive process obligations;

3. whether accommodation processes can operate effectively when adverse academic-status proceedings are developing concurrently; and

4. whether institutional mentor availability, funding constraints, and discretionary additional-rotation practices create barriers that may be misattributed by institutional decisionmakers to individual student deficiencies or shortcomings.

I do not intend to assert that my matter constitutes or establishes a classwide or systemic violation; however, I hold extensive contemporaneous records and have identified institutional/comparator witnesses that may permit DRA to assess broader practice as reflected by my experience.

The immediate individual matter is time-sensitive because a formal grievance hearing under UCLA Procedure 230.2 is forthcoming, and likely to entail evidence, witnesses, cross-examination, and preservation of an administrative record directly bearing on my graduate-student status. If DRA determines that the matter fits its docket, I am also seeking pro bono representation or alternative assistance in connecting with California counsel qualified to handle the internal hearing, while preserving any broader disability-rights issues.

On Thursday, Aug 6, 2026, I contacted three private firms, but have yet to retain counsel. My financial resources are particularly limited, and pro bono representation is strongly preferred.

I can promptly transmit a concise five-document attorney-intake packet if DRA would like to review the matter further.

I am presently on the East Coast but remain fully available via phone or Zoom through 11:59 PM EDT on August 10.

Thank you very much for considering both the immediate hearing-related need and the relevance of the matter to DRA’s ongoing higher-education investigation.

Sincerely,

Cooper M. Beaman

INTAKE PACKET: Final five-document attorney packet

I rebuilt the packet from the operative source documents and rendered/visually verified every generated page. I also corrected an important issue during final QA: the correspondence compilation now uses the actual rendered Gmail correspondence pages, reordered chronologically, rather than a retyped transcript. That preserves headers, recipients, dates, the administrative correction, and UCLA’s receipt confirmation exactly as rendered in the source.

Confidential Attorney Intake Overview

2 pages, letter portrait. This is the counsel-facing executive intake document. It distinguishes established report facts from allegations/proffers, identifies the 23 noninterviewed additional individuals accurately, preserves the Findings 2–5 limitation, and frames the strongest workstreams without presenting advocacy characterizations as established facts.

UCLA Civil Rights Office Case 2025-07-00230-DPO | Prepared August 7, 2026

1. Core dispute and objective

The hearing challenges the report’s adverse Findings 2-5 concerning disability discrimination, retaliation-related academic treatment, and harassment involving Bearden and Schweizer. The principal practical objective is preservation or restoration of graduate-student status through reinstatement, remand, structured continuation, program or mentor transfer, individualized accommodation, neutral academic review, or another durable academic-access remedy.

The matter also runs in parallel with an active DGE nondiscrimination-based academic-disqualification appeal. The CRO policy-violation inquiry and the DGE mitigation/remedy inquiry should remain analytically distinct.

2. High-priority record issues for counsel triage

• Investigation method: the report identifies four interviews with Cooper and states that Bearden, Schweizer, Bisley, and 23 additional individuals identified by Cooper were not interviewed. The report nevertheless resolves disputed issues of motive, causation, legitimate reasons, comparator treatment, and retaliation.
• Non-relied-upon evidence: footnote 4 states that numerous additional documents spanning hundreds of pages were not relied upon as insufficiently relevant and/or redundant and were not itemized document by document.
• Pre-report process assurance: after declining to amend the Notice of Investigation, CRO stated that the evidence, witnesses, and theories Cooper presented would be taken into consideration and that the ultimate report would reflect them.
• Retaliation ambiguity: the report expressly analyzes an allegation that Schweizer recommended academic disqualification in retaliation for an accommodation request, but the five separately enumerated formal findings do not include a separately labeled retaliation finding.
• Scope discipline: evidence concerning nonparty actors and earlier events should be offered, where appropriate, for limited purposes tied to Findings 2-5 (for example notice, timing, causation, pretext, comparator treatment, feasibility, harm, or remedy), not to obtain standalone findings against actors outside the elected hearing scope.

3. Strongest evidentiary workstreams

4. Immediate counsel tasks

• Confirm the precise hearing scope, including whether the retaliation theory analyzed in the report is encompassed by Finding 3 or is otherwise reasonably related to the written grievance.
• Obtain the Hearing Officer, scheduling order, witness/exhibit deadlines, record index, rules for University witness participation, authentication, redactions, and offers of proof.
• Convert the attached omitted-evidence matrix into a focused 25-40 exhibit architecture; do not submit the full 100+ MB source archive as a hearing exhibit set.
• Prioritize direct testimony from Bearden, Schweizer, Jenny Lee, Dylan Hughes, Jaine Park, Betteena Marco, Patty Violi, an appropriate committee/records custodian, and selected comparator/institutional witnesses as justified by noncumulative relevance.
• Preserve every exclusion or limitation through a clear objection and offer of proof, and coordinate CRO hearing strategy with the separate DGE/CDP mitigation track without conflating their standards.
• Assess external deadline preservation (including any OCR or California administrative-review issues) without assuming the internal process tolls unrelated limitations periods.

5. Representation requested

Preferred engagement: one California lead attorney who can own immediate pre-hearing strategy, witness and exhibit development, hearing representation and cross-examination, post-hearing submissions/appeal, DGE coordination, negotiation, and preservation of the administrative record. Pro bono representation is preferred. If unavailable, the present fallback is a reduced-fee, sliding-scale, or capped Phase I engagement of approximately $2,000-$4,000, with hearing appearance separately priced.

6. Current private-counsel outreach

On August 6, conflict-check/intake emails were sent to Hathaway Parker, Kosnett Law, and Leigh Law Group. No five-document packet was transmitted with those initial contacts; each firm was told the packet would be provided after conflict clearance and secure-transfer instructions. No attorney should be treated as retained until an engagement is accepted in writing.

7. Packet contents and source-control note

Accuracy convention: Statements attributed to the CRO report describe what the report states. Statements drawn from Cooper’s submissions are allegations, proffers, or documentary propositions requiring authentication and adversarial testing. This overview is not intended to replace counsel’s independent legal analysis.

CRO Notice of Outcome

4 pages. This is the native official UCLA Notice of Outcome, renamed only—not rewritten or reformatted. It establishes the five findings and expressly provided the ten-business-day hearing right.

Redacted Investigation Report

44 file pages / 43 internally numbered report pages. This is an attorney-send copy of the complete report. No page was removed. It was visually recompressed to approximately 23 MB to make counsel transfer practical; the native source original should remain preserved separately for any evidentiary production requiring source-byte fidelity.

The report itself confirms the five adverse findings, the preponderance standard, and that retaliation is prohibited. It also documents the investigation methodology and nonrelied-upon materials that make counsel review particularly important.

Hearing Election and Post-Report Correspondence

3 pages. This now consists of the actual operative Gmail-rendered records reordered chronologically:

1. July 31, 5:00 p.m. formal hearing election;
2. July 31 administrative correction + August 3 UCLA receipt confirmation;
3. August 3 scope/record/scheduling/good-cause request.

The July 31 source expressly limits the hearing to Findings 2–5 and excludes any requested finding/remedy against Bisley. UCLA’s August 3 reply expressly confirms that the hearing request was received. The August 3 follow-up then requests the record index, witness/exhibit procedures, treatment of the hundreds of pages, and narrowly framed good-cause relief.

Core Omitted Evidence and Witness Matrix

6 landscape pages. This is intentionally not an evidentiary dump. It contains:

• 19 proposition-level evidence issues;
• Findings/theory mapping;
• priority A/B/C;
• native-source/pinpoint locations;
• report treatment;
• proper use and limitation;
• likely witness;
• a 13-witness provisional priority matrix;
• hearing-record preservation tasks;
• separate treatment of omitted-actor/DGE issues; and
• explicit language discipline against terms such as “irrefutable” and “smoking gun.”

It incorporates, among other things, the original witness proffers concerning Park, Marco, Violi, Scruggs, Treviño and the six-rotation comparator, while treating those proffers as matters to authenticate and test rather than established testimony.

UCLA CRO Case 2025-07-00230-DPO | Counsel triage work product | August 7, 2026

Use: This matrix identifies potentially material evidence, anticipated testimony, and record gaps for counsel review. It is not itself evidence and does not treat allegations, proffers, or disputed inferences as established facts. Native source documents control. “Omitted” means not substantively addressed or not relied upon in the final report as reflected in the accessible record; counsel should verify exact treatment before making a formal assertion.

Priority A \= likely core hearing evidence; Priority B \= important contextual/limited-purpose evidence; Priority C \= preserve for separate scope, DGE/CDP, or external review unless counsel determines it is properly within the hearing.

A. Finding 2 - Bearden discrimination / fifth-rotation record

B. Finding 3 - Schweizer discrimination / retaliation-related academic treatment

C. Findings 4-5 and process / scope preservation

D. Provisional witness priority matrix

This is a triage order, not a final witness list. Counsel should confirm willingness, personal knowledge, cumulative value, and the hearing process for securing University witnesses.

E. Counsel action checklist before any hearing-ground or exhibit deadline

• Confirm retaliation scope and obtain an express ruling before assuming the absence of a separately labeled finding narrows the issue.
• Obtain the complete hearing-record index and determine whether Report/Exhibits A-R must be resubmitted.
• Ask UCLA to identify or produce the document-level treatment of the “hundreds of pages” and any less-redacted/unredacted materials available under confidentiality controls.
• Build a 25-40 exhibit core set keyed to elements and propositions; retain the complete archive as backup/source, not as the initial exhibit dump.
• Secure direct testimony from decisionmakers and the most noncumulative firsthand witnesses; avoid a witness list dominated by friends or secondhand corroborators.
• For any excluded evidence, make a specific offer of proof stating source, proposition, relevance, noncumulative value, and the finding/theory it supports.
• Keep standalone claims against excluded actors and DGE procedural issues preserved on separate tracks unless counsel obtains a ruling that they are within the hearing.
• Coordinate the DGE mitigation crosswalk separately: report finding vs documentary fact vs party account vs contested proposition vs unresolved issue.
• Calendar external limitations and review routes independently; do not assume UCLA’s internal process tolls them.

F. Principal source set used to prepare this matrix

Drafting discipline: Avoid “irrefutable,” “smoking gun,” “proved retaliation,” “all evidence was ignored,” or similar overstatement. Prefer “direct contemporaneous evidence,” “raises a material factual dispute,” “supports an inference,” “was not substantively addressed,” “requires testimony or records to resolve,” and “relevant for a limited purpose.”

How to use the packet

For DRC today, do not send anything until the intake worker gives you a submission method.

For DREDF and DRA, send the tailored emails above without attachments initially. Say the five-document packet is ready. This is particularly important for DREDF because it already represents plaintiffs in a separate UCLA/Regents disability matter and should perform any appropriate screening before receiving your detailed record. (DREDF)

For Hathaway, Kosnett, and Leigh, continue honoring exactly what you told them yesterday: the packet follows after conflict clearance and secure-transfer instructions. Your sent emails expressly promised that sequence.

If one nonprofit offers only consultation or specialist/co-counsel support while one private attorney can actually conduct the hearing, do not fragment control of the case. The preferred architecture remains one California lead attorney owning the hearing, witnesses, exhibits, objections, cross-examination, settlement authority, and administrative record, with nonprofit disability expertise added only in a clearly defined supporting role.

Given the timing of yesterday’s private emails—roughly 4:48–5:01 p.m. PDT—there has not yet been a full business day for those firms to respond. I would therefore call DRC and send DREDF/DRA now, but not send a second email to any of the three private firms today. If none has responded by Monday morning, the next move should be a short phone confirmation/follow-up rather than another long merits email.

RESEARCH: UCLA Procedure 230.2 Legal-Counsel Identification, Recruitment, and Representation Strategy

**Overview
**Decision, posture, and source coverage
**A. Executive decision
**Optimal lead-counsel strategy
**Optimal limited-scope or hybrid fallback
**Optimal pro bono or nonprofit lane
**Same-day contact order and parallelization
**Most important immediate risk
**Required work within the next seventy-two hours
**B. Verified current case posture
**C. Attachment coverage matrix
**Readability and review limitations
**Counsel architecture and candidate market
**D. Counsel-needs profile
**E. Exclusion, prior-contact, and conflict ledger
**F. Candidate universe
**G. Top five ranked lead-counsel recommendations
**Mark M. Hathaway — Hathaway Parker
**James Victor Kosnett — Kosnett Education Law Firm
**Mandy G. Leigh — Leigh Law Group
**Shanon D. Trygstad — Trygstad, Schwab & Trygstad
**David W. German — Vanaman German LLP
**H. Ranked specialist, nonprofit, and referral alternatives
**Specialist or co-counsel options
**Nonprofit, pro bono, and legal-aid options
**Certified referral channels
**Clinics
**I. Prior shortlist audit
**Recruitment, outreach, and intake materials
**J. Same-day outreach wave
**Wave One: private California lead candidates
**Wave Two: specialists and limited-scope options
**Wave Three: nonprofit, clinic, and referral channels
**Method and follow-up
**Outreach tracker fields
**Travel
**K. Tailored ready-to-send outreach
**Universal conflict-check and intake email
**Personalized email for Mark Hathaway
**Personalized email for James Kosnett
**Personalized email for Mandy Leigh
**Personalized email for Shanon Trygstad
**Personalized email for David German
**Forty-five-second voicemail
**Live intake-call script
**Nonprofit or pro bono request
**Certified lawyer-referral request
**Follow-up after one to two business days
**Graceful decline or hold message
**L. Minimal attorney intake packet
**Do not send unsolicited
**Second-stage secure packet
**Retention, cost, and formal designation
**M. Consultation agenda and retention questions
**Highest-priority questions
**Red flags and deal-breakers
**N. Cost-minimization and fee negotiation
**Model A — full hearing representation
**Model B — capped Phase I plus separately priced appearance
**Model C — coaching and drafting without formal appearance
**Fee-negotiation script
**Fee recovery distinctions
**O. Representation designation and sequencing
**Textual interpretation of Procedure 230.2
**Sequence after retention
**Copying counsel
**Behind-the-scenes counsel
**University counsel participation
**Retention near a deadline
**Attorney-designation notice
**Good-cause extension request
**Execution and fallback planning
**P. Sixty-day action plan
**Q. No-counsel fallback
**Limited-scope attorney
**Non-attorney representative
**Self-representation
**William Beaman as representative
**Consulting attorney who does not appear
**Highest record-preservation priorities
**Tasks not advisable without California counsel
**Final synthesis
**R. Final decision matrix
**Evidence gaps requiring direct intake confirmation
**Claims from prior research rejected or downgraded
**One-page decision table

Overview

Controlling research date and time: Monday, August 3, 2026, 3:21 p.m. PDT

Matter: UCLA Civil Rights Office Case 2025-07-00230-DPO

Research subject: Cooper M. Beaman

Central objective: Preserve or restore UCLA graduate-student status through continued enrollment, reinstatement, remand, structured continuation, program or mentor transfer, individualized accommodation, neutral academic review, or another durable academic-access remedy.

This report is a legal-market and procedural-strategy analysis, not legal advice or a prediction of outcome. Attorney availability, conflicts, fees, willingness to undertake limited-scope work, and access to the internal hearing must be confirmed directly before reliance.

The complete source inventory, duplicate map, candidate universe, scoring worksheet, and outreach tracker are available here:

Download the counsel-research workbook

Download the attachment coverage matrix as CSV

Decision, posture, and source coverage

A. Executive decision

Optimal lead-counsel strategy

The strongest practical strategy is to retain one California attorney who can own the internal hearing, witness examination, administrative record, negotiations, and California writ-preservation issues, while permitting discrete disability-law consultation or drafting support from a second specialist. The first three private contacts should be:

Hathaway Parker publicly describes representation of students, faculty, and staff in campus investigations, hearings, grievances, and appeals, and reports experience in hundreds of campus matters. The firm also has demonstrated California administrative-writ litigation involving university proceedings.

Kosnett’s published practice description is unusually well matched to a cost-controlled first phase: graduate and university matters, disability issues, hearing preparation, appeal drafting, attorney coaching, and writ or court remedies. The firm advertises a free initial consultation, although the precise scope, staffing, and fees must be confirmed.

Leigh Law Group expressly identifies higher-education dismissal, academic issues, disability accommodations, ADA and Section 504 claims, retaliation, and administrative-hearing work. Its publicly described sliding-scale or reduced-fee possibilities make it especially important within the stated budget.

Optimal limited-scope or hybrid fallback

The preferred fallback is:

1. California lead attorney under a capped Phase I engagement of approximately $2,000–$4,000 for immediate record triage, hearing-scope confirmation, designation, preservation requests, grounds refinement, witness and exhibit architecture, and a continuation-remedy proposal.

2. A separately priced hearing-appearance option, activated only after UCLA supplies the Hearing Officer, schedule, procedural order, and disclosure deadlines.

3. Behind-the-scenes specialist consultation from Jason J. Bach, Mary C. Vargas, Catherine Cabalo, or another disability/higher-education specialist only where the specialist’s contribution is discrete and California counsel remains responsible for California law and writ preservation.

Jason Bach’s practice is highly relevant to graduate, professional, and medical-school dismissal and disability disputes, but his publicly identified admissions do not establish California admission. He should therefore be treated as a strategy, drafting, or co-counsel candidate unless UCLA permits his proposed internal role and California-law needs are separately covered.

Optimal pro bono or nonprofit lane

The best nonprofit sequence is:

1. Disability Rights California, because it operates California’s protection-and-advocacy system, accepts disability-discrimination inquiries, and has a structured intake process. It cannot accept every matter, and direct representation is discretionary.

2. DREDF, for possible disability-law consultation, co-counseling, referral, or systemic-case assessment. Its public materials support litigation and co-counseling capability but do not promise individual internal-hearing representation.

3. Disability Rights Advocates, only if the matter can credibly be framed as presenting a broader systemic disability-access issue. DRA expressly prioritizes cases affecting substantial groups rather than isolated disputes involving only a few people.

Same-day contact order and parallelization

The first outreach wave should occur in parallel rather than sequentially:

• Send conflict-check emails and submit intake forms to Hathaway, Kosnett, Leigh, Trygstad, and German.

• Telephone Hathaway, Kosnett, and Leigh immediately after the written submission.

• Contact Jason Bach for a possible discrete strategy consultation.

• Begin Disability Rights California intake during its next published intake period.

• Submit one precise referral request to a State Bar-certified lawyer-referral service and to the San Francisco–Marin disability-rights panel.

Most important immediate risk

The most important immediate risk is a procedural order arriving before counsel is retained, creating short witness, exhibit, Hearing Officer, or pre-hearing deadlines. Procedure 230.2 contemplates at least ten University business days’ notice of the hearing, but witness and evidentiary materials ordinarily must be submitted at least five University business days before the hearing. “Days” means University business days.

That risk is intensified by the investigation record’s volume, redactions, unindexed submitted materials, and the investigator’s decision not to interview the respondents identified in the report. Package sources:

02_CORE_POST_REPORT_CASE_AND_POLICY_RECORD/01_ACTUAL_INVESTIGATION_MATERIALS/COOPER_BEAMAN_Investigation Report FINAL_Redacted.md, lines 123–161 and 225–239;

00_START_HERE/02_CURRENT_OPERATIVE_CASE_AND_COUNSEL_SNAPSHOT.md, lines 3–13.

Required work within the next seventy-two hours

B. Verified current case posture

Procedure 230.2 limits the hearing to the allegations and grounds properly placed before it; the hearing is not a general retrial of every dispute. It provides for testimony, witness questioning, documentary submissions, a Hearing Officer report, comments, a Vice Chancellor decision, and a narrow internal appeal.

C. Attachment coverage matrix

The package contains 248 canonical packaged entries in the manifest. The source index records 247 source members, and the duplicate map identifies six exact duplicate source members that were excluded from being counted as independent corroboration. The downloadable workbook contains one row per canonical packaged entry, with packaged path, provenance, source role, type, date inference, actors, readability, limitations, SHA-256 value, duplicate status, and reliance status.

Readability and review limitations

The package was technically extracted and inventoried. Native text, Markdown, CSV, JSON, and searchable sidecars were readable. The principal official PDFs were reviewed through native text extraction and searchable derivatives where available. Some PDFs contain redactions, embedded scans, image layers, or formatting that can limit extraction. The investigation archive was not treated as though every page or token had been manually merits-reviewed. The central task was counsel selection, procedural readiness, and representation design.

No transcription, OCR derivative, prior AI analysis, or sidecar was treated as superior to the corresponding native UCLA document. Duplicate materials were not treated as independent corroboration.

Counsel architecture and candidate market

D. Counsel-needs profile

This matter does not call merely for a general “education lawyer” or a federal civil-rights litigator. It requires a coordinated set of functions:

California administrative mandamus generally focuses on the record developed before the agency or public body, which makes contemporaneous objections, offers of proof, authentication, and procedural requests important now rather than after the hearing.

The functions that should not be fragmented are hearing strategy, witness examination, record preservation, and settlement authority. Disability-law research, chronology assembly, document coding, first-draft witness outlines, and a federal-litigation assessment can be divided to control cost.

