The Faculty Lounge

2021 Admissions and Bar Pass Update

In light of dramatic improvements in admissions standards at formerly exploitative schools, combined with several of the worst offenders going out of business, last year I abandoned my perennial bottom 10 list of the least selective law schools.  Things continued to improve for the fall entering class of 2021.  Thanks in large part to record numbers of applications, most law schools were able to raise the entrance credentials of their entering classes. Indeed, most did so while also raising the size of their entering class as well.  

Although the overall trend has been positive, with far fewer underqualified students being admitted, there was still one law school in 2020 that I found to have concerning admissions practices - Southern University.   In 2020, Southern's admitted student LSAT credentials were the worst in the country at 146/144/143  for the 75th, 50th and 25th percentile.  The good news is that Southern significantly raised its standards this year.  This years' LSATs are 149/146/144.  The bad news is that Southern is still the least selective law school in the country, by a fairly considerable margin.  The two closest competitors are North Carolina Central at 153/147/145 and Appalachian at 152/147/146.  (Yes, two or three LSAT points make a big difference, especially at this level.)  And the UGPAs for Southern's students are also concerning at 3.39/3.03/2.72.   For comparison, North Carolina Central's entering 1L class had UGPAs of 3.53/3.27/2.99, a significant difference.     The average college GPA these days is 3.15, and closer to 3.25 for social science and humanities majors (e.g. most law students).  Anything below 3.0 typically places a student in the bottom third of the class.   A 2.7 UGPA is downright awful. 

As I have noted many times in the past, students with very low entrance credentials (low test scores and low grades) are at high risk of attrition or of failing the bar after graduation.  Southern had a worrying 63.2% first-time pass rate in 2019.   Fortunately for Southern, most of their 2020 graduates didn't have to take the bar - they were granted diploma privilege.  But for the dozen first-time bar exam takers who went out of state, the pass rate was predictably poor - 41.66%  (5 out of 12).  In comparison, North Carolina Central, which historically has prepared its students very well for the bar exam, had a first-time pass rate of 79.3% across 13 different jurisdictions with an excellent 81.8% first-time pass rate in North Carolina, where the majority of NCC students took the exam. 

Bar Passage

Law schools are required to submit their bar passage data for calendar year 2021 later this week (by March 31, 2021).  Once the numbers come out, I will provide an update on any interesting trends.  As a reminder of the importance of admissions standards and how admissions standards impact bar performance, see this post from last year.   

I am particularly interested to see the numbers from Western Michigan (formerly Cooley). Western Michigan has already failed to make the UBP standard four years running:  class of 2015 - 69.75%, class of 2016 - 69.0%, class of 2017 - 66.0%, and class of 2018 - 62.3%.   It is very likely that the class of 2019 will also fall short, as that class had a first-time pass rate of 35.8%.  In May 2020, Western Michigan was found by the ABA to be significantly out of compliance with Standard 316, but there has been no public notice of any further action by the ABA since then.  Although Western Michigan has now raised its admission standards to an acceptable level, the fallout from many years of unacceptably low admission standards continues and likely will for another two years.  If the UBP standard (Standard 316) is to have any teeth at all, the ABA must do something to Western Michigan to penalize the school for its many years of unethical admissions practices leading to repeated bar failures.  A most fitting penalty would be some form of refund to those students who graduated but have never been able to pass the bar after two or more attempts. 

Ultimate Bar Passage: Law Schools at Risk

The Council of the Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar has twice proposed that, for accreditation purposes, the Bar passage requirements of Standard 316 be amended to focus solely on what the ABA calls "Ultimate" Bar passage: the percentage of a law school's graduates who pass the Bar within two years of graduation. All ABA law schools would have to maintain Ultimate Bar passage percentages of at least 75% for every year-group of graduates. The proposed Standard 316 would abandon the current alternate measure, which compares a law school's first-time Bar passage percentage to the ABA first-time Bar passage percentages in each state where its graduates took the Bar.

The proposed new Standard 316 has twice been rejected by the ABA House of Delegates. Despite that, ABA rules permit the Section Council to "reaffirm and adopt" the proposed revision to Standard 316. It is widely expected that they will do so.

At this point, the Section on Legal has released the 2018 and 2019 Ultimate Bar Passage Outcome Reports, which include data for 2015 and 2016 graduates, respectively. The overall Ultimate Bar passage outcomes for all ABA law schools was 88.32% of all 2015 graduates, and 88.57% of all 2016 graduates.

