Arizona Summit Placed on Probation by the ABA

Yesterday, the ABA announced that it was placing Arizona Summit Law School on probation. (See ABA Journal story here.)  Arizona Summit is following on the heels of its sister school, Charlotte School of Law, which was placed on probation back in November.  The ABA gave similar reasons for the action, namely, non-compliance with ABA Standards 301(a), 308(a), 309(b), 501(b) and Interpretation 501-1 and 501-2.  The ABA also noted the poor graduation rates (high attrition rates) and bar passage outcomes at the school. 

This action could very well result in the closure of Arizona Summit.  Arizona Summit had, as of December,  381 students, including 143 1Ls (down from 4501Ls in 2011 and 447 in 2012).  It is very likely that most students in good academic standing will try to transfer out this summer.  No student wants to be at a school that might lose its accreditation.  While those with just one year left are likely to have few options other than to remain, the bulk of the 1Ls and part time students who are less than halfway through their programs will try to leave.  Those with good grades and a reasonable prospect of passing the bar will be accepted at other law schools and will transfer.  The students that will be left behind will be the “worst of the worst” who are extremely likely to fail the bar, making it unlikely that Arizona Summit will be able to achieve the necessary improvements in their bar passage rate (Arizona Summit's most recent pass rates have been in the 20s and 30s).   If the top third or more of the class transfer, there will be virtually no students left who are likely to pass the bar on the their first attempt.  Meanwhile, it will be very difficult to recruit incoming students for the fall semester and virtually impossible to attract students with significantly better entrance credentials, which is what would be required to get back into compliance with ABA Standards and avoid losing accreditation.  Arizona Summit's 2016 entering class had an abysmal 148/143/140 and 3.31/2.96/2.55, meaning that the vast majority of the class is at very high or extremely high risk of failure.  Indeed, it is likely that many of the students already admitted who may have expressed an intent to matriculate or put down a deposit will change their mind.  Prospective students accepted to any other law school that is not on probation are likely to go there instead, and those only admitted to Arizona Summit may have second thoughts about attending at all.  The combined effect of huge numbers of transfers and a dramatic decrease in new matriculants will be a substantial reduction in revenues for Arizona Summit, which is already badly hurting after multiple years of rapidly dwindling revenues.  Based on recent history at other InfiLaw schools, I would expect the school's Dean to declare a Reduction in Force very soon, followed by firing half or more of the faculty at the conclusion of the spring semester.  Arizona Summit faculty members would be well-advised to start updating their CVs.

One interesting question raised by this action is whether this might cause Bethune-Cookman to reconsider its recently signed affiliation agreement with Arizona Summit.  It is hard to imagine that Bethune-Cookman would have entered into the agreement if they were aware that the school might be placed on probation in the near future, but it is also hard to imagine that Arizona Summit's President Don Lively wasn't aware that probation was a distinct possibility based on ongoing communications with the ABA.  This raises the specter that Arizona Summit failed to disclose this likely prospect to Bethune-Cookman, which would probably be a valid basis for voiding the agreement.  Whatever Bethune-Cookman's leadership was thinking when it signed this agreement, the ABA's determination that the school is not meeting the most basic requirements of the ABA Standards should give them pause about whether they should be encouraging their graduates to attend such an institution.  

 

While Arizona Summit has been among the law schools with the most exploitative admission practices in the country for the last few years, they are far from the only law school to take advantage of students with little or no chance for success.  I expect the ABA to take action against other predatory schools in the near future.  Thomas Cooley and Thomas Jefferson would be my candidates for the next schools most likely to be sanctioned.  (See comments for my reasoning.)

 

UPDATE:  One other issue raised by this latest announcement is this: When was Arizona Summit first informed that it was out of compliance with ABA Standards?  Readers will recall that Charlotte was disqualified from federal loans by the DOE in part because of failure to disclose to current and prospective students that it was out of compliance with ABA Standards in a timely manner, an omission which the DOE considered to be a violation of the school's fiduciary duty.  If Arizona Summit's road to probation followed a similar trajectory as Charlotte's then they were likely informed by the ABA several months ago that they were out of compliance (or at least that the ABA was considering finding them out of compliance), but it does not appear that the school did anything to alert prospective or current students to this possibility.  

 

 

 

Comments

[anon]

Frakt, when identifying proper candidates for probation/sanctions, always identifies certain law schools, but omits other, more obvious choices (at least, at the outset of this post and, if memory serves, others).

Here, he signals TJ. But, in California, is he aware (he is) of other law schools, previously on ABA Probation relating to bar pass standards, whose bar pass rates now appear to merit another sanction (and, given repeat offender status, perhaps a harsher sanction at that)?