E. Exclusion, prior-contact, and conflict ledger

The Gmail result is necessarily bounded: the accessible search found a DeNiro thread but no direct correspondence with the six benchmark firms. Absence from that search does not conclusively prove that no contact occurred through another email account, telephone, web form, or unconnected system.

F. Candidate universe

The universe below separates serious advances from specialist, nonprofit, referral, reserve, and reject categories. “Advance” means contact for conflict and intake screening; it does not mean the person is available, affordable, conflict-free, or willing to accept the case.

G. Top five ranked lead-counsel recommendations

Mark M. Hathaway — Hathaway Parker

Verified license: California State Bar record identifies Mark M. Hathaway as an active California lawyer, bar number 151332. No adverse discipline item was identified in the retrieved public profile; the official record should be rechecked immediately before engagement.

Score: 82/100

Strongest fit: Hathaway Parker’s stated practice squarely covers campus hearings, grievances, appeals, academic and disciplinary matters, and related writ litigation for individuals. Its published UC-related writ result demonstrates attention to evidentiary reliability and procedural record defects.

Likely role: Full lead counsel or capped Phase I lead with separately priced hearing representation.

Shortcomings and risks: Public materials do not establish the same depth in ADA Title II and Section 504 academic-accommodation claims as Leigh Law Group or a specialist disability firm. Fees, immediate availability, willingness to accept an internal disability hearing, and willingness to offer a $2,000–$4,000 first phase are unknown.

Conflict questions: Current or recent representation of UCLA, the Regents, any UCLA department, Carrie Bearden, Felix Schweizer, James Bisley, the Neuroscience Interdepartmental Program, DGE, or a witness; representation of an adverse student or employee in a materially related matter.

Cost hypothesis: Likely above the preferred budget for full hearing representation. A tightly defined record-triage and pre-hearing Phase I may be possible, but this is an intake hypothesis, not a published fee.

Best channel: Telephone at 213-529-9000 immediately after emailing the firm’s current general intake address.

Personalized opening angle: “Your campus-hearing and California university-writ work appears directly relevant because the immediate need is to prepare a narrowed UCLA administrative hearing while preserving the evidentiary record and continuation remedies.”

Send after conflict clearance: Two-page current case brief; Notice of Outcome; searchable Investigation Report; hearing request plus receipt confirmation; immediate-action command sheet.

Acceptance likelihood: Low-to-moderate, principally because availability, economics, and matter fit are unknown—not because of any identified disqualifying issue.

Why first: Hathaway has the strongest verified combination of internal university procedure and California writ-record capability. Kosnett may be more flexible and affordable, but Hathaway’s publicly substantiated campus-hearing and writ experience is stronger.

James Victor Kosnett — Kosnett Education Law Firm

Verified license: The official California State Bar profile identifies James Victor Kosnett as active, bar number 71542. No adverse disciplinary item was identified in the retrieved public profile; recheck before retention.

Score: 80/100

Strongest fit: Public materials expressly address graduate-level disputes, university hearings, disability matters, appeal drafting, attorney coaching, ghostwriting, and writ or court remedies. That breadth is unusually compatible with phased representation.

Likely role: Limited-scope or full lead; particularly suitable for rapid Phase I triage, written grounds, hearing preparation, or coaching.

Shortcomings and risks: The breadth of the website claims is not matched by publicly located recent UC or UCLA doctoral-dismissal case records. Confirm who will personally perform the work, current caseload, trial or cross-examination experience, and whether the lawyer will appear rather than only advise.

Conflict questions: UCLA, Regents, named respondents, DGE or CDP personnel, investigator or Hearing Officer, and any materially related UCLA matter.

Cost hypothesis: Better-than-average prospect for unbundled work because coaching and drafting are publicly described, and a free consultation is advertised. The actual cap and hearing-appearance fee remain unknown.

Best channel: Call 310-445-5900 or 877-959-2937 after submitting the web intake.

Personalized opening angle: “Your published graduate-student, disability, hearing, appeal-drafting, and coaching work appears suited to a phased UCLA matter where a timely hearing request is already pending.”

Acceptance likelihood: Moderate, because the practice affirmatively advertises consultation and unbundled functions, though current capacity is unknown.

Why second: Kosnett offers a closer publicly stated graduate-dispute and limited-scope fit than Hathaway, but Hathaway has stronger externally corroborated campus-hearing and UC writ credentials.

Mandy G. Leigh — Leigh Law Group

Verified license: California’s official profile identifies Mandy G. Leigh as an active California attorney, bar number 225748. No adverse discipline item was identified in the retrieved public profile; recheck before engagement.

Score: 79/100

Strongest fit: Leigh Law Group’s public materials expressly combine higher-education dismissal and academic issues with disability accommodation, ADA, Section 504, retaliation, and due-process hearing work.

Likely role: Integrated disability and higher-education lead, or disability merits lead paired with a writ-focused California lawyer.

Shortcomings and risks: The publicly visible case descriptions and practice materials are substantially weighted toward K–12 special education. Confirm recent graduate or professional-school matters, UC internal hearings, administrative mandamus, and cross-examination experience.

Conflict questions: UCLA and the Regents, named individuals, any CAE or DGE personnel, and any current institutional or employee-side representation.

Cost hypothesis: More promising than most candidates because the firm advertises free intake and possible sliding-scale or reduced-fee arrangements. That does not establish that this matter qualifies or that full representation falls within budget.

Best channel: Email the published intake address and call 800-424-5297.

Personalized opening angle: “The matter combines a narrowed higher-education hearing with disability accommodation, retaliation, and academic-continuation issues, which matches your published higher-education and ADA/Section 504 work.”

Acceptance likelihood: Moderate, subject to capacity and confirmation that the firm accepts graduate-level public-university matters.

Why third: Leigh has stronger disability depth and potential fee flexibility than the first two candidates, but the public record shows less exact UC writ and doctoral-hearing experience.

Shanon D. Trygstad — Trygstad, Schwab & Trygstad

Verified license: California’s official profile identifies Shanon D. Trygstad as active, bar number 173834. No adverse disciplinary item was identified in the retrieved profile; recheck before retention.

Score: 65/100

Strongest fit: The firm describes substantial administrative-hearing, education, disability, trial, and appellate work and identifies matters involving universities and UCLA. Shanon Trygstad’s biography emphasizes disability and education rights.

Likely role: Hearing counsel, California administrative-procedure reserve, or co-counsel.

Shortcomings and risks: The firm’s visible practice appears substantially centered on educators, employees, and K–12 matters. Exact student-side graduate-program dismissal, CRO-style grievance, and continuation-remedy experience must be established before advancement.

Conflict questions: Current UCLA or UC employee matters, union or faculty representations involving relevant departments, current adverse-party relationships, and any role for the firm opposite or aligned with a named witness.

Cost hypothesis: Unknown. The firm describes active consultations and transparent billing but does not publish usable rates or caps.

Best channel: Call 310-552-0500 and submit the web intake.

Personalized opening angle: “Your administrative-hearing and disability-rights background, including UCLA-facing work, may fit a time-sensitive student grievance that requires witness examination and California record preservation.”

Acceptance likelihood: Low-to-moderate, because exact student-side fit and capacity are not yet established.

Why fourth: Trygstad offers more demonstrated administrative-hearing capability than German but less exact graduate-student and accommodation fit than the top three.

David W. German — Vanaman German LLP

Verified license: California’s official profile identifies David W. German as active, bar number 252394. No adverse discipline item was identified in the retrieved profile; recheck before engagement.

Score: 59/100

Strongest fit: German has extensive disability due-process, evidentiary-hearing, and trial experience and has taught education law at UCLA.

Likely role: Disability-hearing specialist, limited-scope strategist, or provisional lead only after confirming higher-education and writ competence.

Shortcomings and risks: The practice is predominantly K–12 and IDEA-focused. That is materially different from a UCLA doctoral-program matter governed by university policy, Title II, Section 504, California public-law principles, and academic-deference doctrines.

Conflict questions: UCLA teaching or professional relationships; current representations involving UCLA, the Regents, CAE, or the named individuals; whether any institutional consulting creates an issue.

Cost hypothesis: Unknown. Request a discrete consultation or capped disability-hearing review before discussing full representation.

Best channel: Call 818-990-7722 or email the published attorney address.

Personalized opening angle: “Your disability due-process and hearing experience may be valuable in a UCLA graduate matter involving accommodation, causation, and witness-examination questions, provided your firm handles higher-education internal proceedings.”

Acceptance likelihood: Low-to-moderate as lead; moderate as a limited disability/hearing consultant if the firm accepts higher-education matters.

Why fifth: German offers stronger disability-hearing depth than the remaining California reserves, but his K–12 concentration keeps him below Trygstad and makes this a provisional rather than fully gate-cleared lead recommendation.

H. Ranked specialist, nonprofit, and referral alternatives

Specialist or co-counsel options

Nonprofit, pro bono, and legal-aid options

Certified referral channels

1. State Bar of California certified lawyer-referral directory. Request a California lawyer with all four of these characteristics: public-university administrative hearing experience, student-side higher education, ADA/Section 504, and administrative mandamus. Certified services refer to insured lawyers in good standing and commonly provide a reduced-fee or no-fee initial consultation.

2. San Francisco–Marin Lawyer Referral and Information Service disability-rights panel. It expressly lists disability rights and publishes a modest consultation charge, though Los Angeles appearance capacity must be confirmed.

3. San Fernando Valley Bar Association Attorney Referral Service. It is geographically practical and listed among Los Angeles-area certified services; request education, disability, administrative, and appellate or writ screening rather than a generic civil-rights referral.

Clinics

No located law-school clinic can presently be characterized as a likely source of full representation for this UCLA doctoral grievance.

Loyola’s Center for Conflict Resolution may be useful only if both sides are willing to engage in conciliation or mediation; it is not a substitute for hearing counsel.

Loyola’s Youth Justice Education Clinic is oriented toward youth and school-pushout work, not graduate higher education.

Berkeley Law and EBCLC warrant a narrowly framed inquiry, but geography, client eligibility, mandate, and the University of California affiliation create significant practical and conflict uncertainties.

I. Prior shortlist audit

Recruitment, outreach, and intake materials

J. Same-day outreach wave

Wave One: private California lead candidates

Send substantially simultaneous conflict-check submissions to Hathaway, Kosnett, Leigh, Trygstad, and German. The first three should receive both email or intake-form submissions and same-day telephone calls.

Do not wait for one candidate to decline before contacting the next. Counsel conflicts, availability, and economics are independent constraints, and sequential outreach would unnecessarily consume the pre-hearing period.

Wave Two: specialists and limited-scope options

Contact Jason Bach for a tightly scoped consultation addressing:

• hearing grounds and framing;

• graduate or professional-program dismissal strategy;

• disability and mental-health accommodation issues;

• continuation-remedy architecture; and

• what work can be performed without a formal appearance.

Contact Catherine Cabalo or Peiffer Wolf only through a conflict-check-first message that identifies UCLA and the Regents before transmitting any substantive record.

Wave Three: nonprofit, clinic, and referral channels

Begin Disability Rights California intake first. Contact DREDF second. Contact DRA only with a candid description of both the individual dispute and any genuinely supportable systemic dimension. Submit a certified-referral request in parallel.

Method and follow-up

Outreach tracker fields

Record candidate, firm, date and time, channel, person reached, conflict status, consultation date, fee, proposed responsible lawyer, scope, Phase I cap, appearance fee, availability, secure-transfer instructions, next follow-up, and disposition. A blank tracker is included in the workbook.

Travel

State affirmatively that Cooper will be traveling August 5–11 but remains available for remote consultation by telephone or video. Do not imply that travel delays the matter or prevents document review.

K. Tailored ready-to-send outreach

Universal conflict-check and intake email

Subject: Time-sensitive UCLA graduate-student grievance hearing — conflict check and consultation request

Dear [Attorney Name],

I am a UCLA neuroscience Ph.D. student seeking counsel for a formal hearing under UCLA Procedure 230.2 and a related but distinct graduate academic-disqualification process.

The hearing request was timely filed on July 31, 2026 and UCLA confirmed receipt on August 3. The requested hearing is expressly limited to Findings 2–5 concerning Dr. Carrie Bearden and Dr. Felix Schweizer. Finding 1 concerning Dr. James Bisley is not being submitted for hearing review, and I seek no finding or remedy against him. No hearing date, Hearing Officer, pre-hearing conference, or disclosure schedule has yet been provided.

Before I provide confidential documents, could your office please check conflicts involving:

• The Regents of the University of California and UCLA;

• UCLA Civil Rights Office Case 2025-07-00230-DPO;

• Dr. Carrie Bearden;

• Dr. Felix Schweizer;

• Dr. James Bisley;

• UCLA’s Neuroscience Interdepartmental Program;

• UCLA Division of Graduate Education; and

• Cooper M. Beaman.

The matter involves higher-education administrative procedure, disability discrimination and accommodation, retaliation and harassment allegations, academic-disqualification issues, witness and evidentiary preparation, continuation or reinstatement remedies, and preservation of the California administrative record.

My preferred initial engagement is a fixed-fee or capped Phase I of approximately $2,000–$4,000, with hearing appearance separately priced if necessary. I am also open to limited-scope, sliding-scale, payment-plan, or hybrid arrangements.

The complete record will be provided only after conflict clearance and receipt of secure-transfer instructions. I will be traveling August 5–11 but remain available remotely.

Thank you,

Cooper M. Beaman

[telephone]

[email]

Personalized email for Mark Hathaway

Subject: UCLA Procedure 230.2 hearing — campus-hearing and writ counsel inquiry

Dear Mr. Hathaway,

I am contacting you because Hathaway Parker’s work in university investigations, hearings, grievances, appeals, and California writ proceedings appears closely aligned with my immediate need: preparing a narrowed UCLA administrative hearing while preserving evidentiary objections, witness issues, continuation remedies, and a reviewable record.

The hearing request was timely filed on July 31 and confirmed received by UCLA on August 3. It is limited to Findings 2–5 concerning Dr. Carrie Bearden and Dr. Felix Schweizer; Finding 1 concerning Dr. James Bisley is not submitted for review, and no remedy is sought against him. No hearing date, Hearing Officer, or disclosure schedule is yet known.

Would your office conduct a conflict check using the parties and entities listed below and advise whether you could offer either full lead representation or a capped Phase I covering record triage, grounds refinement, designation, witness and exhibit planning, and preservation strategy? My preferred first-phase budget is approximately $2,000–$4,000, recognizing that hearing appearance would likely require separate pricing.

I will provide the full record only after conflict clearance and secure-transfer instructions.

[Insert conflict list and signature from universal email.]

Personalized email for James Kosnett

Subject: UCLA graduate hearing — graduate-dispute, disability, and limited-scope inquiry

Dear Mr. Kosnett,

Your published work involving graduate and university disputes, hearings, disability issues, appeal drafting, coaching, and writ remedies appears unusually well suited to a phased engagement in my UCLA matter.

A timely Procedure 230.2 hearing request was filed July 31 and confirmed received August 3. It is limited to Findings 2–5 concerning Dr. Carrie Bearden and Dr. Felix Schweizer. Finding 1 concerning Dr. James Bisley is not being challenged, and no remedy is sought against him. UCLA has not yet identified the Hearing Officer or schedule.

I am seeking either lead representation or a capped first phase addressing immediate procedural communications, record review, grounds refinement, witness and exhibit preparation, continuation remedies, and preservation for possible California review. My preferred Phase I budget is approximately $2,000–$4,000, and I would welcome an unbundled option if full representation is not feasible.

Please conduct a conflict check before I send confidential materials. The complete record will be shared only through your approved secure method after clearance.

[Insert conflict list and signature.]

Personalized email for Mandy Leigh

Subject: UCLA higher-education disability grievance — consultation and conflict check

Dear Ms. Leigh,

I am seeking counsel because my matter combines a higher-education dismissal or continuation dispute with ADA and Section 504 accommodation, retaliation, and administrative-hearing issues—areas reflected in Leigh Law Group’s published practice.

The UCLA Procedure 230.2 hearing request was timely filed July 31 and confirmed received August 3. The hearing is expressly limited to Findings 2–5 concerning Dr. Carrie Bearden and Dr. Felix Schweizer. Finding 1 concerning Dr. James Bisley is not submitted for review, and no finding or remedy is sought against him. No hearing date or disclosure schedule has been provided.

I would like to discuss full or limited-scope representation, including a fixed or capped Phase I of approximately $2,000–$4,000, possible sliding-scale treatment, and separately priced hearing appearance. The immediate priorities are procedural preservation, disability and causation analysis, witness preparation, continuation or reinstatement remedies, and coordination with a separate UCLA graduate-education process.

Please conduct the conflict check below before I transmit the record. I will use your secure-transfer process after clearance.

[Insert conflict list and signature.]

Personalized email for Shanon Trygstad

Subject: UCLA administrative hearing and disability-rights matter — counsel inquiry

Dear Ms. Trygstad,

I am contacting you because your administrative-hearing, education, disability-rights, trial, and UCLA-facing experience may be relevant to a time-sensitive UCLA graduate-student grievance requiring witness examination and preservation of a California administrative record.

My Procedure 230.2 hearing request was timely filed July 31 and confirmed received August 3. It is limited to Findings 2–5 concerning Dr. Carrie Bearden and Dr. Felix Schweizer. Finding 1 concerning Dr. James Bisley is not submitted for hearing review, and no remedy is sought against him. UCLA has not yet issued the Hearing Officer assignment or schedule.

Could your office confirm whether you represent graduate students in internal public-university disability or academic-dismissal hearings and whether you could offer a capped Phase I in the approximately $2,000–$4,000 range? Full appearance can be separately assessed once the schedule and hearing order are known.

Please complete the conflict check below before I provide confidential records.

[Insert conflict list and signature.]

Personalized email for David German

Subject: UCLA graduate disability hearing — limited-scope or hearing-counsel inquiry

Dear Mr. German,

Your disability due-process, evidentiary-hearing, and education-law experience may be valuable in a UCLA graduate matter involving accommodation, causation, witness preparation, and an academic-continuation objective.

A timely UCLA Procedure 230.2 hearing request was filed July 31 and confirmed received August 3. It is limited to Findings 2–5 concerning Dr. Carrie Bearden and Dr. Felix Schweizer. Finding 1 concerning Dr. James Bisley is not being challenged, and no remedy is sought against him. No hearing date, Hearing Officer, or disclosure schedule is yet known.

Before proceeding, I would appreciate confirmation that your firm handles higher-education internal hearings and related California public-law preservation, rather than only K–12 special-education matters. I am interested in either a capped Phase I of approximately $2,000–$4,000 or a discrete disability/hearing consultation, with appearance separately priced.

Please conduct the conflict check below before I send the record.

[Insert conflict list and signature.]

Forty-five-second voicemail

Hello, this is Cooper Beaman. I am a UCLA neuroscience Ph.D. student seeking time-sensitive counsel for a formal UCLA Procedure 230.2 grievance hearing and a related graduate academic-disqualification process. The hearing request was timely filed and UCLA confirmed receipt today. It is limited to Findings 2 through 5 involving two faculty respondents, and no hearing date has yet been assigned. I am seeking either lead representation or a capped initial phase focused on hearing preparation, disability issues, continuation remedies, and record preservation. I have emailed a conflict list and will not send confidential records until clearance. My number is [number]. Again, this is Cooper Beaman at [number]. Thank you.

Live intake-call script

“Thank you for speaking with me. Before discussing confidential details, can you confirm that the office can run a conflict check for UCLA, the Regents, Carrie Bearden, Felix Schweizer, James Bisley, the UCLA Neuroscience Interdepartmental Program, DGE, and me?”

After clearance:

“The immediate matter is a UCLA Procedure 230.2 hearing. I timely filed on July 31, and UCLA confirmed receipt August 3. The hearing is limited to Findings 2–5 concerning Bearden and Schweizer. Finding 1 concerning Bisley is not challenged and I seek no remedy against him. No Hearing Officer or schedule is known.

“The desired outcome is continued student status through reinstatement, remand, structured continuation, transfer, accommodation, or neutral academic review—not merely damages. A separate DGE academic-disqualification process must be coordinated but not conflated with the CRO hearing.

“Could you tell me:

1. whether the lawyer personally handling the matter has represented graduate students in university hearings or academic dismissal cases;

2. whether that lawyer has handled ADA or Section 504 accommodation and retaliation issues;

3. whether the lawyer will conduct witness examination and preserve the record for a California writ;

4. what can be accomplished under a capped $2,000–$4,000 Phase I; and

5. whether hearing appearance can be separately priced?”

Nonprofit or pro bono request

Subject: Disability-rights intake — UCLA graduate-student hearing and continuation matter

I am a UCLA neuroscience Ph.D. student with a timely pending internal grievance hearing involving disability accommodation, discrimination, retaliation, and academic-continuation issues. UCLA confirmed receipt of the hearing request on August 3, but no schedule has been issued.