New Study on the State of the Entry-Level Law-Jobs Market and its Implications (Part II: What the Market is, and What the ABA is Not, Telling Us about “JD Advantage” Placements)

This is the second in a series of what I intend to be four posts on my new study of the entry-level Law-Jobs market.  Part I laid out the current state of the job market, and you can find it here.  The full paper is available here. 

Today I’ll discuss so-called “JD Advantage” placements, what the job market is telling us about them, and what the available data is not telling us.

For those not entirely familiar, the ABA’s disclosure requirements call on reporting law schools to break down their recent graduates’ employment outcomes (among other ways) into four mutually exclusive categories:  Bar Passage Required, JD Advantage, Professional Position, and Nonprofessional Position.  The current definition of a JD Advantage position (see here at p.26) includes that its “duties . . . do not require passage of the bar exam or an active law license or involve practicing law”; but “[t]he possession of a JD by the graduate was sought by the employer, required by the employer, or provided a demonstrable advantage in either obtaining or performing the duties of the position from the perspective of the employer . . . .”  (For a history of the evolution of this job category, see my earlier job-market study at 555-59.)

I’ll talk about the problems with this definition, and what we do and don’t know about its application, after the jump.

New Study on the State of the Entry-Level Law-Jobs Market and its Implications (Part I: Where the Job Market for New Law Graduates is Today)

I’ve posted on SSRN a draft of my new study of the entry-level Law-Jobs market and its implications.  You can find the draft here.  It’s a followup to my earlier study on the job market, published in the middle of the Great Recession’s aftermath in 2014.  I presented an earlier draft of the new paper last spring at Florida International’s Summit on the Future of Legal Education and Entry to the Profession.  That conference was ably organized by Scott Norberg and generously co-sponsored by LSAC.  The paper will appear later this year in the Symposium Issue of the FIU Law Review devoted to the Summit.

Rather than imposing one long post on those interested, I thought I would break a discussion of the findings into four parts, posted over the next week or two.  This Part will discuss the current state of the entry-level Law-Jobs market.  Subsequent posts will discuss (ii) the entry-level placements the ABA calls “JD-Advantage”; (iii) predictions regarding future trends in entry-level employment for new law graduates; and (iv) the implications for the legal academy of where the job market is and where it’s going.

So where are we these days?  I’ll fill you in after the jump.

ABA Standard 316 Gets Shot Down Again - Here's How To Fix It

The ABA House of Delegates resoundingly defeated Resolution 105, the proposed revision to Standard 316, which would require all law schools to achieve a 75% bar pass rate for all graduates within two years of graduation.  (Read the ABA Journal Story here.) 

The proposal now goes back to the ABA Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar.  According to Barry Currier, the Council has three options: "abandon the effort to revise the standard; propose a different revision; or reaffirm and implement the changes." In my opinion, the Council should follow the middle course.  The current Standard 316 is a joke and there is widespread agreement that it needs to be overhauled.  It is so weak, and so riddled with loopholes, that no school has ever failed under it, despite years of woeful performance on the bar at many schools.  The proposed revision would close all those loopholes, simplify and toughen the Standard, and would be a huge improvement over the current version.   But the proposed revision is not perfect.  While simplicity and uniformity is desirable, there is an inherent problem with a one size fits all standard for bar passage in a country with widely different bar pass cut scores.  Critics of the proposal have made a credible case that the Standard would have a disparate impact on minority admissions in at least some jurisdictions, especially in California, which has the second toughest bar pass cut score in the country.  (The proposed Standard would also be virtually impossible to meet in Puerto Rico where the pass rates are historically far below 75%.)   Last March, I proposed a way to modify the Standard that would keep virtually all of the positive attributes of the proposed revision while blunting the unintended consequences on diversity.

As the Council sits down to review Standard 316, I thought it would be a good time to reintroduce my (slightly refined) proposal as a potential middle ground that might satisfy most of the major stakeholders.  First, let's look at the current rule and the Council's proposal.

The 2018-19 Bottom Ten Law Schools

The 2018 ABA 509 Required Disclosures are hot off the press and I couldn’t wait to delve into the numbers and see who has been naughty and who has been nice.

The title for the least selective law school in the country goes to:

1. 2017 Defending Champion - Western Michigan University Thomas Cooley! Once again, Cooley tops the bottom 10 list, but this year there is a twist. Last fall, the ABA found that Cooley was out of compliance with ABA Standard 501 on Admissions. Cooley sued the ABA, and in March 2018, the ABA essentially capitulated and found Cooley back in compliance with Standard 501(b), based on “concrete steps” that the school was making to improve its admissions policies. I analyzed those steps in this post, and predicted that they would barely make a difference in the credentials of the admitted students. Well, guess what?  Turns out I was right.

