Law School Suits Provide Rare Glimpse into ABA Accreditation Process
The American Bar Association has asked a federal court to dismiss Florida Coastal School of Law's suit against it, arguing that its accreditation arm followed all the right procedures in finding the Jacksonville campus out of compliance with its rules.
October 17, 2018 at 01:59 PM
5 minute read
|
Officials at Florida Coastal School of Law argue they have improved the quality of students admitted and boosted bar pass rates since coming under scrutiny from the American Bar Association, but the accrediting body says it needs to see more proof that those changes are real and sustained before the school is back in its good graces.
New court filings offer a rare glimpse into the ABA's law school accreditation process, where decisions are made behind closed doors and the details of deliberations are typically held secret. The Florida Coastal court papers are part of a raft of litigation against the ABA by law schools who have been threatened with losing their accreditation is offering new insight to how the ABA is cracking down on schools it deems to have fallen short of its standards. Western Michigan University Cooley Law School, Arizona Summit Law School, Florida Coastal and the now closed Charlotte School of Law all have pending lawsuits against the ABA that argue the organization has been inconsistent in applying it accreditation standards to law schools.
The latest court filings center on Florida Coastal, which initially sued the ABA in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in May after being deemed out of compliance with several standards, including the rule that schools admit only students who appear capable of graduating and passing the bar. In a motion for summary judgment filed by the ABA's Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar on Thursday, the accreditor argues that Florida Coastal's promised improvements are too new to produce meaningful results and that the school cherry-picked data from other law schools during the past decade to make the case that it's being treated unfairly.
Officials from the ABA did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday. Florida Coastal Dena Scott DeVito declined to comment on the litigation, except to say, “We would not file an action with the court if we did not believe it had merit.”
The motion for summary judgment, as well as Florida Coastal's earlier amended complaint, reveal that during an August appeal hearing before the council, Florida Coastal officials highlighted several changes intended to address the ABA's concerns, including:
- A 62 percent first-time bar pass rate on the February 2018 Florida exam, which was up from 25 percent the previous year and was the fourth-highest among Florida's 11 law schools and four points higher than the statewide average. The school predicted that its first-time pass rate on the July 2018 exam would be 67 percent, up from 42 percent in July 2017.
- Increasing its 25th percentile LSAT from 145 in 2017 from 141 in 2016, and enrolling a Spring 2018 class with a median LSAT score of 150. (DeVito said Wednesday that the school's newest entering class has a 25th percentile LSAT of 147.)
- Lowering its attrition rate from 30 percent in 2017 to 21 percent for those admitted in the spring of 2018.
- Improving its mandatory bar preparation course and bolstering its academic support and student monitoring process.
But those changes were not enough to sway the council, which decided they were too recent to offer proof of improved long-term outcomes. For example, the school's much-touted 62 percent bar pass rate in February 2018 was based on results from only 29 students. The school did not provide results for 124 other Florida Coastal graduates who took the bar elsewhere or who were repeat takers, hence the council gave only “limited weight” to the improved pass rate in Florida, according to its motion for summary judgment.
And while the results of the July 2018 bar exam were not yet available when the council met in August to hear Florida Coastal's appeal, the school's 67 percent projected pass rate proved optimistic. The Florida Board of Bar Examiners announced last month that 62.5 percent of Florida Coastal's first-time takers passed the July exam.
The council acknowledged that the 150 median LSAT for the spring 2018 matriculants was an improvement, but that cohort was just 19 students, and their 21 percent attrition rate “remains of concern,” the council found. Moreover, the improved academic support and bar prep, “has not been in place for sufficient time for students who received the full benefit of that curriculum to graduate and to determine whether it is effective in improving student outcomes.”
Finally, the ABA argues in its motion for summary judgment that Florida Coastal's focus on data from other law schools is misplaced, and that only the school's history, circumstances and data are at issue when it determines compliance with the standards. Florida Coastal selected various data from different schools in different years and on different topics to make the case that the accreditor is applying its standards unevenly, the ABA argues, but such cherry-picked data does not offer a “meaningful basis” on which to weigh Florida Coastal's specific situation.
But Florida Coastal argues in its amended complaint that the ABA's handling of other law schools is relevant to the case. “The Council's decision also violates due process because the Council refused even to consider its own past precedents,” it reads.
The ABA is asking a federal judge to boot the case from court.
“The [ABA's Accreditation] Committee and Council reasonably concluded that further monitoring of Coastal was necessary, that students are entitled to accurate information, and that Coastal should receive more time to demonstrate compliance,” reads the ABA's motion for summary judgement. “In other words, the accreditation process is working. The Court should not permit Coastal to use this lawsuit to stop the ABA from seeking quality and transparency for students.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUS Judge Rejects Morgan Stanley Reconsideration Bid in Deferred Compensation Litigation
Transgender Woman Awarded $150K Default Judgment Against Corrections Officer for Alleged Assault
Legal Speak: A Convicted Felon is Coming to the White House. What Happens Now?
1 minute readAT&T General Counsel Joins ADM Board as Company Reels From Accounting Scandal
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250