The requested hearing is limited to Findings 2–5 involving two faculty respondents. A separate graduate academic-disqualification process is also pending. The principal requested outcome is continued or restored student status through an individualized and nondiscriminatory academic process.

I understand your organization cannot accept every individual matter. I am requesting intake screening for direct representation, limited advice, co-counseling, or referral. I will provide confidential records only after conflicts and secure-transfer procedures are addressed.

Certified lawyer-referral request

I need a California attorney who represents students—not universities—in public-university administrative hearings and has meaningful experience in all or most of the following: graduate or professional-school academic dismissal, ADA Title II and Section 504 accommodation or retaliation, witness examination, university grievance procedure, California administrative mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, and negotiated reinstatement or continuation remedies.

The hearing request is already timely filed and confirmed received. No hearing date is known. I prefer a lawyer offering a fixed-fee or capped first phase, limited-scope services, sliding scale, or payment plan.

Follow-up after one to two business days

I am following up because UCLA has confirmed receipt of the hearing request but has not yet supplied the Hearing Officer or schedule, and counsel must be prepared to respond quickly when those deadlines issue. Please let me know whether the conflict check can be completed and whether a brief remote consultation is available.

Graceful decline or hold message

Thank you for your time and consideration. I have retained another lawyer for the immediate phase and will not be proceeding with an engagement at this time. Please preserve the confidentiality of the intake information and confirm whether your office will retain or delete any materials already transmitted under its normal policy.

L. Minimal attorney intake packet

The optimal initial packet remains five items, but the first item should be newly created rather than drawn from a long operational memo:

The fifth item may be replaced with the more attorney-oriented handoff document if it is shorter and current:

04_FINAL_POST_REPORT_HEARING_AND_DGE_SYSTEM/05_COUNSEL_AND_EXTERNAL_REVIEW/24_COUNSEL_HANDOFF_AND_EXTERNAL_REVIEW_READINESS.md

Do not send unsolicited

Do not send any of the following before conflict clearance and secure-transfer instructions:

• the full Exhibits A–R production;

• the full evidence archive;

• medical or psychological records;

• disability documentation beyond what is needed for initial issue identification;

• raw email, Slack, text, or messaging exports;

• records containing third-party personally identifying information;

• hundreds of additional pages not relied upon by the investigator;

• unredacted witness information;

• family communications; or

• documents subject to uncertain confidentiality restrictions.

Second-stage secure packet

After conflict clearance, send:

1. Exhibits A–R and Exhibit List;

2. Procedure 230.2 and Attachment B;

3. DGE and CDP policy and operative correspondence;

4. concise contradiction, omission, witness, and mitigation matrices;

5. selected accommodation and interactive-process records;

6. a dated chronology;

7. witness contact and availability information;

8. proposed continuation remedies;

9. a complete archive index; and

10. additional underlying files only on counsel’s request.

Retention, cost, and formal designation

M. Consultation agenda and retention questions

Highest-priority questions

1. Exact experience: “Identify two or three matters in which you personally represented a graduate, medical, doctoral, or professional student in an academic dismissal, disability, or internal university hearing.”

2. Personal responsibility: “Who will review the report, draft submissions, prepare witnesses, attend the hearing, and communicate with UCLA?”

3. Hearing plan: “Do you anticipate calling witnesses, cross-examining respondents, making offers of proof, challenging redactions, or seeking authentication?”

4. Disability competence: “What ADA Title II, Section 504, accommodation, interactive-process, retaliation, or disability-harassment matters have you handled in higher education?”

5. UC and UCLA: “Have you represented UCLA, the Regents, a UC campus, or anyone connected to the listed actors?”

6. Dual-lane architecture: “How would you coordinate the CRO hearing with the separate DGE or CDP academic process without conflating jurisdiction or remedies?”

7. Record and writ: “What objections and submissions must be made now to preserve a possible California administrative-mandamus challenge?”

8. Remedies: “What continuation, remand, reinstatement, transfer, accommodation, or neutral-review terms would you pursue?”

9. Availability: “Can you act before an unexpected witness or exhibit deadline, including during August 5–11?”

10. Scope: “What exact deliverables can be completed under a $2,000–$4,000 cap?”

11. Appearance: “What would the hearing appearance cost, and does that include preparation, travel, post-hearing comments, or settlement discussions?”

12. Billing: “What are the retainer, replenishment trigger, hourly rates by timekeeper, minimum increments, administrative charges, travel charges, and unused-retainer refund policy?”

13. Alternative fees: “Do you offer fixed fees, hard caps, limited-scope work, reduced rates, sliding scale, payment plans, deferred amounts, hybrid arrangements, or a pro bono allocation?”

14. Communication: “What response time and update cadence will apply, and who is the day-to-day contact?”

15. Settlement authority: “Will you pursue academic continuation and status-preserving terms rather than treating monetary damages as the only meaningful outcome?”

16. Insurance: “Do you maintain current professional-liability insurance?”

17. Termination: “What work product is delivered if either party terminates, and how are unused funds handled?”

18. Security: “What secure portal, encryption, retention, and deletion practices apply to medical and academic records?”

Red flags and deal-breakers

• Guaranteed outcome or categorical statement that UCLA “will lose.”

• Advice to threaten publicity, criminal consequences, licensing action, or unrelated claims as leverage.

• Refusal to conduct a conflict check before receiving the full archive.

• Request to send medical records or the entire confidential production through ordinary email before clearance.

• Inability to distinguish the CRO hearing from DGE or CDP authority.

• Exclusive focus on damages with no plan for continued enrollment or reinstatement.

• No witness or cross-examination plan despite a contested hearing.

• No California-law competence and no proposed California co-counsel.

• No plan to preserve excluded evidence and objections.

• Unclear identity of the lawyer doing the work.

• Uncapped hourly engagement without budget alerts or change-control provisions.

• Retainer terms permitting substantial nonrefundable charges without defined deliverables.

• Inability to act before likely pre-hearing deadlines.

N. Cost-minimization and fee negotiation

Model A — full hearing representation

Deliverables: Complete record review; hearing theory; procedural correspondence; witness interviews and preparation; subpoenas or attendance requests where available; exhibits; direct and cross-examination; opening and closing; settlement negotiations; post-hearing comments; Vice Chancellor submission; coordination with DGE or CDP; preservation for external review.

Tradeoff: Best continuity and lowest execution risk, but almost certainly exceeds the preferred $2,000–$4,000 initial budget.

Major cost drivers: Ten-million-byte-plus report and attachments; hundreds of additional pages; number of witnesses; redaction disputes; hearing length; expert consultation; travel; post-hearing briefing; DGE work; emergency scheduling.

When rational: Counsel offers unusually favorable pricing, nonprofit support, a payment plan, or the hearing issues can be tightly narrowed.

Model B — capped Phase I plus separately priced appearance

Recommended model.

Phase I deliverables:

• conflict and procedural review;

• targeted review of Notice, report, hearing request, and core exhibits;

• UCLA designation and schedule communications;

• hearing-ground and jurisdiction matrix;

• record and redaction preservation request;

• witness and exhibit plan;

• preliminary direct and cross outlines;

• continuation-remedy proposal;

• DGE coordination advice; and

• budget and go/no-go assessment for appearance.

Target: Hard cap of approximately $2,000–$4,000, with no overage without written approval.

Separately price: Hearing preparation after scheduling, witness interviews, appearance, travel, post-hearing comments, and internal appeal.

Tradeoff: Requires disciplined client document organization and may leave a second retention decision shortly before the hearing.

When rational: Almost always in this posture, because the schedule, Hearing Officer, and duration are unknown.

Model C — coaching and drafting without formal appearance

Deliverables: Two or three attorney conferences; written issue outline; edits to hearing statement; witness and exhibit plan; cross-examination questions; mock hearing; objections checklist; post-hearing comment template; writ-preservation checklist.

Tradeoff: Lowest cost but highest execution risk. Cooper or a non-attorney representative must manage live examination, objections, time, record preservation, and settlement decisions.

When rational: No suitable lawyer will appear, the hearing is short or document-centered, or the available evidence can be presented clearly without complex witness disputes.

Fee-negotiation script

“My available initial budget is approximately $2,000–$4,000. I would like to avoid asking you to underprice undefined work, so could we structure a written Phase I with specific deliverables and a hard cap?

“I would like the consultation fee credited against the engagement. Please identify what can be handled as a fixed fee, what remains hourly, and what would trigger a written change order.

“Could the retainer be phased rather than fully funded at the outset? I would also like to discuss any reduced rate, sliding scale, payment plan, deferred portion, limited pro bono allocation, or hybrid structure the firm offers.

“Please price hearing appearance separately and state whether it includes witness preparation, travel, post-hearing comments, settlement negotiations, and DGE coordination.

“I would also like the engagement letter to preserve the ability to seek attorney-fee reimbursement as a settlement term without representing that fees are automatically recoverable.”

Fee recovery distinctions

Procedure 230.2 does not appear to create an automatic internal entitlement to attorney fees. A negotiated UCLA resolution could nevertheless include reimbursement of some or all fees as an express settlement term.

The ADA authorizes discretionary attorney-fee awards in qualifying actions or administrative proceedings, and the Rehabilitation Act incorporates remedies that can include fee shifting in qualifying external proceedings. Those provisions do not establish that this UCLA internal grievance itself automatically produces a fee award. Statutory entitlement, prevailing-party status, causation, recoverability, and forum must be evaluated by counsel in the context of an actual external action.

A plaintiff-side disability firm may consider contingency or a hybrid arrangement for a viable damages or injunctive action, but that does not imply willingness to finance an internal hearing whose principal remedy is academic continuation.

O. Representation designation and sequencing

Textual interpretation of Procedure 230.2

Procedure 230.2 permits a grievant to be assisted by a representative and contemplates identifying the representative and supplying any required release. The summary provisions also state that when an attorney represents the grievant and the University is a subject of the grievance, the University will have legal counsel.

The existing hearing request most likely preserved later attorney retention because it:

• truthfully stated that no attorney had agreed to represent Cooper;

• stated an intent to obtain attorney assistance;

• promised prompt supplementation after retention; and

• did not waive representation.

This is the stronger textual interpretation. The procedure does not, however, appear to state an express “late-designation” process or guarantee that designation may occur without scheduling consequences at any time. That residual uncertainty warrants prompt supplementation once counsel is retained.

Sequence after retention

1. Conduct conflict check.

2. Complete consultation.

3. Receive and negotiate written scope and fee agreement.

4. Confirm the exact responsible attorney.

5. Sign the engagement agreement.

6. Sign a narrowly tailored release or authorization permitting UCLA communications and record access.

7. Obtain counsel’s preferred wording for appearance or designation.

8. Send UCLA the designation notice.

9. Ask UCLA to direct future substantive and scheduling communications to both Cooper and counsel.

10. Ask counsel to verify the Hearing Officer process, disclosure deadlines, record access, redactions, and any needed good-cause relief.

Copying counsel

Formally appearing counsel should ordinarily be copied on all communications involving scheduling, evidence, witnesses, procedure, settlement, DGE interaction, or substantive hearing issues. Cooper should remain copied unless counsel directs otherwise.

Behind-the-scenes counsel

An attorney who only advises, drafts, or coaches and does not communicate with UCLA, receive protected records directly from UCLA, or appear at the hearing may not need to be formally designated. Procedure 230.2 does not expressly resolve this distinction. Confirm with the attorney and UCLA before relying on nondisclosure of the consulting relationship.

University counsel participation

Once Cooper is formally represented by an attorney, the policy’s summary language indicates that the University will have legal counsel when the University is the subject of the grievance.

That factor should not deter retention, but it may make proceedings more lawyer-driven and increase the need for clear scope, evidentiary preparation, and procedural discipline.

Retention near a deadline

If counsel is retained shortly before a disclosure or hearing deadline:

• designate counsel immediately;

• comply with everything reasonably possible by the existing deadline;

• identify the exact additional work that cannot reasonably be completed;

• request only the minimum necessary extension;

• explain that the hearing request was timely, UCLA had not supplied the schedule when counsel was sought, and the extension supports a fair and efficient record;

• avoid implying that retention automatically stays the proceeding.

Procedure 230.2 permits extensions for good cause but does not guarantee one merely because counsel was newly retained.

Attorney-designation notice

Subject: Case 2025-07-00230-DPO — designation of attorney representative

Dear ADA/Section 504 Compliance Office and Grievance Coordinator,

I write to supplement my timely July 31, 2026 hearing request.

I have retained [Attorney Name], [Firm], as my attorney representative for the Procedure 230.2 hearing concerning Findings 2–5 involving Dr. Carrie Bearden and Dr. Felix Schweizer.

Attorney contact information:

[Name]

[Firm]

[Email]

[Telephone]

[Address]

Please copy both counsel and me on all future communications concerning the Hearing Officer, scheduling, pre-hearing procedures, witnesses, exhibits, record access, settlement, and the hearing. Attached is [the requested authorization or release], limited to this matter.

This designation does not alter the hearing scope stated in my July 31 request. Finding 1 concerning Dr. James Bisley remains outside the requested hearing review, and no finding or remedy is sought against him.

Please confirm receipt and advise of any additional form required by Procedure 230.2 or Attachment B.

Sincerely,

Cooper M. Beaman

Good-cause extension request

Subject: Case 2025-07-00230-DPO — narrowly tailored good-cause scheduling request

Dear [Coordinator or Hearing Officer],

I respectfully request a [number]-University-business-day extension of the [identify precise deadline] for good cause.

My hearing request was timely filed on July 31, 2026 and confirmed received on August 3. At that time no Hearing Officer, hearing date, or disclosure schedule had been provided, and I accurately disclosed that I was seeking attorney assistance. I retained [Attorney] on [date], after receiving the schedule on [date].

Counsel requires the requested limited period to [review the redacted Investigation Report and designated exhibits; conduct necessary witness interviews; prepare the required witness or exhibit submission; address newly disclosed redactions; or another precise task]. We will complete all unaffected requirements by their existing deadlines.

The requested extension is limited to what is reasonably necessary, does not alter the hearing’s Findings 2–5 scope, and is intended to promote an orderly and complete record. Please advise promptly whether the request is granted or whether an alternative schedule is available.

Sincerely,

Cooper M. Beaman

[Attorney signature if appropriate]

Execution and fallback planning

P. Sixty-day action plan

Exact dates below are used only where established. Other events are tied to procedural triggers because UCLA has not supplied the Hearing Officer or schedule.

Procedure 230.2 states that the hearing generally should be scheduled within sixty University business days and provides subsequent periods for the Hearing Officer’s report, party comments, the Vice Chancellor’s decision, and internal appeal. The exact projected end date cannot be fixed without UCLA’s business-day calendar, campus closures, extensions, and the procedure’s counting convention.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 contains a ninety-day rule for certain local-agency decisions, but it should not be assumed to govern the Regents or this matter. California counsel should identify the applicable limitations and exhaustion framework immediately after any final decision.

Q. No-counsel fallback

Limited-scope attorney

The best fallback is still to purchase targeted California legal work even if no lawyer appears. Priority deliverables are:

• one procedural and record-preservation memorandum;

• hearing-scope and grounds review;

• witness and exhibit plan;

• cross-examination questions;

• review of the continuation proposal;

• mock hearing;

• review of post-hearing comments; and

• limitations and writ-preservation advice.

Non-attorney representative

Procedure 230.2 appears to permit assistance by a representative who need not be an attorney, subject to policy conditions and designation requirements. A non-attorney can organize exhibits, conduct questioning if permitted, monitor time, take notes, and help Cooper maintain focus. That person cannot provide legal advice, hold himself out as counsel, or cure a lack of California legal analysis.

Self-representation

If self-represented, Cooper should use a narrow hearing architecture:

1. jurisdiction and requested relief;

2. concise grounds for Findings 2–5;

3. witness-by-witness proof plan;

4. exhibit authentication;

5. accommodation, causation, retaliation, or harassment evidence tied to each finding;

6. procedural omissions and offers of proof;

7. academic-continuation remedy; and

8. explicit preservation of objections without argumentative repetition.

William Beaman as representative

William Beaman may be a plausible non-attorney representative only if he is not a party, fact witness, likely rebuttal witness, or source of material evidence. If he has substantive firsthand knowledge, authored relevant communications, participated in events, or may need to testify, combining witness and representative roles could create credibility, sequestration, and practical complications. Determine his witness status before designation.

Consulting attorney who does not appear

A consulting attorney can remain behind the scenes for drafting, coaching, and mock examination. Confirm whether UCLA requires disclosure when the attorney does not appear or receive records directly. The policy does not appear to expressly answer that question.

Highest record-preservation priorities

• Make timely scope and procedural objections.

• Submit all material evidence permitted by the hearing order.

• Make an offer of proof when evidence or testimony is excluded.

• Identify redaction or access problems in writing.

• Request rulings on disputed procedural questions.

• Authenticate documents and identify their source.

• Preserve witness nonappearance and requested attendance efforts.

• Ensure the recording captures objections and rulings.

• Submit focused post-hearing comments.

• Preserve the distinction between the CRO hearing and DGE lane.

Tasks not advisable without California counsel

• Filing or threatening a writ petition.

• Calculating the controlling judicial-review deadline.

• Waiving or settling federal or state claims.

• Signing a release, confidentiality clause, non-disparagement clause, academic-status waiver, or broad covenant not to sue.

• Issuing litigation holds or preservation demands framed as legal process.

• Communicating with opposing counsel about external litigation.

• Making public accusations intended as leverage.

• Engaging an expert whose role may affect privileges, disclosure, or admissibility.

Final synthesis

R. Final decision matrix

Evidence gaps requiring direct intake confirmation

The following remain unknown and should be resolved during the first consultation:

• Each lawyer’s actual availability before UCLA’s first material deadline.

• Whether the lawyer has a current UCLA, Regents, respondent, witness, or related-party conflict.

• Whether UCLA permits the proposed role of a non-California specialist.

• Which lawyer will personally perform the work.

• Exact graduate or doctoral academic-dismissal experience for Trygstad and German.

• Exact UC writ and public-university experience for Leigh.

• Recent UCLA or UC case experience for Kosnett.

• Whether Hathaway will offer a capped or limited-scope first phase.

• Whether any top candidate will accept $2,000–$4,000 for a meaningful Phase I.

• Hearing duration, Hearing Officer, witness authority, remote appearance rules, recording format, and disclosure schedule.

• Whether UCLA requires a specific designation or release form.

• Whether behind-the-scenes counsel must be disclosed.

• Whether DGE will hold academic-disqualification action in abeyance.

• Which continuation remedies each decision-maker has authority to grant.

• Applicable external limitations and exhaustion rules.

• Whether any nonprofit regards the case as within current priorities.

Claims from prior research rejected or downgraded

• A nationally prominent disability lawyer is not automatically a better internal-hearing lead than a California campus-procedure lawyer.

• Active litigation against UCLA or the Regents does not prove either a conflict or an advantage; it creates a conflict-screen issue.

• K–12 special-education hearing experience is transferable but not equivalent to graduate public-university academic-disqualification experience.

• “Education law” alone is not sufficient without student-side orientation, hearing capability, disability competence, and record preservation.

• A non-California lawyer should not be described as lead California counsel without resolving authorization, UCLA participation, and local-law coverage.

• Publicly advertised contingency work in civil litigation does not imply contingency representation for an internal grievance.

• Attorney fees are not automatically recoverable in the UCLA hearing.

• The ninety-day local-agency writ period should not be assumed to govern the Regents.

• The adverse investigation report does not itself eliminate the DGE mitigation or continuation lane.

• Finding 1’s exclusion from hearing review does not necessarily make every Bisley-related fact irrelevant to Findings 2–5, but it prevents using the hearing to seek a finding or remedy against him.

One-page decision table

Bottom line: The optimal first choice is Mark M. Hathaway for combined campus-hearing and California writ-record competence. The optimal second choice is James Victor Kosnett, particularly if a capped or unbundled engagement is necessary. Mandy G. Leigh is the strongest integrated disability-law alternative and may offer the best affordability pathway among the top three. The preferred hybrid is a California hearing lead plus a discrete Jason Bach, Mary Vargas, or other disability-specialist consultation, with the California lawyer retaining control of procedure and writ preservation. The primary pro bono lane is Disability Rights California, followed by DREDF for referral or specialist support.

The immediate sequence is to contact Hathaway, Kosnett, Leigh, Trygstad, and German in parallel; call the first three; begin DRC and certified-referral intake; obtain written capped Phase I proposals; and designate retained counsel immediately after engagement without altering the Findings 2–5 hearing scope.

SUN_08092026

Bottom line

The new information improves your position but does not justify retaining Kosnett immediately without one more round of diligence. Kosnett is now a credible, execution-ready lead-counsel option: he cleared conflicts, personally offered primary representation, quoted a defined reduced-fee structure, reviewed your packet before speaking with you, and the Saturday call appears to have been measured rather than sales-driven. His written proposal was $4,000 for “Phase I,” described as interview, background review, advice, and possible settlement, with another $2,000 per hearing session. Beaman re UCLA Re- Urgent UCLA graduate-student disability hearing.pdf Your follow-up transmitted all five packet documents and expressly asked him to assess settlement, hearing strategy, next-week procedure, DGE coordination, and engagement economics.