Why Florida Coastal's Lawsuit Against the ABA Should Go Forward

Earlier this fall, the ABA filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking a dismissal of the lawsuit filed by Florida Coastal and its parent company, InfiLaw.  Yesterday, Florida Coastal School of Law and its parent company, InfiLaw, filed a motion in opposition.  Florida Coastal argued that it is still entitled to, and actively seeking, discovery, and that there are plenty of genuine issues of material fact to be decided. Florida Coastal is challenging the ABA’s finding that Florida Coastal remains out of compliance with several ABA Standards, including Admissions Standard 501(b), despite the fact Florida Coastal has significantly raised its admission standards multiple times over the last few admissions cycles, and made other quality initiatives which have resulted in improved bar passage rates.  Although the Federal Courts have generally been very deferential to accrediting agency decisions, including the ABA, and often grant summary judgment motions in these cases, I think this is a case where there are good reasons for the court to permit the case to go forward.

Standard 501(b) requires a law school to “only admit applicants who appear capable of satisfactorily completing its program of legal education and being admitted to the bar.” I have argued that schools admitting a quarter or more of students with LSATs at 144 and below should be found in violation of this standard.  And for the last three years, the ABA has seemed to agree. All of the schools that have been found out of compliance with this standard over the last two years have had an LSAT 25% at 145 or below.  Most have been well below that.   But Florida Coastal isn’t.  According to Florida Coastal’s filing, their 2018 entrance credentials are as follows: 75/50/25^th  LSAT: 152/150/147   UGPA  3.35/3.12/2.80.   Furthermore, no students were admitted or matriculated to Florida Coastal in 2018 with an LSAT below 145.    Based on logic and precedent, there is simply no reasonable argument that Florida Coastal is currently non-compliant with this standard.  The LSAT numbers represent a 6 point increase at the 25^thand 50^thpercentile from 2016, when Coastal’s profile was 149/146/141  3/27/2.87/2.57.  The difference between a 141 and 147 on the LSAT is HUGE.  A 147 is at the 33^rdpercentile, and a 141 is at the 16^thpercentile.   Students with a 147 LSAT and   reasonably good college grades have a decent chance of completing law school and passing the bar (except maybe in California).  Here are some more pertinent facts: there were 45 law schools in 2017 that had an LSAT 25^thpercentile in 2017 below 147; and no law school with a current 147 25^thpercentile has ever been found out of compliance with 501(b).

The ABA and Standard 501 – Still Inconsistently Applied

In March, the ABA sent a letter of non-compliance to Lincoln Memorial Duncan School of Law, a provisionally-approved school, stating that it had been found out of compliance with ABA Standard 501(a) and (b) and Interpretations 1, 2, and 3 of the Standard.  The school was ordered to submit a report over the summer and to appear at the November meeting of the Accreditation Committee.

What prompted the ABA’s determination that LMU was out of compliance?  For the fall entering class of 2017, LMU’s LSAT 75/50/25 profile was 152/148/145. For UGPA it was 3.47/3.08/2.64.  According to my LSAT risk profile chart, students with LSAT’s at 146 and 145 are at very high risk of passing the bar, and those at 144 and below are at extremely high risk.   Thus, up to 24% of LMU’s students could have been extremely high risk (144 or below), and somewhere around a third of students were either very high or extremely high risk. 

Also, according to their 2017 509 report, LMU had a 22.2% non-transfer attrition rate in the 2016-2017. Under the ABA Standards, first year attrition rates over 20% create a rebuttable presumption that a school is not complying with the admissions standard.

With its provisional accreditation in jeopardy, LMU significantly improved the credentials of its fall 2018 entering class.  (Although the official ABA 509 report is not out, the school has posted on its websitea profile of the fall admitted class.) The LSAT and GPA profile for the 2018 entering class is 152/149/147 and 3.51/3.07/2.73.  Importantly, the 25^thpercentile went from 145/2.64 to 147/2.73, and no student was matriculated with an LSAT below 142.    According to LSAC, a 147 is around the 33^rd percentile while a 145 is around the 26^thpercentile.  A 142 is at the 18^th percentile.  At its November 2018 meeting, the ABA Council reviewed these numbers and determined that LMU was in substantial compliance with Standard 501(a) and (b) and Interpretations 501(1)(2)and (3).  So, LMU’s latest numbers provide some useful data for gauging what the ABA currently considers to be acceptable admission standards.