If so, why not mention these? Does Frakt represent interested parties?

If so, this should be disclosed.

[David Frakt]

anon -

I know, from your many prior comments, that you are fixated on Golden Gate. I have no affiliation or interests in Golden Gate. And I certainly agree that, based on their bar passage rates they do not appear to be meeting the ABA Bar pass standard. However, the ABA has not sanctioned any schools in recent years for failure to meet Standard 316 because the Standard is so riddled with loopholes that it takes several years before a school can be found to be out of compliance. The proposed new Standard 316 passed by the ABA Council would have corrected this problem and made it possible to immediately sanction schools like Golden Gate, but it was shot down by the ABA House of Delegates and now we must wait for a while to see if the Council will resubmit the standard or propose a new one. So for now, the primary basis for placing schools on probation (as demonstrated by Charlotte and Arizona Summit) is predatory admission practices. The reason that I mention Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Cooley over some other candidates like Golden Gate and Whittier, is that the ABA has tended to hold off on sanctions or impose lighter sanctions on schools which voluntarily self-correct their errant ways. (That is why Valpo was only censured by the ABA, rather than placed on probation, and why Ave Maria was forced to take remedial actions, but received no punitive sanctions.) If you look at the 2016 509 reports, Golden Gate's admission standards are up across the board -- 152/149/146 compared to 151/148/145 for 2015. Similarly, Whittier raised its standards from 150/146/143 in 2014 to 150/148/146 in 2015 (although they slipped a bit in 2016 back to 149/146/144). In contrast, Thomas Jefferson's 2016 class is at 147/143/141, the lowest it has ever been despite four straight years of very poor and declining bar passage rates. Clearly, Thomas Jefferson has not self-corrected. Thomas Cooley's class is even worse at 147/141/138 (yikes!), identical to their 2015 entering class which was likely the weakest entering class in U.S. history. For this reason, I consider these two schools the likeliest next candidates for probation. I do not have any personal inside knowledge from the ABA about this. This is just my educated guess.

[Leo]

You mean Thomas Jefferson with the new female dean? See, Glass Cliff.

[David Frakt]

The incoming Dean is definitely facing a very challenging situation.

[a different anon]

This is interesting info. What about Laverne? Weren't they put on probation once?

[Elizabeth K.]

Can someone out there tell us 2L and 3L students are going to do? Summit itself won't tell us jack. Unlike many of my classmates, I had an 160 on my LSAT and a 3.2 from a respected undergraduate university, and multiple other scholarship opportunities from real schools such as Santa Clara (I picked Summit because I own my home in AZ, I was offered a full ride and did not want to move...dumb, I know). I am planning to graduate in May 2018, but what happens if they lose accreditation? I am too far along to transfer to ASU or UA. Any help would be appreciated.

[anon]

David.

There are TWO law schools in CA that were "recently" on ABA Probation.

Your arguments are not particularly persuasive.

You argue that repeat offenders (there aren't that many, so, your accusation of fixation may be just due to reality, not any untoward motive, as you suggest), should be treated BETTER if they "voluntarily self-correct their errant ways."

You then ignore the evidence of DECLINING performance (after a brief period of improvement), you minimize what you characterize as NONCOMPLIANCE and you claim, quite implausibly, SELF CORRECTION based on this:

1. for 2016, Golden Gate reported 152/149/146 up from 151/148/145 in 2015;

2. for 2016, Whittier reported 149/146/144, down from 150/148/146 in 2015.

Aside from the fact that it is really strained to claim that these differences are material and will account for better performance of these law schools' graduates on the bar (JUST LOOK AT THE ACTUAL BAR PASS RESULTS!!!!), the evidence isn't even uniformly what you say it is ("self correction")! Your evidence of "self correction" is self contradictory!

Above the Law recently reported as follows:

"Here’s a list we’ve created of pass rates for first-time takers on the July 2016 administration of the exam for all 21 ABA-accredited ...
•STATEWIDE AVERAGE: 62 PERCENT ...
•Golden Gate: 31 percent ...
•Thomas Jefferson: 31 percent
•Whittier: 22 percent"

YOu say you have no affiliation or interests in Golden Gate. Can you say that you are not applying for any position there or at other law schools? Of course, there would be nothing wrong with you doing so.

That said, is it not fair to ask, given that the last we heard from you, we appear to have learned, if memory serves correctly (and correct me if this is wrong) that you were actually representing persons vis a vis a subject of your prior posts?