But the Saturday conversation was only about 18 minutes, and your notes materially broaden what the $4,000 may mean compared with Kosnett’s original written email. His email calls it “Phase I” and says it “typically” covers interview, document review, advice, and possible settlement; your call notes characterize it as a capped $4,000 for essentially everything short of actual representation at the hearing. Do not resolve that ambiguity by recollection. Get the engagement agreement and exact written scope before paying or signing.

The newly identified lawyers are worth pursuing, but the attached attorney-search memo should be treated as a candidate-discovery document, not a validated ranking. It identifies several genuinely promising alternatives, but some of its conclusions are too categorical. In particular, no evidence I found establishes that any candidate is categorically “more qualified” than Kosnett for the combination of UCLA-specific internal procedure + settlement + disability discrimination + graduate academic disqualification. Rather, different candidates have different comparative advantages.

One date correction: today is Sunday, August 9, 2026. Your DRC call should therefore be tomorrow, Monday, August 10, not August 8.

Current counsel ranking after verification

Two important downgrades from the research memo: Munger Tolles should not be a Monday priority merely because it obtained a major disability judgment—the cited matter demonstrates litigation capability, not immediate internal-hearing intake suitability. Attorney_Search_Re_Post-graduate_insufficient_progress_disqualification_08092026.md And LLF should not be treated as a newly independent option: it is a Joseph Lento-founded practice, and its own materials warn that outside PA/NJ/NY, Lento’s assistance may not itself constitute legal advice unless appropriately admitted. Given your existing exclusion of Lento, remove LLF from this search entirely.

Exact Monday–Tuesday plan

This parallel approach is superior to waiting for DRC/DREDF/DRA because UCLA Procedure 230.2 requires the hearing itself to be completed within 60 University business days of report issuance; it guarantees at least ten Days’ notice and ordinarily calls for relevant materials/witness identities at least five Days before the hearing. The Hearing Officer can admit or exclude evidence and is limited to the evidence presented at the hearing. That makes early counsel involvement materially valuable even while the actual hearing date remains unknown.

DRC: exact opening tomorrow

Do not narrate the entire case. Use approximately 90 seconds:

My name is Cooper Beaman. I am a UCLA neuroscience Ph.D. student with a documented disability, and I am seeking urgent legal assistance concerning an active disability-discrimination and retaliation grievance hearing under UCLA Procedure 230.2.

UCLA’s Civil Rights Office issued an adverse Investigation Report on July 29. I timely elected a formal hearing on July 31 limited to Findings 2 through 5 concerning two faculty/program decisionmakers, and UCLA confirmed receipt. The Hearing Officer, hearing date, and pre-hearing schedule have not been issued.

The matter directly affects my graduate-student status and involves disability-related academic treatment, accommodation requests, retaliation, and academic disqualification. The investigative record also presents significant process and evidentiary issues: I was the only person interviewed, no respondent or identified witness was interviewed, and the report says hundreds of pages of submitted documents were not relied upon or individually itemized.

I am seeking pro bono direct representation by a California attorney, ideally for immediate hearing preparation, witness and exhibit strategy, the hearing itself, cross-examination, and administrative-record preservation. If DRC cannot provide full representation, I would appreciate urgent short-term legal assistance or a referral to an appropriate higher-education disability attorney.

I have consulted one private attorney but have not retained or designated anyone, and the quoted private representation would impose a substantial financial burden. May I complete an intake today?

If asked about other counsel, be completely transparent: say Kosnett offered a $4,000 pre-hearing/settlement arrangement plus separate hearing-session fees, but you have not signed, paid, authorized settlement, or designated him as representative.

DRC’s published criteria expressly include the merits, other advocacy resources, self-advocacy ability, priorities, and available resources, so concealing the Kosnett option would be counterproductive if they ask.

Kosnett: next step is a written engagement agreement, not another merits conversation

Kosnett’s Saturday reaction is encouraging. The most favorable aspects are not simply that he expressed confidence. Your notes indicate that he:

• acknowledged he has lost some cases rather than promising success;
• thought pre-hearing settlement was feasible rather than guaranteed;
• understood that your desired “settlement” means academic continuation/access, not a cash payment;
• had actually reviewed at least the concise packet overview;
• identified deeper review of your principal evidence as his next substantive step.

Those are all better signals than generalized assurances.

But his written and oral descriptions of scope are not yet sufficiently congruent. His original email says the $4,000 “Phase I” typically covers interview, background review, advice, and possible settlement, and expressly prices the hearing separately at $2,000 per session. Beaman re UCLA Re- Urgent UCLA graduate-student disability hearing.pdf You therefore need a contract answering the following before payment:

What exactly does the $4,000 flat fee include? Specifically, does it include complete review of the priority evidentiary record; legal and procedural analysis; entry of appearance; communications with UCLA; follow-up on my unanswered August 3 requests; development of hearing grounds; retaliation-scope analysis; record/redaction requests; witness selection and proffers; exhibit selection and organization; pre-hearing submissions or conferences; development and communication of settlement proposals; actual settlement negotiations; DGE coordination; and preparation for the hearing?

What is excluded? What constitutes a separately billed “hearing session,” how long is one session, and is hearing preparation included in either the $4,000 or $2,000/session amount?

What happens after the hearing? Are the five-Day comments on the hearing report, Vice Chancellor stage, five-Day internal appeal, and any Chancellor appeal outside the engagement, and if so, how would they be priced?

Who personally performs the work? Will Mr. Kosnett personally direct strategy, negotiate with UCLA, prepare the case, and conduct any eventual hearing?

What are the payment and termination terms? Is the $4,000 fully earned on receipt, earned by stages, refundable in part if the dispute resolves early, payable in installments, and are there any costs or charges beyond the stated flat fees?

Settlement authority: The agreement should make explicit that no settlement, withdrawal of the hearing, scope modification, waiver, release, or other resolution is accepted without your prior authorization.

A concise Monday follow-up email after speaking with Santiago would be:

Subject: Re: Beaman re UCLA — proposed engagement agreement

Dear Mr. Kosnett,

Thank you again for speaking with me on Saturday and for reviewing the preliminary case materials. I remain seriously interested in retaining you as lead counsel.

Before making a final decision, I would appreciate receiving the proposed written engagement agreement so I can confirm the precise scope of the $4,000 flat-fee phase discussed during our call, the work included in that amount, the definition and scope of the separate $2,000 hearing-session fee, and the terms governing any later post-hearing or appeal work.

In particular, I would like the agreement to clarify whether Phase I includes substantive evidentiary review, communications with UCLA, hearing-scope and record issues, witness/exhibit development, pre-hearing submissions or conferences, settlement development and negotiations, and coordination with the pending DGE appeal, as applicable.

I am completing final counsel and pro bono diligence Monday and Tuesday and expect to make a prompt representation decision. I will, of course, notify you immediately if UCLA issues a hearing date or other time-sensitive deadline in the interim.

Thank you again.

Cordially,
Cooper M. Beaman
(415) 317-6417

That language keeps Kosnett warm while preserving your negotiating leverage and avoiding any implication that representation has already begun.

The two new private candidates I would definitely test before signing

RBGG — submit a

short conflict-check inquiry only

RBGG’s public practice statement is unusually relevant: it expressly says the firm represents students facing academic discipline or needing disability accommodations and has represented several students in post-graduate professional programs seeking accommodations and challenging academic discipline. Its intake form, however, explicitly warns not to provide confidential detail before a conflicts check.

Use:

I am a UCLA neuroscience Ph.D. student seeking student-side California counsel for an active UCLA Procedure 230.2 disability-discrimination/retaliation hearing arising from academic disqualification. An adverse investigation report issued July 29, 2026; I timely elected a hearing limited to Findings 2–5 concerning Dr. Carrie Bearden and Dr. Felix Schweizer. Dr. James Bisley is also named in the report but Finding 1 is not being submitted for hearing review. No Hearing Officer or hearing date has yet been issued.

The matter concerns disability accommodations in graduate research/mentor placement, retaliation, academic discipline, and preservation of the administrative record. I am seeking one lead attorney for pre-hearing strategy, possible negotiated academic-access resolution, hearing representation, and preservation of later review options.

Parties/entities for conflict purposes include the Regents of the University of California/UCLA, Carrie Bearden, Felix Schweizer, and James Bisley. I have no current counsel.

Please advise whether the firm can clear conflicts and consider an expedited consultation. I will provide confidential case materials only after clearance.

RBGG’s office number is 415-433-6830 if you want to follow the form with a short intake call later Monday.

Ali Shahrestani — worth paying for one comparative consultation if the fee is acceptable

This is the most important correction to the earlier candidate ranking. The new memo’s Shahrestani reference is not merely generic marketing. His own published case history says he represented a graduate student with learning disabilities who sought reinstatement to a doctoral program after dismissal for alleged disability-rights violations, obtained reinstatement, and ultimately graduated.

That does not prove he is superior to Kosnett, but it is close enough to your posture that one one-hour comparative consultation is strategically justified before spending $4,000—provided the consultation cost is reasonable to you.

Call 800-510-3916 and say:

I am calling because your published case history identifies a graduate student with learning disabilities whom you represented after dismissal from a doctoral program and who was successfully reinstated and graduated. I have an active UCLA Ph.D. disability-discrimination and retaliation grievance hearing following academic disqualification, with no hearing date yet. Before retaining lead counsel elsewhere, I would like your earliest one-hour consultation specifically to assess internal-hearing strategy, reinstatement or structured-continuation resolution, and preservation of the administrative record. Could you first confirm conflicts and the consultation fee and earliest appointment?

His site says the one-hour telephone consultation is paid and can often be scheduled the same day or within a couple business days.

DREDF and DRA: what to do now

Do nothing further tonight or Monday morning. Your outreach is already sufficient.

Your DREDF email accurately presents the hearing posture, the report’s investigation methodology, the potential broader programmatic-accommodation issue, your continuation-focused remedies, and your preferred hierarchy of direct representation → co-counsel → referral. Pro_Bono_Disibility_Rights_Non-profit_Outreach_SUN_08092026_03.18_04.01_PM-EDT.pdf The minor typo “representation/council” instead of “counsel” is not worth a corrective email.

DRA has already acknowledged receipt and said its Higher Education team is investigating disability discrimination in colleges/universities and will respond within a week. Pro_Bono_Disibility_Rights_Non-profit_Outreach_SUN_08092026_03.18_04.01_PM-EDT.pdf Sending another email tomorrow would add noise rather than urgency. The only reason to update DRA sooner is if UCLA suddenly gives you a concrete hearing date or near-term submission deadline; then reply with only that new deadline and one sentence explaining why expedited review is requested.

For both organizations, stop Bcc’ing family members on future attorney/nonprofit threads. Nothing needs to be corrected about the messages already sent, but forwarding a sent copy separately is cleaner for confidentiality and recordkeeping.

Your new attorney-search memo needs two legal corrections

First, the memo describes A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools as “drastically lowering the evidentiary barrier.” Attorney_Search_Re_Post-graduate_insufficient_progress_disqualification_08092026.md The precise Supreme Court holding is narrower: schoolchildren bringing Title II ADA or §504 education claims are not subject to a special heightened “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard; the ordinary disability-discrimination standards apply instead. That is potentially important authority, but it does not itself establish what accommodation UCLA owed you, whether a fundamental academic requirement was implicated, causation, remedies, or the standard governing every aspect of your internal proceeding.

Second, the memo states too categorically that overturning academic disqualification “requires” administrative mandamus and that a student cannot typically proceed immediately through ordinary damages litigation. Attorney_Search_Re_Post-graduate_insufficient_progress_disqualification_08092026.md California Code of Civil Procedure §1094.5 applies to judicial inquiry into a final administrative decision resulting from a proceeding where a hearing is legally required, evidence is taken, and fact-finding discretion is vested in the decisionmaker. It also makes the administrative record highly consequential and specifically addresses relevant evidence that could not reasonably have been produced or was improperly excluded. Whether §1094.5 exhaustion, a writ, federal statutory claims, damages claims, or parallel remedies apply to your ultimate facts requires California counsel’s analysis; the research memo should not predetermine that.

This reinforces why hearing-record construction is central even if you hope to settle. UCLA’s own procedure gives you the right to present evidence and witnesses and cross-examine witnesses, lets the Hearing Officer exclude irrelevant or repetitive evidence, and expressly limits the Hearing Officer’s authority to evidence actually presented in the hearing.

If UCLA remains silent

Do not send another large merits submission Monday.

If no attorney has entered by Tuesday morning and UCLA still has not answered the August 3 request, send one concise administrative follow-up:

Subject: Re: Case 2025-07-00230-DPO — Hearing-Scope Confirmation, Record Clarification, Scheduling, and Good-Cause Extension Request

Dear Grievance Coordinator and ADA/Section 504 Compliance Office,

I am following up on my August 3 request. Please confirm the assigned Grievance Coordinator and Hearing Officer, whether any current hearing-related submission deadline requires action, and the status of my written good-cause extension request.

I continue to prepare for the timely elected Findings 2–5 hearing and remain available for scheduling. I understand that no deadline is modified unless UCLA confirms an extension in writing.

Thank you for confirming the present procedural status.

Sincerely,
Cooper M. Beaman

If you retain counsel before then, do not send it yourself; let counsel decide whether to enter an appearance and make the first follow-up.

Decision rule by Tuesday

I would not make the decision based on prestige or the longest list of cases.

Retain the attorney who can answer, concretely and in writing:

On the evidence presently available, Kosnett remains the presumptive front-runner for immediate UCLA-specific internal resolution, not because the new research was weak, but because he is the only private candidate who has already cleared conflicts, reviewed your packet, personally spoken with you, quoted a fee, and expressed readiness to act. Ali Shahrestani is the most important comparative consultation because of his unusually close published doctorate-disability-reinstatement result. RBGG is the most important high-end civil-rights alternative because of its verified postgraduate disability-accommodation/academic-discipline practice. DRC remains the highest-priority free opportunity.

I would therefore use Monday and, at most, Tuesday as a controlled comparison window rather than either signing Kosnett immediately or waiting indefinitely for a hypothetical pro bono acceptance. If no free attorney or demonstrably stronger private option materializes by Tuesday and Kosnett’s written agreement confirms the scope you understood from Saturday, retaining him for a tightly defined Phase I would be a rational and strategically strong next step.

MON_08102026

Attorney Outreach SUN 08102026

The two new replies materially improve your procedural position. DGE has now resolved the most important sequencing uncertainty in your favor: your appeal remains active, its 30-day review clock will not start until the campus investigation is final including the grievance-hearing/student-appeal route, and Bailey has affirmatively noted that you are to be notified when that clock begins. DREDF’s response, meanwhile, is a capacity-based decline rather than an adverse merits assessment and gives you several additional referral channels, most importantly DRC, AHEAD/NCCSD, DRBA, and private higher-education practices.

I am treating your new financial and strategic clarifications as controlling: $0/pro bono first; no paid consultation; private fees ideally below $2,000 total; $4,000 is an outside total ceiling rather than a desired Phase I; never more than $1,000 upfront; settlement/academic continuation before hearing if possible; and the mentor-market/funding/capacity problem should be treated as a major substantive component rather than merely background to disability issues.

1. Call DRC now

DRC’s current intake line is 1-800-776-5746, open Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday from 9:00 a.m.–3:00 p.m. PT. DRC considers merits, self-advocacy ability, alternative resources, organizational priorities, and capacity when deciding whether to provide direct representation; it may also provide short-term assistance or referrals. (Disability Rights California)

ADHD-friendly call card

Your goal

• Open an intake today.

• Ask for direct pro bono representation first.

• If unavailable: limited attorney assistance/negotiation.

• If unavailable: a specific referral to California higher-education disability counsel.

• Get a case/intake number and next step before hanging up.

Opening — keep this under ~60 seconds

Hi, my name is Cooper Beaman. DREDF specifically referred me to Disability Rights California today. I am a UCLA neuroscience Ph.D. student with a documented disability facing academic disqualification, and I have an active formal disability-discrimination and retaliation grievance hearing under UCLA Procedure 230.2.

I timely elected the hearing on July 31. UCLA confirmed receipt, but it still has not appointed the Hearing Officer or provided a hearing schedule. Separately, UCLA’s Division of Graduate Education confirmed today that my academic-disqualification appeal remains active and its 30-day review clock will not start until the grievance-hearing and appeal process is final.

I am seeking pro bono counsel primarily to pursue a prompt academic-access resolution before a hearing if possible, while preserving the hearing if settlement fails. May I complete a legal intake now?

If they ask what the case is actually about

• Disability: ADHD/executive-function limitations and whether meaningful programmatic, rather than merely exam/classroom, accommodations were available.

• Retaliation: accommodation/protected-activity chronology overlapping with adverse academic-status action.

• Investigation: you were the only interviewed party; respondents and identified witnesses were not interviewed; hundreds of submitted pages were not individually itemized.

• Mentor-placement structure: emphasize this carefully:

A central issue is that academic disqualification ultimately depended heavily on my inability to convert five research rotations into a permanent primary-faculty-mentor relationship. The record contains evidence that this outcome depended on factors beyond academic performance—including laboratory funding, faculty capacity, project fit, available mentor supply, and institutional discretion. There is also evidence warranting examination of whether, in some rotations, relevant people knew from the outset that permanent placement was highly unlikely despite allowing the rotation to proceed. I need counsel to assess how those structural conditions interact with disability, causation, mitigation, and the fairness of treating mentor non-placement as an individual academic deficiency.

Do not say the rotations were definitively “shams” or “performative.” Present that as a factual issue requiring investigation.

If they ask what you want

My priority is not damages. I want preservation or restoration of graduate status through some combination of reinstatement, structured continuation or probation, a neutral academic reconsideration, a viable program or home-area transition, facilitated placement with a faculty mentor who actually has capacity and funding, individualized programmatic accommodations, or another durable academic-access solution.

If they ask whether you already have a lawyer

No. I have not retained or designated counsel. I had a brief free consultation with James Kosnett, who proposed approximately $4,000 for a pre-hearing phase and separate hearing-session fees. That is beyond what I can realistically afford. I contacted other private firms as well, but no one represents me. DREDF declined direct representation today because it lacks capacity for individual higher-education cases and specifically referred me to DRC.

If they ask about finances

I am a graduate student with very limited resources. Pro bono representation is strongly preferred. I cannot afford paid consultation fees, and even a private limited engagement would need to be exceptionally low-cost and highly staged.

Your specific asks before ending

1. Can DRC evaluate this for direct pro bono representation, including pre-hearing negotiation and, if necessary, the hearing?

2. If full representation is unavailable, can DRC provide short-term attorney assistance, such as strategy, a settlement/advocacy letter, record preservation, or consultation?

3. Can DRC refer you directly to a California attorney with higher-education ADA/§504, graduate academic-dismissal, and internal-hearing experience?

4. Does DRC have a referral relationship with DRBA, DRLC, AHEAD/NCCSD, or another disability-rights network that could produce pro bono counsel?

5. What is the intake/case number, and how should you securely send the five-document packet if requested?

If you miss 3:00 p.m.: call at 9:00 a.m. PDT tomorrow. Do not substitute a generic voicemail for completing the intake.

2. DGE: the reply is favorable; acknowledge it briefly

Do not ask DGE to begin its merits review now. Bailey has expressly told you that DGE waits for finality of the campus grievance/appeal process.

This means your preferred “DGE-first settlement” should be refined:

Do not try to force DGE’s formal appeal decision first. Instead, preserve DGE’s favorable abeyance while counsel seeks a voluntary global academic resolution involving whichever UCLA actors actually possess settlement/remedial authority. Whether DGE itself can settle the matter during abeyance is not established by Bailey’s response.

Reply in the existing ServiceNow thread:

Dear Mr. Bailey,

Thank you for the clarification. This resolves my principal sequencing and 30-day-clock questions.

I understand from your response that:

1. my nondiscrimination-based academic-disqualification appeal remains active;

2. DGE’s 30-day review period will not begin until DGE is notified that the campus investigation decision is final, including completion of any applicable grievance hearing and student appeal;

3. the pertinent investigation and appeal materials are generally provided after those processes have concluded; and

4. you have noted in my file that I should be notified when the 30-day period begins.

I appreciate your confirmation and preservation of this correspondence in the appeal record. I will continue to provide DGE with material procedural status updates as appropriate.

Best regards,

Cooper M. Beaman UID: 105692562 SR01184644 / SR01178653 / SR01053187

I would not add a settlement request to this reply. The current DGE response is clean and favorable; preserve it.