But the ABA’s latest actions also add credence to the claim of some critics that the ABA is applying its standards inconsistently.

Recent Bar Pass Rates - A Cautionary Tale

A number of states have released bar results from the July 2018 examination over the last several weeks, including New York, Texas and Florida.  Overall, performance on the bar was very poor, although there have been a few bright spots.  The national average on the MBE was down 2.2 points to 139.5, a 34 year low.   To those who have followed law school admission trends closely, this should not have come as a surprise. The 2014 and 2015 entering law school classes were arguably the weakest ever in terms of entrance credentials, and these cohorts (part-time students who started in 2014 and full-time students who started in 2015) made up the majority of the first-time test takers in July.  There were also a lot of repeat takers from 2017 and February 2018 who also had very low credentials.

The purpose of this post is to remind everyone, especially law school faculty and administrators at lower tier schools, of the perils of admitting very high risk (LSAT of 145-146) and extremely high risk (144 and below) students.  As law schools start to experience an uptick in applications, the focus, especially at low-performing schools, should be on raising the quality of admitted students, not growing the class.  A few examples should suffice to demonstrate this point.

Touro Law School – Touro had 105 first time takers on the New York July bar; 51 passed. That’s a 48.6% pass rate.  Touro’s 2015 entering class was terrible:  149/147/145 LSATs with GPA at 3.31/3.03/2.77.   

Texas Southern - 69 of 155 Texas Southern graduates passed the July 18 Texas bar for a 44.5% rate. In February, TSU had 5 of 18 first time takers pass, for a 27.88% rate.  Overall 74 of 173 TSU grads passed for a 42.8% first-time pass rate in Texas for 2018.  TSU’s 2015 entering class had an atrocious LSAT GPA profile of 146/143/141 3.44/3.11/2.80. Texas Southern was sanctioned by the ABA for its admissions practices in June 2017, and this is why.  Texas Southern was admitting large numbers of extremely high risk students and the bar pass statistics reflect this.  Texas Southern has not yet released the class profile for the 2018 entering class but it has promised the ABA to significantly raise its admission standards.

UNT Dallas - UNT had 10 of 25 of its students pass the February 18 Texas bar (40%), followed by 52 of 85 on the July bar – 61.18%. The combined pass rate for 2018: 62 of 107, was an uninspiring 58%.  According to fact sheets published by UNT Dallas, the LSAT profile for the 2015 entering class was 149/146/143 3.40/3.11/2.67 for the full-time division and 150/145/142  3.36/3.03/2.64 for the part-time division.  This was even lower than the woeful credentials of their inaugural entering class in 2014. After nearly not getting provisional approval from the ABA in part because of valid concerns over admitted student credentials, UNT-Dallas has significantly tightened admissions standards. Their admitted student profile for the Fall 2018 class is 153/150/148 with a 3.32/3.08/2.68.  Expect UNT Dallas to see a steady rise in bar passage rates over the next three years.

Barry Law School and Florida A&M Law School – July 2018 results at Barry: 55/121 (45.5%) In February 2018, Barry had 16 of 39 first-time takers pass for a 41.0% rate. Overall for the year, Barry is at 71/160 (44.4%) in Florida.  Similarly, Florida A&M was 11 for 30 ( 36.7%) on the Feb 18 Bar, and 39/77 (50.6%) on the July Bar, for a 2018 total of 50/107 (46.7%) in Florida.  Barry and FAMU had very similarly weak entering classes in 2015: 150/146/144  3/29/296/2.64 for Barry and 149/146/144  3.29/3.00/2.72 for FAMU. 

These five examples demonstrate (once again) that when law schools admit high percentages of very high and extremely high risk students, these classes are virtually certain to have very low bar passage rates.  Put another way, no law school has figured out a magic formula to take students with very limited aptitude for the study of law, as demonstrated by their LSAT scores and college grades, and turn them into bar passers.   All the law schools that have closed in the last couple of years (or are in the process of or in peril of closing), including Whittier, Indiana Tech, Charlotte, Arizona Summit, Valparaiso and Thomas Jefferson, amply demonstrate this point.  Although the overall decline in demand for legal education played some role in the downfall of these schools, it was their decision to lower admission standards to an unethically low level that started the vicious cycle of dropping bar pass rates, declining reputation, decreasing applications and increasing transfers that ultimately doomed them.