If you are commenting and posting and advocating not only as an objective observer, but instead as a lawyer and a job seeker, is it not fair to question the reason you seem to focus more on some schools than others? Your choices should be transparent. If you have no such conflicts, then for one, I would take your word for it and be done with the inquiry. I am not accusing you of any impropriety: I just wonder about your choices and would be reassured if you simply let readers know that you have no personal stake in targeting or not certain law schools for your "educated guesses."

It is conceded that you have attempted to explain the reasons for your focus above. However, these explanations seem a bit thin, frankly, and it would help to clear the air if your stake, if any, was either disclaimed or acknowledged.

(BTW, I would still read your posts with interest even if you do disclose a stake. I haven't reached any conclusion that a stake would make posting here "wrong" in any sense. And, a stake also wouldn't make you wrong, in the accuracy sense. But, sir, it is relevant, no?

[anon]

BTW, one could legitimately question the reason that a person posting anonymously would question the disclosure by a person who isn't.

Fair question. The answer is that, were I to come forward and offer myself as a candidate for Dean of a law school, associate with LST, acquire posting privileges on the FL, and repeatedly post about law schools subject to various levels of scrutiny, then I would say that I had held myself out as an expert and that others could legitimately ask about my interests.

Not every person asking a public figure about such interests, however, should be required to so the same. It is the level of voluntarily putting oneself on the line that separates the two I think.

SOme will say that the anonymous commentator is a coward. Others might say no one would dare ask such impolite questions otherwise.

Either way, this site permits it. And, David can delete the comments as he sees fit.

[David Frakt]

anon -

I am not currently a candidate for Dean at any law school and have not been for some time. I did not apply for the Deanship at Thomas Jefferson or Golden Gate. The only law school position that I applied for recently for which I may still be under consideration was a position related to public interest law at the University of Virginia. (Probably I didn't get that one either since I interviewed in December and haven't heard anything back.) I have represented faculty members at Concordia Law School (settled), Indiana Tech Law School (settled) and Charlotte Law (settled on behalf of one faculty member, in discussions about representing another). My opinions about which schools are likely to be subject to sanction (which is slightly different from those schools which deserve to be subject to sanction) is not affected by my representation of any individuals or any other interests.

[David Frakt]

Elizabeth K. - I will reply to you privately.

[anon]

David

Thank you. I consider that issue no longer an issue.

[Captain Hurska Carswell, Continuance King]

I don't see what the problem is here. A lot of people are on probation. They drop clean and don't pick up anything too serous and they "beat their case." It's beautiful.

[Deep State Speical Legal Counsel]

This post gave me a serious case of acute ear worm. "Moved to Arizona from Babalonia, King Tut, DO DO DO. If I attended this law school, I would have shopped at Unpainted Arizona for my dorm room furniture.

[Anon JD/MD]

Elizabeth K.,

I doubt the DOE is going to terminate Arizona Summit’s access to the student loan program like they did to Charlotte, now that Betsy DeVos is in charge. I can’t imagine the ABA will terminate Arizona Summit’s accreditation before you graduate. I’m not aware of the ABA ever terminating accreditation. Unless you have a job lined up already or are planning to go solo, I would be more concerned about how legal employers will view you with a degree from a school that has been put on probation by the ABA. The job prospects are already poor. In 2015, over 20% of graduates from Arizona Summit were unemployed. Only 40% found full time, long term, bar passage required employment. How will employers react to the latest problems at Arizona Summit?

I feel for you because I’m like you. I went to a non-elite law school in the early 2000s because it was close to home. All law schools claimed 99% of grads obtained jobs and private practice salaries averaged $100,000. So I didn’t think it mattered where I went to law school. It appeared all grads got jobs. I graduated long before the market collapsed. Despite having good grades and working as an editor on my school’s law review, I was rejected for every big law firm, judicial clerkship, small law firm, federal, state, prosecutor, and public defender job I applied. I lost track of the number of resumes I sent out and the number of interviews I had. I went to job fairs where legal employers refused to even accept my resume. Many of my friends struggled to find work and had to go solo or they took non-legal jobs. The career services office was worthless and told me to keep applying to jobs. The next year, the school posted the same bogus employment numbers.

So I went to medical school after that. Other people I know got MBAs, became police officers, or pursued other careers. Funny how the legal profession looked at me as a loser with a degree from a non-elite school. But I’m qualified to be a doctor.

My point is, you are entering into a highly competitive, elitist profession. Despite your intelligence, many legal employers will look down upon you because you went to Arizona Summit. I’m not saying it will be impossible to get a job in the legal profession. I’m just advising you to think long and hard about whether a degree from Arizona Summit will help you to enter the legal profession. And think about alternative careers.

[Law Prof]

Let's not forget Western State College of Law; a California law school "performing" on par with GGU, Western, and TJ.