3. ADA/504 + Grievance Coordinator: send a concise follow-up today

This has now become warranted. Procedure 230.2 places appointment of the Hearing Officer and scheduling with the Grievance Coordinator; it requires completion within 60 University business days, at least ten Days’ hearing notice, and ordinarily requests witness/evidentiary material at least five Days beforehand. (UCLA Admin Policies)

You have waited a full week after being told someone would be in touch “soon.” Do not resend the ten substantive questions. Reply to the August 3 thread:

Subject: Re: Case 2025-07-00230-DPO — Hearing-Scope Confirmation, Record Clarification, Scheduling, and Good-Cause Extension Request

Dear Grievance Coordinator and ADA/Section 504 Compliance Office,

I am following up on my August 3 written request. Thank you again for confirming that day that my hearing request had been received and that someone would contact me regarding next steps.

As of today, August 10, I have not received the identity of the assigned Grievance Coordinator or Hearing Officer, a hearing or pre-hearing schedule, a response to the requested record clarifications, or an update regarding my written good-cause extension request.

Please confirm:

1. the identity and contact information of the assigned Grievance Coordinator;

2. whether a Hearing Officer has been appointed and, if so, the appointment information and applicable challenge procedure;

3. whether any hearing-related or pre-hearing submission deadline presently requires action;

4. the status and routing of my August 3 good-cause extension request; and

5. the anticipated timing for a substantive response to the remaining August 3 record and procedural questions.

I remain available and continue preparing for the timely elected hearing. This follow-up does not alter the Findings 2–5 hearing scope, and I continue to understand that no deadline has been modified absent written confirmation.

Thank you for confirming the present procedural status.

Sincerely,

Cooper M. Beaman

No attachments. No family Bcc.

If counsel is formally retained before you send this, let counsel decide whether to make this first follow-up instead. Otherwise, send it today.

4. Kosnett: correct the budget misunderstanding before any contract

Your written record matters here. Kosnett originally described his offer as a $4,000 “Phase I” flat fee, “typically” including interview, background review, advice, and possible settlement, plus $2,000 per hearing session.

That is plainly different from your actual intent. Correct it professionally now—without accusing him of exploiting the number.

Send this first

Subject: Re: Beaman re UCLA — engagement scope and settlement-first structure

Dear Mr. Kosnett,

Thank you again for speaking with me on Saturday and for reviewing the preliminary case materials. I remain interested in the possibility of working with you, particularly given our discussion of pursuing an efficient academic resolution before a hearing if feasible.

There is one important budget point I would like to clarify before discussing an engagement agreement. My initial reference to a “$2,000–$4,000 capped Phase I” did not accurately convey my intended financial constraint. The $4,000 figure was intended as an outside ceiling on what I could conceivably spend in total on private legal services—not as a target or approved Phase I fee. My practical goal is to keep total private legal fees substantially below that, ideally below $2,000 if an efficient pre-hearing resolution can be achieved. I also cannot make an upfront payment exceeding $1,000.

Given that constraint, I would be particularly interested in a narrowly staged, settlement-first engagement. For example, would you be willing to offer an initial stage capped at no more than $1,000 covering the smallest useful combination of:

• targeted review of the highest-priority record;

• a strategy conference;

• advice concerning the presently unanswered UCLA procedural requests; and

• development and, if appropriate, initial communication of a focused academic-resolution proposal to UCLA?

Any further stage could then proceed only upon my written authorization after we assess UCLA’s response and the hearing schedule.

DGE also provided an important clarification today: my academic-disqualification appeal remains active, but DGE’s 30-day review period does not begin until the campus investigation decision is final, including any grievance-hearing and student-appeal process. This reinforces my preference to explore a negotiated academic-access resolution promptly while preserving the pending hearing as a fallback.

Before I make any retention decision, I would appreciate a proposed written engagement agreement identifying:

1. the specific deliverables included in each proposed stage;

2. any estimated attorney time underlying a flat fee, or the normal hourly rates of the attorneys/timekeepers involved if applicable;

3. what is and is not included in settlement development and negotiations;

4. the definition of a separately billed “hearing session” and whether hearing preparation is included;

5. the pricing of any post-hearing comments or appeal work;

6. available installment or extended-payment arrangements; and

7. confirmation that no settlement, withdrawal, scope modification, waiver, or release would occur without my express authorization.

If a $1,000 initial stage is not workable, I would appreciate knowing the smallest meaningful limited-scope engagement you could offer and the most flexible payment structure available.

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Cordially,

Cooper M. Beaman (415) 317-6417

Kosnett office call — after sending the email

Keep this administrative. Do not renegotiate the entire fee orally.

Goal

• Confirm email received.

• Request engagement draft.

• Ask whether Kosnett can offer ≤$1,000 Stage 1.

• Authorize nothing by phone.

Opening

Hi, this is Cooper Beaman. I spoke with Mr. Kosnett on Saturday about the UCLA matter. I just sent him a brief follow-up clarifying an important budget point and requesting a proposed written engagement agreement. Could you please confirm that he or Santiago has received it?

Then

My original email created an ambiguity: the $4,000 figure was never intended as a Phase I target. I have very limited resources and cannot pay more than $1,000 upfront. I am asking whether Mr. Kosnett can offer a small settlement-first Stage 1 within that limit, with any later work separately authorized.

If they ask you to pay $4,000 now

I appreciate that, but I am not able to authorize that amount. I need the written scope and a staged alternative first. Please ask Mr. Kosnett whether there is a smaller useful engagement or installment structure he can offer.

If asked for a card/deposit

I am not authorizing payment today. I first need to review and accept a written engagement agreement defining scope and fees.

This is the point where your financial boundary should become explicit, not negotiable by inertia.

5. Additional counsel: change the search strategy now

Do not continue contacting lawyers who charge for intake. Your no-paid-consultation rule immediately removes paid-consult specialists such as Jason Bach from the present search.

The highest-yield additional channels now are:

A. Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld — send today

RBGG expressly says it represents students who need disability accommodations or face academic discipline and has represented students in post-graduate professional programs in exactly that combined posture. (Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP) Jenny Yelin’s current profile additionally identifies higher-education disciplinary proceedings, disability-access compliance, mandamus, and appeals. (Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP)

Email jyelin@rbgg.com with no confidential packet initially:

Subject: TIME-SENSITIVE — UCLA Ph.D. disability/academic-status matter — no-cost intake inquiry

Dear Ms. Yelin,

I am a UCLA neuroscience Ph.D. student seeking student-side California counsel concerning an active disability-discrimination and retaliation grievance hearing and related academic-disqualification matter.

I am contacting RBGG because the firm’s published higher-education practice specifically describes representing post-graduate students seeking disability accommodations while challenging academic discipline, and your own higher-education, disability-access, mandamus, and appellate experience appears particularly relevant.

For conflict-screening purposes, the matter involves the Regents of the University of California/UCLA, Dr. Carrie Bearden, Dr. Felix Schweizer, Dr. James Bisley, UCLA’s Neuroscience Interdepartmental Program, and UCLA’s Division of Graduate Education.

An adverse Civil Rights Office report issued July 29; I timely elected a Procedure 230.2 hearing limited to Findings 2–5 concerning Drs. Bearden and Schweizer; UCLA confirmed receipt; and no Hearing Officer or hearing date has yet been provided. DGE confirmed today that my separate academic-disqualification appeal remains active and its review clock will not begin until the grievance/hearing process is final.

My principal objective is a prompt academic-access resolution rather than monetary recovery: reinstatement or status preservation, structured continuation, neutral academic reconsideration, facilitated mentor placement with actual capacity/funding, individualized programmatic accommodation, program or degree-path transition, or another durable continuation remedy.

The record also raises significant questions concerning the extent to which mentor non-placement reflected academic performance versus laboratory funding, faculty capacity, mentor supply, project fit, and other non-academic constraints, and how those conditions interacted with disability and requests for programmatic accommodation.

I cannot pay an initial consultation fee. Pro bono or low-bono representation is strongly preferred; if a private engagement is considered, I would need a tightly staged arrangement, with no more than $1,000 upfront and a practical objective of resolving the matter for substantially less than $2,000 in total fees if possible.

Could the firm conduct an initial conflict/fit screen and advise whether a no-cost consultation is available? I will provide confidential materials only after clearance and your instructions.

Thank you,

Cooper M. Beaman
(415) 317-6417
cooperbeaman@gmail.com

B. Bamieh & De Smeth — worthwhile because consultation is explicitly free

Its current California Education Rights practice advertises free consultations and expressly identifies disability discrimination, due-process disputes, discrimination/retaliation, and college-related education-rights matters. (Bamieh & De Smeth)

Use its Education Rights free-consultation form with a compressed version of the RBGG email. Put in the first sentence:

I am specifically seeking an attorney with higher-education/public-university academic-dismissal and disability-hearing experience, rather than K–12 special-education representation.

That screens the transferability problem immediately.

C. Leigh Law Group — one final follow-up if still unanswered

Leigh currently advertises a free consultation and says it sometimes offers sliding-scale or reduced fees. (Leigh Law Group)

Send:

Subject: Follow-up — UCLA Ph.D. disability hearing / no-cost consultation request

Dear Ms. Leigh,

I am following up on my August 6 inquiry concerning UCLA CRO Case 2025-07-00230-DPO.

There has been one material procedural development: DGE confirmed today that my academic-disqualification appeal remains active and that its 30-day review period will not begin until the related grievance/hearing and appeal route is final. UCLA still has not provided a Hearing Officer, hearing date, or pre-hearing schedule.

I remain interested in a no-cost initial consultation regarding an efficient settlement-first strategy and, if necessary, hearing representation. My financial resources are significantly more limited than my original email may have suggested: pro bono or sliding-scale representation is preferred, I cannot pay more than $1,000 upfront, and my practical goal is to keep total private fees below $2,000 if pre-hearing resolution is achievable.

Please let me know whether the firm can consider the matter. I can provide the concise five-document packet after conflict clearance.

Thank you,

Cooper M. Beaman

If no answer by tomorrow afternoon, one phone call, then stop.

D. Hathaway Parker — same one-final-contact rule

Send essentially the Leigh follow-up, but omit the claim about sliding scale and ask:

“Could the firm offer a no-charge initial screening or consultation before any paid engagement is considered?”

If no response after a Tuesday phone follow-up, stop.

Hahn clarification

Your earlier counsel-research record explicitly classified Adrienne Hahn/Hahn Legal Group as excluded and “do not contact.” Unless you have intentionally reversed that exclusion, do not spend another contact on Hahn.

If “Hahn” in your latest message was intended to mean Leigh, use the Leigh follow-up above.

6. DREDF’s AHEAD referral: contact NCCSD, not generic AHEAD intake

AHEAD itself says students and families are generally served indirectly and specifically routes them to the National Center for College Students with Disabilities (NCCSD) for direct consultation. (AHEAD) NCCSD currently accepts questions at nccsd@ahead.org and describes itself as providing technical assistance to anyone with questions about disability and higher education. (NCCSD)

This is particularly relevant because AHEAD’s current professional guidance says accommodation decisions require an individualized, interactive process informed by context, which maps directly onto your concern that graduate lab/mentor placement cannot simply be treated like an exam-accommodation problem. (AHEAD)

Send:

To: nccsd@ahead.org Subject: DREDF referral — UCLA Ph.D. disability access in graduate research/mentor-placement requirements

Dear NCCSD Team,

DREDF referred me today to AHEAD for possible assistance or referral, and AHEAD’s student resources directed me to NCCSD.

I am a UCLA neuroscience Ph.D. student with a documented executive-functioning disability involved in an active disability-discrimination/retaliation grievance and academic-disqualification matter.

I am not requesting legal advice from NCCSD. I am seeking technical assistance, relevant higher-education disability resources, expert/referral contacts, and—if known—attorneys or organizations that may provide pro bono assistance.

A central issue is how disability access should be analyzed in comparatively unstructured graduate research-rotation and faculty-mentor-placement requirements, rather than conventional classroom or examination settings. My record raises questions concerning:

• individualized accommodation for executive-function limitations in research/laboratory and mentor-placement contexts;

• the interactive process when prospective accommodation requests overlap with an emerging academic-status proceeding;

• institutional funding, faculty capacity, mentor supply, and project fit as barriers to successful permanent placement; and

• the risk that structural mentor-market constraints may be attributed to individual academic deficiencies.

I am also interested in any AHEAD/NCCSD resources or knowledgeable practitioners addressing essential program requirements, fundamental-alteration analysis, graduate research supervision, laboratory placements, or individualized access outside conventional coursework.

If NCCSD knows of disability-rights attorneys, AHEAD members, Knowledge & Practice Community leaders, researchers, or organizations with experience in these graduate-level issues, I would be very grateful for a referral.

Thank you,

Cooper M. Beaman
(415) 317-6417
cooperbeaman@gmail.com

Do not send them the five-document attorney packet unless specifically requested.

7. Two additional free channels are worth activating

Disability Rights Bar Association

DREDF directly referred you to DRBA. DRBA describes itself as a network of attorneys specializing in disability civil-rights law and expressly exists to facilitate legal representation strategies and disability-rights advocacy. (Disability Rights Bar Association)

Use its Request Assistance function and paste:

I am a California resident and UCLA neuroscience Ph.D. student seeking pro bono or exceptionally low-bono California counsel for an active public-university disability-discrimination and retaliation grievance hearing arising from academic disqualification.

The matter combines ADA/Section 504 accommodation issues, retaliation, graduate research/mentor-placement requirements, institutional funding and faculty-capacity constraints, and preservation of an administrative record. My principal objective is an academic-access resolution—reinstatement/status preservation, structured continuation, neutral review, viable mentor placement, individualized accommodation, or an appropriate program transition—rather than damages.

A formal UCLA hearing has been timely elected but no Hearing Officer or date has yet been issued. DGE separately confirmed that my academic-disqualification appeal remains active and will not enter its 30-day review period until the campus grievance route is final.

I am seeking one California attorney who can preferably pursue a prompt negotiated resolution and, if necessary, conduct the internal hearing. I cannot pay an initial consultation fee; pro bono representation is strongly preferred, and any private arrangement would have to be exceptionally limited and staged.

DREDF referred me to the Disability Rights Bar Association today. I can provide a concise case packet after conflict screening.

Disability Rights Legal Center

This is now worth doing because DREDF also directed you to LawHelpCA. LawHelpCA identifies DRLC as offering resources, brief advice, and potentially full free disability-discrimination representation statewide, and DRLC itself currently describes disability-rights civil litigation and advocacy. (LawHelpCA)

Email info@theDRLC.org:

Subject: UCLA Ph.D. disability discrimination / academic-disqualification — pro bono intake request

Dear Disability Rights Legal Center,

I am a UCLA neuroscience Ph.D. student seeking pro bono assistance concerning an active disability-discrimination and retaliation grievance hearing arising from academic disqualification.

DREDF referred me today to additional disability-rights and legal-aid resources after explaining that it lacks capacity for individual higher-education cases.

The matter involves disability-related executive-function limitations, requests for programmatic accommodations, retaliation, graduate research/mentor-placement requirements, and substantial non-academic constraints on permanent faculty placement such as laboratory funding, faculty capacity, mentor supply, and project fit.

My principal objective is preservation or restoration of graduate status through a negotiated academic-access solution if possible, with the pending internal hearing preserved as a fallback.

I have not retained counsel and cannot afford conventional private representation or paid consultations. I am requesting screening for pro bono representation, limited legal assistance, or a referral to qualified California higher-education disability counsel.

I can provide a concise five-document packet after appropriate intake/conflict screening.

Thank you,

Cooper M. Beaman
(415) 317-6417
cooperbeaman@gmail.com

8. Stein & Vargas is worth one free specialist inquiry

DREDF specifically named Stein & Vargas. The firm states that it litigates disability-rights matters nationally, including higher-education access, and its website expressly offers a free initial consultation for advocacy needs. (Stein Vargas)

They are not my preferred California hearing lead because Mary Vargas is not California-admitted, but they are worth a free specialist/referral/co-counsel inquiry.

Email contact@steinvargas.com:

DREDF referred me to your firm today concerning a UCLA Ph.D. disability-discrimination/academic-disqualification matter. I understand your firm has substantial ADA/§504 higher-education experience. I am seeking a free initial consultation to determine whether the matter fits your advocacy docket, whether you would consider pro bono or limited specialist involvement with California hearing counsel, or whether you can recommend a California attorney. I have not attached confidential records pending conflict screening.

No reason to pursue a paid non-California consultation elsewhere while free California and nonprofit lanes remain active.

9. Settlement-first architecture: this is now the optimal substantive strategy

DGE’s reply actually gives you more breathing room and more leverage, not less. It confirms that DGE will not consume its 30-day review window while you are litigating the grievance.

The optimal architecture is therefore:

1. Keep the Findings 2–5 hearing fully alive.

2. Do not ask DGE to prematurely adjudicate its appeal.

3. Use the unresolved hearing, omitted-evidence issues, and DGE’s preserved appeal as leverage for a confidential global academic-resolution discussion.

4. Have counsel identify who actually possesses authority to commit UCLA, DGE, NSIDP, and any receiving program/mentor arrangement.

5. Do not withdraw the hearing until a written agreement is executed and the critical status-preserving terms are effective.

The settlement narrative should not be “UCLA discriminated, therefore reinstate me.” It should be:

The academic outcome emerged from an interaction among disability-related functional limitations, an unusually unstructured mentor-placement system, laboratory funding and capacity, faculty availability and fit, institutional discretion concerning additional rotations or transfers, and a developing accommodation process. A durable resolution can address those conditions prospectively without requiring every participant to agree on historical liability.

That is much easier for an institution to settle around.

Your settlement term sheet should eventually cover

• restored/preserved graduate-student status;

• defined academic home/program/degree objective;

• a capacity-screened mentor-placement process, so future rotations/placements involve faculty with a realistic funding/capacity pathway;

• written criteria and timelines for successful placement;

• individualized programmatic accommodations and a genuine interactive process;

• neutral review of disputed academic determinations where appropriate;

• continued funding, benefits, insurance, access, and registration during implementation;

• a defined neutral administrator responsible for implementation;

• anti-retaliation protections;

• treatment of records/grades/disqualification notation;

• contingency if the first mentor placement fails for capacity rather than student-performance reasons;

• withdrawal of the grievance only after an executed resolution reaches the agreed implementation milestone.

Do not send this term sheet to UCLA yourself yet. It is the core briefing document to give whichever lawyer takes the settlement-first stage.

10. Exact priority for the rest of today

At 2:38 p.m. PDT, the order should be:

1. DRC phone call immediately.

2. Send the short DGE acknowledgment.

3. Send the ADA/Grievance follow-up.

4. Send the Kosnett budget/scope clarification.

5. Submit DRBA and DRLC intake.

6. Email NCCSD/AHEAD.

7. Send RBGG intake.

8. Send one concise Leigh and Hathaway follow-up if they remain unanswered.

9. Use the Bamieh & De Smeth free-consultation form.

10. Tomorrow, call only the firms that have had a reasonable chance to see today’s email and then stop after one final unanswered phone contact.

The deep-research plan itself recommended one written follow-up after roughly one business day and one final telephone contact after two business days rather than repeated pursuit.

The most important change from your earlier strategy is this: do not let the original $2,000–$4,000 language continue anchoring the market at $4,000. Every new private outreach should say upfront that consultation must be free, pro bono/low-bono is preferred, private work must be staged, your practical objective is below $2,000 total if resolved pre-hearing, and no more than $1,000 can be paid upfront. That will produce more early declines—but those declines save time and prevent you from spending consultation effort on engagements you cannot actually accept.

References

1. Get Help | Disability Rights California

2. UCLA Procedure 230.2: Student Grievances Regarding Violations of Anti-Discrimination Laws or University Policies on Discrimination Based on Disability

3. Higher Education - Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP

4. Jenny Yelin - Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP

5. California Education Rights Attorneys

6. Leigh Law Group

7. AHEAD Membership Levels - AHEAD - Association on Higher Education And Disability - Student Membership

8. National Center for College Students with Disabilities

9. Access & Accommodations - AHEAD - Association on Higher Education And Disability

10. Disability Rights Bar Association

11. Disability Rights Legal Center | LawHelpCA - Legal aid and legal help near you

12. Mary C. Vargas

STRATEGY

GRIEVANCE HEARING STRATEGY

**Bottom-line determination
**Corpus audit
**I. The four most consequential record failures
**1. CRO expressly promised that the submitted evidence, witnesses, and theories would be reflected in the report
**2. The investigator gave a more specific process representation during intake
**3. The report resolved motive, causation, credibility, and legitimate-reason questions without interviewing any decisionmaker
**4. The report analyzed retaliation but issued no separately labeled retaliation finding
**II. Do not attempt to put all omitted allegations into one hearing
**Category A — Properly central to the present hearing
**Category B — Admissible context if tied to Findings 2–5
**Category C — Standalone omitted claims requiring separate preservation
**III. Refine the retaliation theory before presenting it
**The vulnerable version
**The stronger multi-stage retaliation theory
**Necessary proof
**IV. Evidence triage: what is strongest, what is useful, and what should be restrained
**Tier 1 — Core liability and pretext evidence
**A. Decision chronology and reasons
**B. Bearden’s actual performance assessment
**C. Direct testimony from Bearden and Schweizer
**D. Contemporaneous program records
**Tier 2 — Accommodation-process and institutional-context evidence
**A. March 31 request and CAE response
**B. CAE executive-function coaching initiative
**C. Failure-to-inform evidence
**Tier 3 — Comparator and institutional-practice evidence
**A. Sixth-rotation comparator
**B. Mentor-market and funding evidence
**C. NSIDP “100% placement” webpage
**Tier 4 — Harassment and animus evidence
**Tier 5 — Harm, disability, and contextual materials
**V. Optimal witness hierarchy
**Priority 1 — Decisionmakers and direct fact witnesses
**Priority 2 — Comparative and institutional witnesses
**Priority 3 — Harm and corroboration
**VI. The hearing submission should not be the 108 MB archive
**VII. Exact pre-hearing issues to request from the Hearing Officer
**VIII. Preserve standalone omitted allegations without destabilizing the hearing
**Lee and Violi
**Wightman, Hernandez, and Ophoff
**DGE procedural-error issue
**IX. External preservation must be assessed now, not after the hearing
**X. Ready-to-use scope-preservation notice
**XI. Language that should be removed from formal submissions
**Final strategic judgment**

Bottom-line determination

The record supports a substantial, concrete, and strategically important omitted-evidence challenge. It does not support the claim that every excluded allegation has already been proven, that every archived document is material, or that noninterview of every proposed witness automatically invalidates the report.