Dead, Dying and Zombie Law Schools

Happy Day After Halloween. In the ghoulish spirit of the season, here is a is a quick update on some of America's most troubled law schools:

The Dying:

Arizona Summit is closing.  On Oct 24, the school submitted a revised teach-out plan to the ABA after its initial plan was disapproved by the ABA in September.  Under the proposed plan, the ABA would agreed to refrain from revoking the school’s accreditation until the current students graduate, and the school would drop its appeal of the ABA's decision to revoke its accreditation.  (It is not clear if this would also include dropping its lawsuit against the ABA.)  The school did not admit new students this fall and has only 22 students remaining.  At its peak in 2011, Arizona Summit (then known as Phoenix Law) has 1092 students enrolled, but after substantially lowering admission standards, its bar passage rates cratered, leading to the school being placed on probation, and ultimately, having its accreditation revoked.  A large cohort of 25 Arizona Summit students transferred to the University of North Dakota Law School this fall.  UND gained this student windfall by agreeing to accept all the credits the students had earned at Arizona Summit.  UND took a page from Appalachian’s playbook, which last year took 16 transfer students from Arizona Summit’s now defunct sister school, Charlotte Law.

Valparaiso Law School is closing.  Valparaiso also did not enroll first year students this year and has about 100 second and third year students moving through.  Valpo killed itself by substantially lowering admissions standards, which led to huge declines in bar passage rates, and resulted in ABA   sanctions.  (See a pattern here?) Valparaiso tried to give its law school away to Middle Tennessee State University, but the move was rejected last month by the Tennessee Higher Education Commission after objections from the five law schools already in Tennessee.

Thomas Jefferson Law School has announced that it won’t enroll new students for the spring semester, as it has done in the past.  The law school also applied for and received accreditation from the State Bar of California. As a California-accredited school, TJSL grads will be able to take the California bar, even if the school loses ABA accreditation, which is a distinct possibility. The school is currently on probation with the ABA, and there are little signs of the kinds of improvement that would get the school back in compliance with ABA Standards.  Because of financial woes, the school had to move out of its fancy new building into a smaller, cheaper office building, which did not go over well with students.  The seemingly insurmountable issues faced by Thomas Jefferson may have been a factor in the decision of Dean Joan Bullock to announce her resignation after just a year on the job.

The Dead:

Charlotte Law School, which ceased operating last year, reached a $2.7 million settlement in a class action lawsuit by students.  At its peak in 2013, Charlotte enrolled 1410 students, according to its 2013 509 Report.  Charlotte got so big by dramatically lowering its standards, and it kept lowering them until the school's bar passage rate tanked, which ultimately led to ABA sanctions and withdrawal of federal loan eligibility from the Department of Education. Lawyers for the students are still trying to figure out a way to go after deep-pocked Sterling Partners, the owners of InfiLaw, which operated Charlotte Law School. Sterling Partners has thus far evaded any financial liability for the debacles at Charlotte Law and Arizona Summit.

The Zombie:

Zombies can’t be killed and they destroy the lives of a lot of people.  That is a pretty good description of Western Michigan University Thomas Cooley School of Law, America’s least selective ABA-Accredited law school.  WMU-Cooley has had a sub 50% first time bar pass rate for at least the last two years.  Last year Cooley was (finally) found out of compliance by the ABA for failure to comply with Standard 501, the admissions standard.  Rather than agree to change its ways, as other schools found out of compliance have done, Cooley sued the ABA, claiming arbitrary and capricious enforcement of the Standards.   The ABA then inexplicably reversed itself and found Cooley back in compliance with Standard 501, (providing compelling evidence in support of Cooley’s claim of arbitrary and capricious enforcement) after Cooley promised some extremely minor adjustments to its admission practices.  The ABA also acquiesced to Cooley’s request to open another branch on the campus of Western Michigan State in Kalamazoo, which the ABA had originally rejected.  Back in June, I predictedthat the two sides were nearing a settlement of the lawsuit. Earlier this week, the parties formally settled the lawsuit.

Tennessee Commission Rejects Valpo Transfer

The Tennessee Higher Education Commission voted 8-5 yesterday to reject the proposed transfer of Valparaiso's law school to Middle Tennessee State University. Nashville Public Radio has the details:

"Technically, Valparaiso was going to transfer its American Bar Association accredited J.D. program and curriculum to MTSU as a gift. The institution announced last fall that it would no longer admit new students after only 29 enrolled. It began looking for merger options. But Mike Krause, executive director of THEC, says the commission is required to approve or disapprove of all proposals for new degree programs at public institutions. And for this particular case, they even hired an outside consultant to conduct a feasibility study on the transfer. . . . 