The optimal approach is to force UCLA to address the omissions through three coordinated but legally distinct tracks:

1. Use the present Findings 2–5 hearing to introduce omitted evidence and witnesses that bear on Bearden’s and Schweizer’s conduct, including the retaliation theory already analyzed in the report.
2. Preserve—but do not improperly inject—standalone allegations against Lee, Violi, Wightman, Hernandez, Ophoff, and other excluded actors for separate scope, timeliness, reconsideration, or external-review treatment.
3. Use the broader omitted record independently in the DGE/CDP process, where the question is mitigating circumstances affecting academic performance rather than whether one of the three named respondents committed a CRO policy violation.

No contested administrative case can literally be made “irrefutable.” The strongest achievable posture is a source-locked administrative record that requires an express ruling on each material theory, witness, exhibit, exclusion, and requested remedy—and preserves any prejudicial exclusion for post-hearing review.

Corpus audit

I programmatically inventoried the ZIP archive:

• 102 files
• 98 unique files by SHA-256
• 81 PDFs
• 6 Markdown files
• 4 HTML files
• 4 spreadsheets
• 6 native image files
• 1 text file

Every PDF produced extractable text. I reviewed the archive by source type, chronology, actor, allegation, and evidentiary function; exact duplicates were not treated as independent corroboration. Several images also have PDF or Markdown equivalents. This supports a comprehensive corpus-level assessment, but it does not substitute for native-file authentication or individualized admissibility rulings at the hearing.

I. The four most consequential record failures

1. CRO expressly promised that the submitted evidence, witnesses, and theories would be reflected in the report

After declining to amend the NOI, Investigator Anwandter wrote:

“We will, however, take into consideration the evidence, witnesses, and theories of the case that you have presented, and the ultimate investigation report will reflect this.”

That was not a promise to accept every allegation or interview every person. It was, however, an express assurance that the ultimate report would meaningfully reflect the submitted evidence, witnesses, and theories.

The resulting report:

• formally addressed only three respondents;
• interviewed only you;
• declined to interview all three respondents;
• declined to interview ten identified witnesses as insufficiently relevant or redundant; and
• gave no document-by-document account of the hundreds of submitted pages it did not rely upon.

This creates a strong coverage-and-explanation challenge:

CRO was entitled to reject evidence after evaluating it, but the present record does not permit meaningful verification that the material theories, direct witnesses, comparators, and nonduplicative documents identified before the report were individually evaluated on an accurate understanding of their proposed relevance.

Do not overstate this as proof that CRO never read the materials. The report says they were “considered.” The stronger challenge is that the record provides no adequately reviewable explanation for the treatment of specific evidence that directly bears on findings the report nevertheless decided.

2. The investigator gave a more specific process representation during intake

During the first intake interview, the investigator explained that the pre-report evidence summary would identify both:

• documents relied upon; and
• documents received but not relied upon, with reasons such as redundancy or insufficient relevance.

He also said that you would have an opportunity to review the evidence on which the report relied.

The final report instead states that the additional documents were not itemized because of their magnitude.

This is a sharper point than merely saying “hundreds of pages were ignored.” The defensible formulation is:

The report’s categorical footnote is materially less specific than the document-level process the investigator described during intake, impairing the ability to determine whether particular nonduplicative evidence was misunderstood, treated as redundant to evidence that did not prove the same proposition, or excluded as irrelevant based on the narrowed NOI.

That discrepancy should be placed in the hearing record through the transcript excerpt, the April 20 assurance, the final methodology section, and a document-level proffer.

3. The report resolved motive, causation, credibility, and legitimate-reason questions without interviewing any decisionmaker

The only witness interviewed was you. Bisley, Bearden, and Schweizer were each deemed unnecessary, and every other identified witness was rejected.

Yet the report concluded, among other things, that:

• Bearden acted for legitimate funding and performance reasons;
• the connection between disability and her decision was speculative;
• Schweizer’s academic-disqualification recommendation had legitimate reasons;
• the retaliation theory was speculative;
• the department had already provided more opportunities than any prior student; and
• the program complied with all approved accommodations.

Noninterview is not automatically a procedural violation. But it is highly consequential where the report decided why people acted, what they knew, when decisions were made, whether criteria were consistently applied, and whether alternative paths were genuinely considered without testing those propositions through the decisionmakers or direct witnesses.

The hearing is the proper place to cure that deficiency because Procedure 230.2 expressly permits each party to present witnesses and evidence and to cross-examine the other party’s witnesses. The Hearing Officer must decide admissibility, but evidence may include matters addressed in the grievance or reasonably related to it. ([Admin Policies][1])

4. The report analyzed retaliation but issued no separately labeled retaliation finding

The report states that CRO investigates discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Its substantive analysis expressly considers your claim that Schweizer recommended disqualification in retaliation for the March 31 accommodation request. It then characterizes that theory as speculative.

But the five formal findings contain:

• one failure-to-accommodate finding;
• two discrimination findings; and
• two harassment findings.

There is no expressly labeled retaliation finding.

Procedure 230.2 states that the investigation report and hearing report are to contain conclusions as to whether Disability Discrimination and/or Retaliation occurred. It also defines retaliation independently and makes it part of the permitted hearing scope. ([Admin Policies][1])

UCLA may contend that Finding 3’s wording—discrimination “based on a disability and/or request for accommodation”—implicitly encompassed retaliation. That ambiguity should not be left unresolved. The Hearing Officer should be asked to determine expressly:

Whether Schweizer subjected Cooper to adverse educational action because of his assertion of disability-related rights, including accommodation requests or participation in protected processes.

II. Do not attempt to put all omitted allegations into one hearing

Your July 31 election is expressly limited to Findings 2–5 concerning Bearden and Schweizer. That was strategically sound and should not be casually expanded.

Procedure 230.2 permits evidence only on matters raised in the written grievance or reasonably related to them, with the Hearing Officer deciding the boundary. ([Admin Policies][1])

That creates three evidentiary categories.

Category A — Properly central to the present hearing

These matters should be affirmatively litigated:

• Bearden’s decision not to serve as primary mentor.
• The reasons actually applied to that decision.
• Whether disability-linked functional limitations were treated as disqualifying deficiencies.
• Whether written rotation expectations were neutral clarification or selectively imposed criteria.
• Whether project performance and external dependencies were accurately evaluated.
• Whether funding was a genuine, consistently applied criterion.
• Schweizer’s knowledge, decisions, communications, and role in disqualification.
• Retaliation related to accommodation requests and other protected activity.
• The exact timing and development of the academic-disqualification recommendation.
• The sixth-rotation and program-flexibility evidence.
• Bearden’s and Schweizer’s alleged harassment.
• Harm and potential remedies.

Category B — Admissible context if tied to Findings 2–5

Evidence involving Lee, Violi, Wightman, Marco, Park, Scruggs, Treviño, prior rotation faculty, or DGE may be relevant without seeking standalone liability against those actors.

Examples include:

• notice of disability and functional limitations;
• the accommodation-request chronology;
• whether Bearden or Schweizer knew that an interactive process was pending;
• what programmatic alternatives were available or being explored;
• when the disqualification process began;
• what reasons were stated contemporaneously;
• whether later reasons materially differed;
• whether funding and mentor availability were institutional constraints;
• comparator treatment;
• causation, pretext, harm, and mitigation.

The framing must be:

“This evidence is offered to prove notice, timing, causation, pretext, comparator treatment, feasibility, harm, or remedy concerning Findings 2–5—not to obtain an independent violation finding against the nonparty actor.”

Category C — Standalone omitted claims requiring separate preservation

These include allegations that:

• Addison Wightman failed to advise or engage regarding programmatic accommodations;
• Patty Violi made a categorical or inadequately individualized accommodation determination;
• Jenny Lee engaged in retaliation, harassment, or prejudicial administration;
• Hernandez’s and Ophoff’s earlier rotation actions formed actionable discrimination;
• DGE committed a separate service-sequence violation.

The NOI expressly excluded:

• Hernandez and Ophoff as untimely;
• Wightman as both untimely and outside scope;
• Wightman, Lee, and Violi as “customer service actions.” The NOI nevertheless acknowledged the substance of those allegations.

Do not ask the present Hearing Officer to impose findings against those individuals unless retained counsel concludes that the original grievance and hearing election legally preserved them and the Hearing Officer affirmatively accepts them as within scope. Doing so now could undermine your deliberate Findings 2–5 limitation.

Instead, preserve them through:

1. a written statement that they are not waived;
2. a request for identification of the final administrative disposition of each allegation;
3. counsel’s assessment of relation-back to the July 2025 grievance and April 2026 objection record;
4. separate UCLA, OCR, or judicial-review analysis where appropriate.

III. Refine the retaliation theory before presenting it

The vulnerable version

The weakest formulation is:

“I requested accommodations on March 31, and that request caused the program to initiate disqualification on April 1.”

The report cites information that the formal petition was initiated shortly after Bearden declined around March 12, before the March 31 request. It uses that chronology to characterize the retaliation theory as speculative.

Continuing to rely solely on the March 31–April 1 proximity would allow UCLA to defeat the theory by establishing that initiation occurred earlier.

The stronger multi-stage retaliation theory

The record identifies protected activity well before March 31:

• February 2024 disclosure of ADHD and CAE accommodations to UCLA Biosciences administration.
• August 2024 disclosure of CAE registration to NSIDP administrators.
• January 30, 2025 disclosure to Bearden of ADHD-related deadline freezing and need for structure.
• February 2025 discussion of executive-function coaching, CAE resources, and the Will Rogers scholarship.
• March 20 contact with DGE regarding lab-placement barriers and accommodation possibilities.
• March 31 formal accommodation reevaluation request.

The refined theory should examine separate adverse decisions:

1. Formation: When was disqualification first contemplated, by whom, and based on what information?
2. Initiation: What occurred around March 11–17, and what role did Bearden and Schweizer play?
3. Continuation and acceleration: After protected activity, did decisionmakers decline to pause, reassess, or allow the developing accommodation process to operate?
4. Alternatives: Were a sixth rotation, mentor transfer, home-area change, major/classification change, leave, or other continuation options genuinely considered?
5. Formalization: What records and reasons were submitted to the committee and DGE?
6. Expansion: Were NEURO M203 and the unsatisfactory rotation grade added or emphasized only after the initial notice or appeal?
7. Post-complaint acts: Did later conduct respond adversely to accommodation requests, appeals, or grievance participation?

This formulation does not depend on proving that the March 31 request created the initial idea of disqualification. It asks whether protected activity affected any material phase of the adverse process.

Necessary proof

For every alleged retaliatory step, establish:

• the protected activity;
• who knew about it;
• when that person acquired knowledge;
• the adverse action;
• the actor responsible;
• temporal or documentary connection;
• deviation from prior practice;
• changing explanations;
• comparator evidence;
• the strongest legitimate explanation; and
• why the evidence more likely supports retaliation than that explanation.

Temporal proximity is evidence, not a substitute for causation. OCR’s current materials likewise treat retaliation as a fact-specific inquiry and recognize retaliation for exercising Section 504 or Title II rights. ([U.S. Department of Education][2])

IV. Evidence triage: what is strongest, what is useful, and what should be restrained

Tier 1 — Core liability and pretext evidence

A. Decision chronology and reasons

The March 31 notes, April 1 Lee email, April 2 communications, committee records, April 28 notice, and May 30 appeal response should be placed in one chronology.

The archive reflects:

• a March 31 accommodation request;
• a March 31 Schweizer meeting at which disqualification was allegedly not expressly disclosed;
• an April 1 email discussing approval of a disqualification recommendation;
• an April 2 disclosure that the internal process had begun around March 11–17;
• subsequent discussion of transfers and other options.

The central questions are not whether one phrase was subjectively misleading. They are:

• What had actually been decided by March 31?
• Who participated?
• What did Schweizer know?
• Why was the pending process not disclosed?
• What authority remained to pause or alter it?
• What reasons were documented at each stage?

B. Bearden’s actual performance assessment

The report accepts an unsatisfactory-performance rationale while rejecting the disability nexus.

The strongest omitted evidence is direct project evidence:

• Slack and email instructions;
• timestamps showing work performed;
• the priority shift between projects;
• evidence concerning the ENIGMA-DTI submission;
• evidence of external staffing or collaborator delay;
• the March 12 presentation record;
• Dylan Hughes’s firsthand observations;
• any contemporaneous evaluation by Bearden before the final decision.

Dylan Hughes was proffered as a direct project mentor capable of addressing the timing and completion of the ENIGMA work.

Use this evidence narrowly. Even if it establishes that one deliverable was timely or externally delayed, the report identifies other alleged deficiencies. The argument should be:

The overall unsatisfactory assessment was based in material part on an incomplete or distorted characterization of actual project performance and dependencies—not that proof concerning one deliverable automatically negates every stated concern.

C. Direct testimony from Bearden and Schweizer

Their testimony is indispensable because the report attributes motives, reasons, knowledge, and decisionmaking to them without having interviewed them.

Question topics should include:

• when each learned of the disability;
• what accommodations or coaching efforts each knew about;
• the exact criteria applied;
• how similarly situated students were treated;
• whether Bearden made a conditional mentor offer;
• why that position changed;
• funding requirements applied to other rotation students;
• the initiation date and proponents of disqualification;
• the role of the committee;
• alternatives considered;
• the origin and timing of each stated disqualification rationale.

D. Contemporaneous program records

Request:

• committee meeting date, membership, agenda, submissions, notes, minutes, votes, and recommendations;
• all communications between Bearden, Schweizer, Lee, and committee members concerning you;
• drafts of the disqualification recommendation;
• records showing when each rationale was first documented;
• records concerning possible sixth rotations, transfer, leave, or alternative status;
• records of other students receiving additional rotations or program flexibility, appropriately deidentified.

These records are more probative than generalized assertions that a decision was committee-based.

Tier 2 — Accommodation-process and institutional-context evidence

A. March 31 request and CAE response

Betteena Marco was proffered as the recipient of the explicit March 31 request and as a witness to the timing of CAE activity before formal notice.

Patty Violi’s April 10 communications reportedly stated both that no additional accommodations were available and that CAE did not provide accommodations for executive-functioning needs because they were student responsibilities.

The strongest questions are:

• What exactly was requested?
• Did CAE understand it as prospective or retroactive?
• What alternatives were considered?
• Who participated in the determination?
• Was the analysis individualized?
• Was any proposed modification rejected as a fundamental alteration or undue burden?
• Was coaching distinguished from an academic adjustment?
• Did Bearden or Schweizer wait for, rely on, or preempt that process?

Do not state as established fact that the email was “unlawful.” The email is evidence that requires explanation.

B. CAE executive-function coaching initiative

Scruggs’s February 12 announcement is relevant because it tends to show that UCLA recognized a need for executive-function coaching and was developing an in-house resource during the fifth rotation.

But coaching availability and a legally required academic adjustment are not necessarily identical. Use the evidence to test categorical assertions that no executive-function support existed—not to claim that the posting alone proved entitlement to a specific rotation modification.

C. Failure-to-inform evidence

Wightman’s intake is proffered to show that only standard testing accommodations were discussed and programmatic rotation accommodations were not.

The risk is that UCLA will argue that CAE was not required to anticipate every future accommodation before a need was communicated. The strongest use is therefore:

Once programmatic executive-function difficulties became known and prospective assistance was requested, did the responsible units engage meaningfully and promptly in identifying possible modifications?

Tier 3 — Comparator and institutional-practice evidence

A. Sixth-rotation comparator

Victoria Turnbill’s proffer states that she completed six rotations, three after leaving an initial thesis lab, and could address systemic mentor-placement and funding issues.

The report rejected this comparison without further investigation because she initially matched within three rotations and later left that lab.

She is not a perfect comparator. Her evidence is nevertheless potentially relevant to:

• the program’s operational ability to authorize six rotations;
• whether “five was already unprecedented” was literally accurate;
• how mentor-market failure was handled;
• whether additional rotations were treated as categorically unavailable or discretionary.

Do not claim she conclusively proves discrimination. Build a comparison table covering:

• prior placement;
• academic-plan status;
• grades;
• funding;
• faculty availability;
• reasons for additional rotations;
• decisionmakers;
• accommodations;
• outcomes.

B. Mentor-market and funding evidence

The archive includes:

• faculty outreach matrices;
• funding and TA trackers;
• prior rotation correspondence citing space and funding;
• Treviño’s placement assistance;
• Wells’s statement that the decision not to accept you was based on funding, projects, and lab needs while expressing a positive view of your potential.

This is good evidence that placement depended partly on institutional and laboratory capacity. It does not prove that every rejection was unrelated to performance or that the program had a legal duty to compel a faculty member to accept you.

Use it to challenge an oversimplified inference:

Failure to secure a mentor was not necessarily a reliable proxy for lack of academic qualification or effort.

C. NSIDP “100% placement” webpage

The upload log labels this a “smoking gun” and “contract claim.”

Those labels should not appear in the hearing submission. A website statement may be useful evidence of:

• program representations;
• expected institutional practice;
• historical placement outcomes;
• reliance;
• the exceptional nature of mentor nonplacement.

It does not by itself establish a binding guarantee, a contract breach, or a nondiscrimination violation. A contract theory also exceeds the core scope of Procedure 230.2.

Tier 4 — Harassment and animus evidence

The schedule identifies:

• the “internalized self-loathing” comment;
• advice that you should make prospective faculty enjoy every meeting;
• the implication that you had failed to manage faculty members’ experience of you.

For Findings 4 and 5, present each incident through the required elements:

1. exact words;
2. date and context;
3. speaker;
4. whether the statement was unwelcome;
5. why it was connected to disability rather than ordinary academic feedback;
6. cumulative frequency and context;
7. concrete effect on participation or benefit.

The report concluded that the comments were legitimate critique, lacked more than a remote disability connection, and were insufficiently severe or persistent. It also reasoned that participation in the PhD program meant you “invited and consented” to Bearden’s feedback.

The most effective challenge is not that academic criticism can never be legitimate. It is:

The report collapsed consent to ordinary academic evaluation into consent to any disability-linked, stigmatizing, or humiliating manner of communicating that evaluation, without testimony from the speakers or relevant contextual witnesses.

Harassment should remain secondary to the stronger discrimination and retaliation grounds unless the evidence establishes a sustained pattern and concrete interference.

Tier 5 — Harm, disability, and contextual materials

The diagnosis and executive-function limitations are extensively documented, and the report itself treats ADHD and testing accommodations as undisputed.

Therefore:

• use one concise functional-limitations exhibit;
• use one qualified clinical witness only if harm or a disputed functional nexus requires testimony;
• avoid flooding the record with cumulative medical documents;
• do not use clinical witnesses to prove the motives of Bearden, Schweizer, or CAE administrators.

Literature on ADHD and neurodivergent graduate students may explain mechanisms or rebut moralized interpretations, but it cannot establish what a particular decisionmaker knew or why a particular decision was made.

V. Optimal witness hierarchy

Priority 1 — Decisionmakers and direct fact witnesses

1. Carrie Bearden
2. Felix Schweizer
3. Jenny Lee, for initiation timing, contemporaneous reasons, communications, and administrative sequence
4. Relevant committee chair/member or records custodian
5. Dylan Hughes, for fifth-rotation project work and direct supervision
6. Jaine Park, for contemporaneous accommodation, alternatives, and disqualification-process communications
7. Betteena Marco, for the March 31 request and CAE chronology
8. Patty Violi, for the April 10 determination and its basis

Jaine Park’s original proffer covered accommodation requests, mentor matching, CAE programmatic accommodations, and possible major/classification changes.

Priority 2 — Comparative and institutional witnesses

1. Victoria Turnbill
2. Leticia Treviño
3. Spencer Scruggs
4. Michael Wells, if needed to separate funding/capacity from academic ability

Treviño was proffered regarding placement efforts, systemic barriers, prospective mentor inquiries, and support during April 2025.

Priority 3 — Harm and corroboration

1. One clinical witness, if needed
2. One close contemporaneous corroborator, only for statements or effects personally observed
3. Additional friends or confidants only if they possess noncumulative first-hand evidence

Avoid a witness list dominated by people who learned events only from you. Firsthand decision, communication, performance, and process witnesses should control.

VI. The hearing submission should not be the 108 MB archive

The archive is a source repository, not a hearing exhibit list.

Create a controlled Omitted-Evidence and Scope Matrix with one row per material proposition:

Then select approximately 25–40 core exhibits, not all 98 unique files.

A defensible exhibit architecture would be:

• 8–12 chronology/decision documents;
• 5–8 Bearden performance and expectation documents;
• 4–6 accommodation-process documents;
• 3–5 comparator/program-practice documents;
• 2–4 harm/remedy documents;
• the intake-process representation and April 20 assurance;
• the report and disclosed exhibits.

All remaining materials should be maintained as backup, demonstrative support, or materials available upon request.

VII. Exact pre-hearing issues to request from the Hearing Officer

Once the Hearing Officer is appointed, seek express written rulings on:

1. Retaliation scope: whether the retaliation theory analyzed in the report is included within Finding 3 or is reasonably related to it.
2. Nonrespondent evidence: whether evidence involving Lee, Marco, Violi, Park, Scruggs, Treviño, and other actors may be offered for notice, timing, causation, pretext, feasibility, comparator treatment, harm, and remedy without seeking standalone liability.
3. Investigative omissions: whether the investigator may be questioned about witness selection, exhibit selection, the document-treatment process, and the discrepancy between the intake representation and final footnote.
4. Witness attendance: how UCLA will facilitate attendance of employee and faculty witnesses.
5. Record composition: whether the report and Exhibits A–R are automatically included or must be resubmitted.
6. Additional evidence: whether previously submitted but nonrelied-upon materials may be offered at the hearing.
7. Authentication: whether UCLA will stipulate to authenticity of its own emails, records, policies, and webpages.
8. Offers of proof: the procedure for preserving excluded evidence and testimony.
9. Recording: how objections, rulings, exhibit identifiers, and offers of proof will be reflected in the verbatim record.
10. Remedial authority: whether the Hearing Officer may recommend remand, supplemental investigation, status-preserving relief, neutral academic review, individualized accommodation consideration, or structured continuation.

The Hearing Officer’s authority is limited to evidence presented at the hearing, making affirmative submission and preservation essential. ([Admin Policies][1])

VIII. Preserve standalone omitted allegations without destabilizing the hearing

Lee and Violi

The NOI did not call these allegations untimely. It classified them as “customer service actions.” That classification is contestable because the allegations concern:

• administration of accommodations;
• communications during an academic-disqualification process;
• alleged retaliatory timing;
• disability-related commentary.

Your April 16 submission directly challenged the classification, and CRO expressly said the evidence, witnesses, and theories would be considered and reflected in the report.

Counsel should assess a written request for:

• the final disposition of each allegation;
• the policy basis for the “customer service” classification;
• whether that scope determination is administratively reviewable;
• whether the allegation relates back to the original July 2025 grievance;
• whether a separate Procedure 230.2 grievance or other UC process remains available.

Wightman, Hernandez, and Ophoff

These allegations face express timeliness findings. UCLA Procedure 230.2 ordinarily requires filing within 180 University business days of when the student reasonably could have known of the alleged violation. ([Admin Policies][1])

Potential responses—relation back, continuing violation, delayed discovery, equitable tolling, waiver, or use as background evidence—are legally fact-dependent. Do not simply refile them as new allegations without counsel’s timeliness analysis.

Even if standalone liability is barred, earlier rotation evidence can still be offered for a limited nonliability purpose where it helps explain:

• the mentor-placement process;
• institutional knowledge;
• comparator treatment;
• causation;
• harm;
• later decisions by Bearden or Schweizer.

DGE procedural-error issue

Investigator Anwandter expressly stated that the non-simultaneous-service issue was beyond DPO’s process.

Keep that issue in the DGE lane. It may support:

• record-integrity objections;
• the need for a complete mitigation record;
• a limited cure;
• CDP review;
• counsel’s later administrative-review analysis.

Do not ask the CRO Hearing Officer to adjudicate the DGE procedural appeal as a standalone issue.

IX. External preservation must be assessed now, not after the hearing

The U.S. Department of Education’s OCR currently states that complaints ordinarily must be filed within 180 days of the last discriminatory act, subject to a good-cause waiver. OCR may also defer or close matters being addressed through a comparable institutional grievance process and permit refiling within a specified period after that process concludes. ([U.S. Department of Education][3])

Because:

• some acts occurred in 2024–2025;
• an internal process is pending;
• some allegations were excluded rather than adjudicated;
• the July 2026 report and hearing process may themselves create later procedural events;

California counsel should calendar and evaluate immediately:

• OCR;
• DOJ or other federal enforcement avenues;
• California Civil Rights Department applicability;
• internal UC review;
• administrative mandamus;
• any applicable civil limitations periods.

Do not assume that participation in UCLA’s process automatically tolls every external deadline.

If judicial review later becomes appropriate, California administrative-mandamus review generally focuses on the administrative record; new evidence is ordinarily limited to evidence that could not have been produced with diligence or was improperly excluded. That makes contemporaneous exhibit submission, witness proffers, objections, and offers of proof especially important. ([Justia Law][4])

X. Ready-to-use scope-preservation notice

Do not send this tonight as another standalone merits email. Hold it for:

• the first communication from the assigned Grievance Coordinator or Hearing Officer;
• UCLA’s first request for grounds, witnesses, or exhibits; or
• a response suggesting that retaliation or omitted evidence is outside scope.

Subject: CONFIDENTIAL — Case 2025-07-00230-DPO — Preservation of Retaliation Issue and Omitted Evidence for Findings 2–5

Dear Grievance Coordinator and Hearing Officer:

I submit this notice to preserve and clarify, not expand, the scope of my timely July 31, 2026 hearing election concerning Findings 2 through 5.

First, the Investigation Report expressly analyzes my allegation that Respondent 3 recommended academic disqualification in retaliation for my assertion of disability-related accommodation rights, but the Report’s five formal findings do not contain a separately identified retaliation determination. Because UCLA Procedure 230.2 expressly includes Retaliation within the permissible hearing scope, I respectfully request confirmation that the Hearing Officer will determine whether Retaliation occurred as part of Finding 3 or as a matter reasonably related to that finding and the written grievance.

Second, I intend to present previously submitted evidence and witnesses that the Investigator did not rely upon or interview, but only to the extent that they bear upon Findings 2 through 5 and the related retaliation issue. These materials concern, among other matters, Respondents’ knowledge, the fifth-rotation performance record, funding and mentor-market conditions, comparator treatment, the accommodation-request chronology, the timing and development of academic-disqualification activity, the consistency of stated reasons, harm, and appropriate remediation.

This notice does not request standalone findings or remedies against individuals outside the Findings 2–5 hearing election. Evidence involving other University actors will be offered only for a relevant limited purpose, including notice, chronology, causation, pretext, feasibility, comparator treatment, harm, or remedy.

On April 20, 2026, CRO stated that it would take into consideration the evidence, witnesses, and theories I had presented and that the ultimate Investigation Report would reflect them. The final Report identifies only my interviews, states that no Respondent or proposed witness was interviewed, and does not provide a document-level itemization of the hundreds of additional pages it did not rely upon. I therefore request the required format and deadline for:

1. a preliminary statement of hearing grounds;
2. a document-level exhibit proffer;
3. a witness list and witness proffers;
4. requests for University witness participation;
5. objections to redactions or missing materials; and
6. offers of proof concerning evidence or testimony that may be excluded.

I also request confirmation that evidence will not be excluded solely because the Investigator did not rely upon it, provided that it is relevant, noncumulative, within the written grievance or reasonably related to it, and otherwise appropriate under Procedure 230.2.

This notice is not my complete merits submission, does not alter the Findings 2–5 limitation, and does not waive any preserved position concerning evidence or allegations that CRO previously treated as outside the Investigation Report’s formal scope.

Sincerely,

Cooper M. Beaman

XI. Language that should be removed from formal submissions

Avoid these formulations:

• “irrefutable”
• “smoking gun”
• “proved retaliation”
• “unlawful” before an adjudicated legal conclusion
• “coordinated effort to expel me”
• “trap” or “ambush” as a stated fact
• “sham auditions”
• “100% placement contract”
• “all evidence was ignored”
• “noninterview automatically invalidates the report”
• “the comparator proves discrimination”
• “CAE coaching proves the requested accommodation was legally required”

Use instead:

• “direct contemporaneous evidence”
• “raises a material factual dispute”
• “supports an inference”
• “requires testimony or records to resolve”
• “was not addressed in the report”
• “was rejected without interviewing the identified firsthand witness”
• “is relevant for a limited purpose”
• “the report does not explain”
• “the evidence may support pretext when considered with…”
• “UCLA’s strongest alternative explanation is…, but…”

This change will make the submission more credible, more difficult to dismiss as conclusory, and more useful for any later record review.

Final strategic judgment

The most powerful omitted-evidence argument is not that the archive is large. It is that:

1. you timely identified specific omitted theories and witnesses;
2. CRO assured you that those submissions would be considered and reflected;
3. the investigator had described a document-specific accounting process;
4. the final report interviewed no respondent or proposed witness;
5. it resolved disputed motive, causation, timing, comparator, and legitimate-reason questions anyway;
6. it did not itemize the nonrelied-upon documents;
7. it analyzed retaliation without an unambiguous formal retaliation finding; and
8. the forthcoming hearing is expressly designed to receive evidence, witnesses, and cross-examination.

The strongest merits theory is a carefully reconstructed multi-stage causation and pretext case, not a single temporal-proximity claim. The strongest operational goal is to place the best noncumulative evidence and firsthand witnesses into the hearing record, obtain express scope and admissibility rulings, preserve excluded material through offers of proof, and keep standalone omitted claims and DGE mitigation on their appropriate parallel tracks.

PRELIMINARY

PRELIMINARY GRIEVANCE HEARING STRATEGY

**Executive judgment
**Source-corpus findings and limitations
**1. Assessment of the hearing election and August 3 grievance email
**The hearing election is secure
**The August 3 email should stand without correction
**Do not send another grievance email tonight
**2. Important correction to the projected 60-Day date
**3. Assessment of the DGE notice and SR01184644
**The substantive DGE notice was strategically sound
**The new ticket is not evidence that the appeal was lost or restarted
**Send this now as a reply to SR01184644
**4. Immediate hearing-preparation architecture
**Prioritize Findings 2 and 3
**Your central themes should be narrow and evidence-based
**Witness priorities
**Build these working documents now, but do not submit them yet
**5. DGE preparation should proceed now even while awaiting its answer
**6. Record preservation and communications discipline
**7. Actions to avoid
**Bottom line

Executive judgment

Your present posture is procedurally preserved and materially stronger than it was before the July 31 filing:

1. You timely and unmistakably elected a Procedure 230.2 hearing limited to Findings 2–5 concerning Dr. Carrie Bearden and Dr. Felix Schweizer.

2. You expressly excluded Finding 1 and any requested finding or remedy against Dr. James Bisley while preserving NEURO M203 evidence for narrowly relevant causation, harm, mitigation, and disqualification-rationale purposes.

3. UCLA confirmed receipt after your July 31 administrative correction.

4. Your August 3 grievance email properly requested the information needed to construct the hearing record and sought narrowly framed good-cause relief without purporting to extend the already-completed hearing election.

5. Your August 4 DGE notice correctly preserved the unresolved interaction between the CRO hearing route and DGE’s separate nondiscrimination-based academic-disqualification appeal.

The only communication I recommend sending immediately is a short administrative reply in newly opened DGE ticket SR01184644, confirming its association with SR01178653/SR01053187 and correcting the grammatical ambiguity in item 3. Do not resend either substantive email, withdraw anything, expand the hearing scope, or submit a full merits memorandum yet.

Your highest operational priority is now parallel counsel recruitment plus preparation for a procedural order that could arrive before counsel is retained.

Source-corpus findings and limitations

I programmatically inventoried both ZIP archives:

• UCLA_CRO_LEGAL_COUNSEL_DEEP_RESEARCH_PACKAGE_2026-08-03(1).zip: 254 files, approximately 153.2 MB uncompressed.

• DPO_Complainant_Uploads_12222025–04242026_Retrieved_07312026_LZMA(1).zip: 102 files, approximately 108.2 MB uncompressed.

• The DPO archive contains 98 unique file hashes, and every one is an exact byte-for-byte match to a file already present in the counsel package. Thus, the second archive adds no independent version or evidentiary item not already contained in the larger package.

The package’s own canonical manifest reports 248 packaged entries, 247 source members, and six exact duplicate source members; the difference from the raw ZIP’s 254 entries is attributable to package-control and manifest artifacts.

The package was extensively engineered and audited, but its own methodology correctly does not claim that every page was manually re-adjudicated on the merits. It distinguishes native source documents from searchable derivatives, AI analyses, and sidecars, and acknowledges possible extraction limitations in redacted, scanned, image-layered, or unusually formatted PDFs. I therefore treated native UCLA records and the sent-email PDFs as controlling, used the matrices and prior analyses as issue-spotting tools, and did not treat duplicated or model-generated material as independent corroboration.

1. Assessment of the hearing election and August 3 grievance email

The hearing election is secure

Your original July 31 email:

• stated the report-transmission date;

• expressly requested a hearing under Procedure 230.2;

• identified Findings 2–5 individually;

• excluded Finding 1;

• accurately disclosed your representation status;

• preserved later evidence, witness, procedural-objection, and remedy submissions; and

• asked for the mechanics of subsequent counsel designation.

UCLA then confirmed receipt after your July 31 correction. Nothing in the subsequent correspondence indicates that UCLA considered the pasted header block, family Bcc addresses, or absence of already-retained counsel to invalidate the filing.

Procedure 230.2 permits a grievant to be assisted by an attorney, advocate, friend, or parent who is not otherwise a party or witness; it requires disclosure of the representation plan when the hearing is requested. Your filing accurately disclosed the then-existing plan rather than inventing a representative. ([Admin Policies][1])

The August 3 email should stand without correction

The August 3 email correctly:

• restated the Findings 2–5 scope;

• avoided seeking indirect liability against Bisley;

• requested the coordinator, Hearing Officer, schedule, disclosure rules, hearing-record composition, cited authorities, redaction treatment, and document-level index;

• framed the extension as applying only to a possible early merits submission;

• recognized that no deadline changes unless UCLA grants relief in writing; and

• asked that the extension request be routed to the authorized official.

That is well aligned with the official procedure. The Grievance Coordinator appoints the Hearing Officer and arranges a mutually agreeable hearing date; the parties receive at least ten University business days’ notice; and relevant materials and intended witnesses ordinarily are requested at least five University business days before the hearing. The Hearing Officer decides admissibility and may exclude irrelevant or unduly repetitive material. ([Admin Policies][1])

Most importantly, the Hearing Officer’s authority is limited to evidence presented in the hearing. Your question about whether the report and Exhibits A–R will be included automatically was therefore essential; you should not assume that the investigative production is automatically admitted into the hearing record. ([Admin Policies][1])

Do not send another grievance email tonight

Your next grievance-side communication should occur only when one of these happens:

• UCLA identifies the Grievance Coordinator or Hearing Officer;

• UCLA issues a hearing or pre-hearing schedule;

• UCLA answers or denies the extension request;

• a new deadline is imposed; or

• no substantive response arrives by Thursday, August 6, around noon PDT.

If no response arrives by then, send only this concise follow-up:

Subject: Re: Case 2025-07-00230-DPO — Hearing-Scope Confirmation, Record Clarification, Scheduling, and Good-Cause Extension Request

Dear Grievance Coordinator and ADA/Section 504 Compliance Officer Kovnator,

I am following up on my August 3 request. Please confirm the assigned Grievance Coordinator, whether any current hearing-related submission deadline requires action before UCLA responds to the requested record clarification, and the status of my written good-cause extension request.

I remain available remotely during my travel and will promptly respond to any scheduling or procedural communication.

Thank you,

Cooper M. Beaman

Do not reproduce all ten requests in the follow-up.

2. Important correction to the projected 60-Day date

The package’s prior working calculations identifying October 20 or October 21 as the possible 60-Day hearing-completion dates appear to be one University business day too early.

Procedure 230.2 defines “Days” as University business days and excludes Saturdays, Sundays, and days when campus is closed. The hearing must be completed within 60 Days of report issuance, and Attachment B defines “issuance” as the transmission date. ([Admin Policies][1]) UCLA’s official calendar identifies Monday, September 7, 2026 as the Labor Day holiday. ([Registrar’s Office][2])

Using July 29 as the transmission date and excluding weekends and September 7:

• counting July 29 as Day 1 produces October 21, 2026;

• excluding the triggering date produces October 22, 2026.

Those are only working calculations because Procedure 230.2 does not fully state its counting convention, and an authorized extension could alter the result. Your sent August 3 email wisely did not assert a date and instead asked UCLA to identify the resulting deadline. Continue to rely operationally on the earlier plausible October 21 date until UCLA confirms otherwise.

The 60-Day requirement applies to completion of the hearing—not completion of the later hearing-report, comments, Vice Chancellor decision, and appeal stages. Those stages carry separate deadlines. ([Admin Policies][1])

3. Assessment of the DGE notice and SR01184644

The substantive DGE notice was strategically sound

Your August 4 notice accurately quoted DGE’s earlier confirmation that the nondiscrimination-based appeal remained active and that DGE would review appropriately redacted CRO materials. It then:

• documented the report transmission and hearing election;

• preserved NEURO M203’s possible DGE relevance without reopening Finding 1;

• quoted the governing abeyance and Investigation Materials language;

• identified the unresolved meaning of “process completed”;

• declined to concede that the DGE 30-day period had begun;

• requested identification of received and anticipated materials;

• requested clarification of the completion trigger and clock;

• preserved the service record; and

• maintained the distinction between CRO liability findings and DGE mitigation.

That distinction is correct. The current Standards say DGE holds the appeal decision in abeyance while the investigatory office processes the allegations. Once that process is completed, the office provides appropriately redacted written investigation reports—defined as “Investigation Materials”—and DGE determines whether they reflect substantive mitigating circumstances that could have affected academic performance. DGE then has 30 calendar days from receipt of the Investigation Materials either to deny the appeal or refer it to CDP.

The Standards do not expressly say whether a timely hearing, the hearing report, the Vice Chancellor decision, or the Chancellor appeal are part of the investigatory office’s “process.” Your non-concession and request for a definitive interpretation were therefore appropriate—not an overstatement of settled policy.

The new ticket is not evidence that the appeal was lost or restarted

The automated response opened SR01184644, but its subject expressly identifies it as:

“Reopened from SR01178653: Reopened from SR01053187…”

It also says the request will be routed to a DGE staff member and may be updated by replying to that message.

That strongly suggests ServiceNow retained some linkage. However, the automated “original service request” portion displays the old initial appeal-form description rather than your August 4 status update. That does not prove that the new text is missing from DGE’s internal view, but it creates enough ambiguity to justify one short administrative clarification.

Send this now as a reply to SR01184644

Use Reply to the automated SR01184644 acknowledgment. Do not start another email, alter the subject, attach documents, copy your personal Gmail, or Bcc family members.

Dear Division of Graduate Education,

Please associate SR01184644 with my active nondiscrimination-based academic-disqualification appeal previously tracked as SR01178653, reopened from SR01053187, and treat my August 4, 2026, 5:10 p.m. PDT message as a status update in that existing appeal—not as a new appeal or duplicate filing.

Please preserve all three service-request numbers in the record and confirm that the complete text of my August 4 status update, including its seven numbered requests, is visible to the assigned reviewer.

For clarity, item 3 of my August 4 message should read:

“identify each item DGE has received from CRO or anticipates receiving from CRO as Investigation Materials, including the corresponding title or description, version, sender, and date and time of receipt;”

This administrative clarification does not alter the substance of my August 4 notice or any requested relief.

Thank you,

Cooper M. Beaman UID: 105692562 SR01184644 / SR01178653 / SR01053187

The correction is warranted because your sent item 3 currently reads:

“identify each item DGE has received or anticipates receiving CRO’s transmittal…”

The intended meaning is inferable, but the revised version removes the missing prepositional relationship and clearly distinguishes received materials from materials expected later.

Do not correct the phrase “isolated policy conclusions” separately. “Formal policy conclusions” would have been preferable, but the existing wording does not materially alter your request and is not worth another correction.

4. Immediate hearing-preparation architecture

Prioritize Findings 2 and 3

The package’s strongest structured analysis correctly treats:

• Finding 2—Bearden disparate treatment/mentorship decision as critical;

• Finding 3—Schweizer discrimination, retaliation, and academic-disqualification conduct as critical;

• Finding 4—Bearden harassment as important but secondary;

• Finding 5—Schweizer harassment as supporting rather than the central case.

Do not distribute hearing time equally across four findings. The strongest route is to establish the causation, process, comparator, motive, and chronology evidence surrounding Findings 2 and 3, then use Findings 4 and 5 to demonstrate disability-linked conduct and harm where the specific elements can be satisfied.

Your central themes should be narrow and evidence-based

Prepare the record around these issues:

1. Motive and credibility without respondent interviews. The report made material findings about Bearden’s and Schweizer’s reasons, knowledge, intent, and decisionmaking even though the package records that the investigator did not interview Bisley, Bearden, or Schweizer. This is not automatically a policy violation, but it is a strong basis to test the reliability and completeness of those findings through live testimony.

2. Contemporaneous versus later-expanded disqualification rationales. Separate what was stated before and at the initiation of disqualification from reasons appearing later in program submissions or the report.

3. Timing and decision formation. Establish who initiated or recommended disqualification, when the decision was materially formed, which records were before decisionmakers, and whether later committee action was independent or confirmatory.

4. Mentor, funding, and rotation criteria. Require precise testimony and documentation concerning the actual standards applied to the fifth and possible sixth rotation, funding expectations, mentor availability, and any comparator treatment.

5. Conditional continuation or mentor-placement representations. Resolve any discrepancy between offers, possible pathways, later denials, and how those representations affected your actions.

6. Retaliation as a separate theory. Do not allow retaliation to be submerged within a general discrimination narrative. Tie each asserted protected activity, knowledge event, adverse action, temporal sequence, and stated reason to documentary evidence.

7. Harassment statement by statement. Avoid arguing that every adverse academic criticism was harassment. Identify the precise statement or conduct, disability nexus, unwelcome character, severity/persistence/pervasiveness, and resulting interference.

Witness priorities

Your provisional witness list should prioritize:

• Carrie Bearden;

• Felix Schweizer;

• the investigator/report author, if the Hearing Officer permits methodology and evidentiary-treatment testimony;

• appropriate NSIDP records or decision custodians;

• a directly involved CAE participant where the interaction and notice evidence are materially relevant;

• a DGE or program witness capable of authenticating the disqualification chronology and contemporaneous rationale;

• you, with a tightly structured direct examination.

Bisley should not be a default merits witness. Use him only if counsel identifies a narrow, reasonably related factual point that cannot be established more efficiently through documents or another witness. Procedure 230.2 restricts the hearing to matters in the written grievance or reasonably related to them, as determined by the Hearing Officer. ([Admin Policies][1])

Build these working documents now, but do not submit them yet

• Findings 2–5 element matrix.

• Provisional witness list and one-paragraph proffer for each witness.

• Exhibit master list with source, date, author, recipient, authentication route, finding supported, and exact proposition.

• Chronology limited to material events.

• Redaction and missing-record log.

• One-page requested-remedy ladder.

• One-page objections and offers-of-proof checklist.

• DGE mitigation crosswalk maintained separately from the hearing merits matrix.

Because the Hearing Officer reviews evidence presented at the hearing, every indispensable document should have an identified path to submission and authentication. ([Admin Policies][1])

5. DGE preparation should proceed now even while awaiting its answer

Do not wait for DGE to resolve the completion issue before preparing the mitigation crosswalk. DGE could take the position that its 30-calendar-day period began when it received the initial report, even though your notice preserves the contrary interpretation. The policy language is genuinely ambiguous on that inter-process question.

Use August 14 as an internal readiness date—not a claimed UCLA deadline—for a concise draft crosswalk containing:

• exact report page and exhibit citation;

• whether the item is a formal finding, undisputed fact, party account, documentary fact, or contested proposition;

• the disability-related circumstance;

• the effect on academic performance;

• the causal pathway;

• the requested DGE treatment;

• whether the point remains contested in the hearing.

The crosswalk’s purpose is not to prove CRO liability. Its purpose is to demonstrate that even an adverse report contains evidence of possible substantive mitigating circumstances. The Standards use that separate threshold before CDP referral.

Do not submit the full crosswalk until DGE identifies the proper channel or a deadline, unless counsel determines that silence creates a greater risk than early submission.

6. Record preservation and communications discipline

Immediately preserve:

• native .eml or equivalent message files with complete headers;

• the rendered PDF copies;

• attachments exactly as sent or received;

• SHA-256 hashes;

• ServiceNow acknowledgment numbers;

• a single chronological docket log.

For every future event, record:

• date and exact time;

• time zone;

• sender and recipients;

• subject;

• case and service-request identifiers;

• attachments;

• requested action;

• any operative deadline;

• whether receipt was confirmed.

Do not overwrite earlier drafts or sent-message records. Add corrections as new docket entries.

If evidence or testimony is excluded later, make a clear offer of proof identifying what the evidence would establish and why it is relevant. Preserve rulings, access disputes, witness nonappearance, redaction issues, and objections on the hearing recording. Those are among the package’s highest record-preservation priorities.

7. Actions to avoid

Do not:

• resend or “replace” the August 3 or August 4 emails;

• expand the hearing to Finding 1;

• characterize documents as ignored when the report says they were considered but not relied upon;

• assert that UCLA has already violated federal law as an established fact;

• make the hearing primarily a critique of investigative methodology rather than an element-by-element merits presentation;

• submit the full historical archive unsolicited to counsel or UCLA;

• assume the extension request was granted;

• assume DGE’s clock has or has not begun;

• assume the report and exhibits automatically enter the hearing record;

• threaten a writ, federal lawsuit, agency filing, or public disclosure without California counsel;

• sign a release, settlement, confidentiality provision, non-disparagement term, academic-status waiver, or covenant not to sue without legal review;

• designate William Beaman as representative until determining whether he may be needed as a witness.

The package correctly warns that witness and representative roles may conflict and that external-litigation deadlines and settlement releases should not be handled without California counsel.

Bottom line

Send the brief SR01184644 linkage and item-3 clarification now. Send nothing further to the grievance side until UCLA responds or Thursday noon passes. Contact Hathaway, Kosnett, and Leigh in parallel immediately. Prepare—but do not yet submit—the Findings 2–5 witness/exhibit package and DGE mitigation crosswalk. Treat October 21 as the conservative working hearing-completion endpoint, with October 22 as the alternate calculation, pending UCLA’s written confirmation.

Your sent communications have preserved the core rights and distinctions. The next phase should shift from additional broad explanatory emails to disciplined counsel retention, hearing-record construction, and separate DGE mitigation preparation.

EMAILS

GRIEVANCE HEARING EMAILS

Table of Contents

**1. Formal Grievance Hearing Request — Case 2025-07-00230-DPO
**2. Case 2025-07-00230-DPO — Hearing-Scope Confirmation, Record Clarification, Scheduling, and Good-Cause Extension Request
**3. SR01184644 Opened: Reopened from SR01178653: Reopened from SR01053187: Cooper Beaman [105692562] Academic Disqualification Appeal**

1. Formal Grievance Hearing Request — Case 2025-07-00230-DPO

From: ADA/504 Compliance Office adaoffice@ucla.edu
To: cooper beaman cooperbeaman@gmail.com, ADA/504 Compliance Office adaoffice@ucla.edu
Cc: Grievance grievance@saonet.ucla.edu, adaoffice@ucla.edu
Sent: Mon, Aug 3, 2026 at 2:50 PM

Dear Cooper,

Confirming your request for a hearing has been received. Someone will be in touch soon with next steps.

In the interim,

Do not hesitate to reach out if you have additional questions.

Thank you.

Best,

Yonit

Yonit Kovnator, JD (she/her/hers) ADA/Section 504 Compliance Officer Office (213) 238-3495

From: cooper beaman cooperbeaman@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 6:09 PM
To: ADA/504 Compliance Office adaoffice@ucla.edu
Cc: Grievance grievance@saonet.ucla.edu
Bcc: Dad wbeaman1@gmail.com, Mom coopsdaddy1@aol.com

Dear ADA/Section 504 Compliance Office and Grievance Coordinator,

I would like to correct a minor formatting error in my formal grievance hearing request sent at 5:00 PM today.

The initial “To / Cc / Bcc / Subject / Body” section was inadvertently retained in the email body. The Bcc line should be disregarded as a drafting artifact. The Bcc’d addresses (wbeaman1@gmail.com and coopsdaddy1@aol.com; coopsdaddy1@gmail.com is inaccurate and was not copied) are owned by my father, William Beaman, who served as my advisor during the DPO intake interview period, and were copied so he could retain a record of my outgoing request.

At present, I have not designated William, nor any other non-attorney as my representative for the formal grievance hearing. My representation-status detailed in the hearing request remains accurate. I have not retained or designated an attorney, and no attorney has agreed to represent me at this time. If I later designate retained counsel or William Beaman as a non-attorney representative, I will promptly notify the Grievance Coordinator in writing, identify whether the representative is an attorney, and complete any required authorization or release.

Please add this administrative clarification to the Case 2025-07-00230-DPO record. No response is necessary regarding this clarification.

Sincerely,

Cooper M. Beaman

Best,

Cooper

From: cooper beaman cooperbeaman@gmail.com
To: ada@saonet.ucla.edu
Cc: Grievance grievance@saonet.ucla.edu
Bcc: Dad wbeaman1@gmail.com, Mom coopsdaddy1@aol.com
Sent: Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 5:00 PM

Dear ADA/Section 504 Compliance Office and Grievance Coordinator,

I received the Notice of Outcome, redacted Investigation Report, and redacted exhibits in Case 2025-07-00230-DPO on July 29, 2026, at 01:39 PM PDT.

I disagree with Findings 2 through 5 of the Investigation Report concerning Dr. Carrie Bearden and Dr. Felix Schweizer, and I hereby timely request a formal grievance hearing under UCLA Procedure 230.2 limited to those findings.

For clarity, I dispute the findings that:

1. Respondent 2 did not discriminate against me based on disability;
2. Respondent 3 did not discriminate against me based on disability and/or a request for accommodation;
3. Respondent 2 did not harass me based on disability; and
4. Respondent 3 did not harass me based on disability.

I am not requesting hearing review of Finding 1 concerning Dr. James Bisley, and I do not seek a finding or remedy against Dr. Bisley. Any reference during the hearing to NEURO M203 or related events would be offered only to the extent relevant to Findings 2 through 5, including the program’s stated academic-disqualification rationale, causation, harm, or mitigation.

Representation status: At the present time, I plan to receive assistance from an attorney at the hearing if I am able to retain counsel. I have not yet retained or designated an attorney, and no attorney has agreed to serve as my representative. Accordingly, there is no representative name or authorization form to provide at this time. If counsel is retained, I will promptly provide the attorney’s name, firm, contact information, attorney status, and any required written authorization. Please confirm the procedure and required form for supplementing my representative designation after this timely hearing request.

This email constitutes my timely hearing election as to Findings 2 through 5 and preserves my disagreement with those findings and with the material factual and analytical conclusions supporting them. I intend to present focused grounds, evidence, witnesses, procedural objections, and requested remedies in accordance with the schedule and procedures established by the Grievance Coordinator and Hearing Officer.

This hearing request is not intended to waive any favorable factual admission, request for additional record access or less-redacted materials, DGE/CDP position, post-hearing comment or appeal right, or other remedy available with respect to the findings at issue.

Please confirm receipt and that this hearing request has been recorded as timely. Please also:

1. confirm that the requested hearing scope is Findings 2 through 5 and advise whether any additional action is required to effectuate this scope limitation;
2. confirm the assigned Grievance Coordinator;
3. provide the Hearing Officer appointment and challenge procedure;
4. provide the proposed scheduling process;
5. identify the deadlines and required format for witness, exhibit, and other pre-hearing submissions; and
6. confirm the procedure for subsequently designating retained counsel.

I will be traveling from August 3 through August 11, 2026, and may not be available during that period. If an in-person proceeding is required, I would like to request mutually agreeable scheduling after August 11. This scheduling request does not alter, extend, concede, or waive any applicable deadline.

Sincerely,

Cooper M. Beaman

2. Case 2025-07-00230-DPO — Hearing-Scope Confirmation, Record Clarification, Scheduling, and Good-Cause Extension Request

From: cooper beaman cooperbeaman@gmail.com
To: Grievance grievance@saonet.ucla.edu
Cc: ada@saonet.ucla.edu, adaoffice@ucla.edu
Bcc: Dad wbeaman1@gmail.com, Mom coopsdaddy1@aol.com
Sent: Mon, Aug 3, 2026 at 4:56 PM

Dear Grievance Coordinator and ADA/Section 504 Compliance Officer Kovnator,

Thank you for confirming today that my hearing request has been received and that someone will contact me regarding next steps.

On Friday, July 31, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. PDT, I submitted a formal grievance hearing request under UCLA Procedure 230.2 limited to Findings 2 through 5 of the Investigation Report concerning Dr. Carrie Bearden and Dr. Felix Schweizer.

I am not requesting hearing review of Finding 1 concerning Dr. James Bisley and do not seek a finding or remedy against Dr. Bisley. Any reference during the hearing to NEURO M203 or related events would be offered only to the extent relevant to Findings 2 through 5, including the program’s stated academic-disqualification rationale, causation, harm, or mitigation.

This clarification and extension request does not condition, withdraw, postpone, or otherwise alter my timely hearing election or the scope stated in that election.

Please confirm:

1. that my July 31, 2026 hearing request scope is Findings 2 through 5; and that no further action is presently required to effectuate that limited scope;
2. the identity and contact information of the assigned Grievance Coordinator;
3. whether UCLA requires or permits a separate focused statement of hearing grounds before the hearing and, if so, the required format and deadline;
4. the process and anticipated timing for appointment of the Hearing Officer and any good-cause challenge to that appointment;
5. the proposed hearing-scheduling process, including whether remote participation is available;
6. the deadlines and required format for witness identification, witness proffers, exhibits, evidentiary objections, and other pre-hearing submissions;
7. the complete index of materials that will be provided to or otherwise made available to the Hearing Officer, including whether the Investigation Report and Exhibits A through R will be included automatically and whether any other material will form part of the hearing record;
8. whether the 2020 Kang memorandum, UCOP materials, CAE webpage material, PACAOS 140 material, APM provisions, and any other outside authority cited or materially relied upon in the Investigation Report will be supplied as part of the hearing record;
9. whether the Hearing Officer will receive less-redacted or unredacted materials and what procedure is available, under an appropriate confidentiality arrangement, for obtaining access to information necessary for a meaningful response; and
10. whether UCLA can provide a document-level index of the “hundreds of pages” of additional documents that “[t]he Investigator did not rely on,” identifying each document, any disposition assigned to it, and the basis for that determination, including whether the document was deemed insufficiently relevant, redundant to other evidence, or treated on another stated ground, without disclosing legally protected information (Investigation Report at 7 n.4).

To the extent UCLA requires a focused grounds supplement or any comparable early merits submission before the hearing, I request a reasonable good-cause extension through August 26, 2026, or ten University business days after UCLA substantially provides the requested record clarification, whichever is later. Please treat this paragraph as a written extension request under Section VI.D of UCLA Procedure 230.2 and route it, if necessary, to the official authorized to decide it.

Good cause exists because the July 29 production includes a 44-page report file and 119 pages of disclosed Exhibits A through R; contains material redactions; refers to hundreds of additional pages without a document-level index; cites or materially relies upon outside authorities that were not included within Exhibits A through R; and requires reconciliation with the underlying administrative record. I am also traveling from August 3 through August 11, 2026, although I remain available remotely and will continue preparing during that period.

This request concerns only a focused grounds supplement or any comparable early submission that UCLA requires. I am not requesting an extension of the already-completed hearing election. I understand that this request does not toll or change any deadline unless UCLA grants an extension and confirms the revised deadline in writing.

If the requested date cannot be granted, please provide the longest reasonable period available, identify the resulting deadline, and state whether any corresponding adjustment of the hearing schedule or Procedure 230.2’s 60-Day hearing-completion period requires action by the Hearing Officer or another authorized decisionmaker.

Thank you. Please confirm receipt of this follow-up request and provide written responses for each item above.

Sincerely,

Cooper M. Beaman

UCLA

3. SR01184644 Opened: Reopened from SR01178653: Reopened from SR01053187: Cooper Beaman [105692562] Academic Disqualification Appeal

From: Cooper Beaman cobeaman@g.ucla.edu
To: UCLA Division of Graduate Education ucla@service-now.com/ucla@service-now.com
Cc: cooper beaman cooperbeaman@gmail.com/cooperbeaman@gmail.com
Bcc: coopsdaddy1@aol.com, wbeaman1@gmail.com
Sent: Tue, Aug 4, 2026 at 5:10 PM

Dear Mr. Bailey,

On May 4, 2026, you confirmed that my “academic disqualification appeal regarding alleged violations of university non-discriminatory policies is still active and the DGE Dean will review any (appropriately redacted) investigated materials the UCLA Civil Rights Office produces.” You also requested that I “keep [DGE] updated on the status of the investigation.” This notice provides a formal status update regarding the UCLA Civil Rights Office (CRO) investigation (Case No. 2025-07-00230-DPO) pertaining to my academic disqualification appeal based on non-academic criteria in violation of UCLA nondiscrimination policies (Service Request No. SR01178653).

On July 29, 2026, at 1:39 PM PDT, CRO transmitted “the outcome letter, redacted investigation report, and redacted exhibits in the above-referenced matter.”

On Friday, July 31, 2026, at 5:00 PM PDT, I submitted a formal grievance hearing request under UCLA Procedure 230.2 limited to Findings 2 through 5 of the investigation report concerning Dr. Carrie Bearden and Dr. Felix Schweizer. On August 3, 2026, at 2:51 PM PDT, ADA/Section 504 Compliance Officer Yonit Kovnator confirmed my “request for a hearing has been received” and that “[s]omeone will be in touch soon with next steps.”

This limited hearing scope should not be understood to remove the NEURO M203 chronology or related materials from DGE’s separate academic-disqualification review to the extent those materials bear upon the program’s stated disqualification rationale, academic performance, causation, or substantive mitigating circumstances. Nor is my decision not to seek a hearing on Finding 1 concerning Dr. Bisley intended as agreement with every factual characterization or analytical statement therein.

The Standards and Procedures for Graduate Study at UCLA provide that:

[w]hile an investigatory office is processing the allegations, the Division of Graduate Education will hold the appeal decision in abeyance until that process has completed. … Once the investigatory office completes its process, said office will notify the Division of Graduate Education of the outcome, including providing appropriately redacted versions of any written investigation report (hereafter “Investigation Materials”). Based on the Investigation Materials, the Division of Graduate Education will determine whether the report reflects substantive mitigating circumstances that could have affected a disqualified student’s academic performance. (Standards and Procedures for Graduate Study at UCLA, “Student Appeals Process – Grounds other than Procedural Error,” p. 33)

Because I have timely requested a formal grievance hearing, the above-quoted provision does not expressly establish whether the investigatory process is defined as complete upon:

• transmission of the initial investigation report;
• completion of the grievance hearing;
• issuance of the hearing report;
• issuance and finality of the Vice Chancellor’s decision; or
• completion of any timely appeal and resulting Chancellor decision.

This notice therefore does not concede that the investigatory process has completed nor that any DGE 30-calendar-day period has begun.

Please:

1. confirm that my academic disqualification appeal based on non-academic criteria in violation of UCLA nondiscrimination policies remains active;
2. confirm the continued abeyance of my appeal decision pending the outcome of the formal grievance hearing, including any timely post-hearing comment and appeal process, or specify any divergent interpretation of “complete” regarding CRO’s investigatory process as procedurally prerequisite to DGE’s determination of substantive mitigating circumstances affecting academic performance, as reflected by the Investigation Materials;
3. identify each item DGE has received or anticipates receiving CRO’s transmittal of Investigation Materials, including corresponding title or description, date and time of receipt, version, and sender;
4. specify whether DGE presently considers any 30-calendar-day period to have begun and, if so, provide the triggering event, the date and time DGE received the operative Investigation Materials, the first counted day, and the resulting deadline;
5. specify whether DGE will defer its substantive determination until the Procedure 230.2 hearing route has concluded and whether DGE expects to receive or consider the hearing report, the parties’ post-hearing comments, the Vice Chancellor’s decision, and any timely appeal and resulting Chancellor decision;
6. preserve this notice, the July 29 transmittal information, all materials received from CRO, and the complete SR01178653 service record; and
7. provide advance written notice before DGE treats the investigatory process as complete or issues a decision on the nondiscrimination-based academic-disqualification appeal while these sequencing and Investigation Materials questions remain unresolved.

The investigation report’s policy findings do not independently address DGE’s determinative question regarding substantive mitigating circumstances affecting academic performance. However, the report documents disability-related functional limitations, University knowledge, academic effects, program and mentor-placement constraints, accommodation-process chronology, and the timing of academic-disqualification activity that may be relevant to DGE’s separate determination, irrespective of the report’s isolated policy conclusions.

Please confirm that this status update has been added to SR01178653 and provide the requested sequencing, Investigation Materials, and clock information.

Sincerely,

Cooper M. Beaman

UID: 105692562

Service Request: SR01178653