The biggest critics of the transfer came from lawyers and law schools in Memphis and Knoxville, where the state’s only other public law schools are located.  Comments generally regarded concerns of a watered down law school market for the state, since Nashville is already home to three law schools — Belmont University, Vanderbilt University and Nashville School of Law. Another school in the city, many said, would take away from other schools’ ability to compete, even if it’s a public option. And with higher education excellence often tied to career attainment outcomes, it would also saturate an already dense legal labor market, they said. MTSU’s transfer of a law school would make it even more difficult for law school graduates to find work."

Here's a link to the full NPR story.

MTSU College of Law?

In a press release I first saw last night on Paul Caron's TaxProf Blog, Valparaiso University's Board of Directors and Middle Tennessee State University's Board of Trustees have announced an agreement to transfer Valparaiso's law school to MTSU.

The transfer agreement, however, still needs the approval of the ABA and the Tennessee Higher Education Commission before it can go into effect. 

Here is a Nashville Public Radio Story on the move:

"The Middle Tennessee State University board unanimously approved plans Wednesday to transfer Indiana-based Valparaiso University’s law school to its Murfreesboro campus. The school’s leadership says the move makes sense for its mission and the region’s needs.

But before the transfer can officially occur, MTSU has to convince the state the law school is actually necessary. It’s now moving forward to the Tennessee Higher Education Commission and Valparaiso’s accreditor, the American Bar Association, for final review.

They will determine whether the school is necessary in Middle Tennessee, given that three other law schools already exist in the region. But, those schools are all private, says MTSU Provost Mark Brynes, and the region needs a public law school option."

ABA and Cooley Nearing Settlement?

Back in April, I incorrectly surmised that Cooley and the ABA had reached a settlement in their lawsuit.  How else to explain the ABA's decision to find Cooley back in compliance with Standard 501(b)?  (For more on that harebrained decision, see here.)  Well, this time there is some actual evidence (not just my conjecture) that the two sides may be nearing a settlement.  Earlier today, the Judge assigned to the case referred the matter to a Federal Magistrate for the purpose of holding a settlement conference.  (See order here.)  there were two things that Cooley really cared about in this lawsuit - being found back in compliance with 501(b) and getting permission ("acquiescence" in ABA parlance) to open a branch of the law school at Western Michigan's home campus in Kalamazoo.   This "major change" is to be considered at the Accreditation Committee's next meeting on June 28, 2018.  Assuming this decision goes Cooley's way, Cooley will have got both of the things that they wanted.  By settling, the ABA can avoid awkward litigation over its seemingly arbitrary enforcement of Standard 501(b), and avoid the risk of litigating similar issues in multiple jurisdictions, with the potential that a negative ruling in the Cooley case could aid the cause of one of the InfiLaw law schools in that ongoing litigation. 

Arizona Summit Loses Accreditation

The ABA Council has withdrawn approval for Arizona Summit Law School, according to this letter posted on the ABA Section of Legal Education News page.  Arizona Summit had been placed on probation last March but was apparently unable to convince the ABA that it reliable plans in place to remedy its many deficiencies.  Arizona Summit had the worst bar pass rate in the country and has had among the lowest admissions standards in the country for several years.  The school was also having serious financial difficulties.  Arizona Summit has been directed to file a teach-out plan within 10 business days.  Although Arizona Summit has the right to appeal the decision to an appeals panel of the Council (and no doubt will challenge this decision as part of its ongoing litigation with the ABA), if the decision holds up, that will leave Florida Coastal as the last of the three InfiLaw schools in operation, following the closure of Charlotte Law School last year and the subsequent withdrawal of its ABA-approval in February 2018.  Florida Coastal is not currently on probation or under ABA sanctions, but has been found out of compliance with Standard 501(b) despite significantly raising its admission standards over the last two years.  All three InfiLaw law schools have filed separate suits against the ABA, claiming arbitrary and capricious enforcement of ABA Standards.  The ABA is currently seeking to consolidate the lawsuits into one multi-district litigation in Charlotte, NC. 

The ABA, Cooley and Standard 501 – The Rest of the Story

The ABA’s March decision to find WMU Thomas Cooley School of Law back in compliance with Standard 501(b) was puzzling, given the fact that Cooley has been America’s least selective law school for the last three years.  In 2017, virtually the entire entering class at Cooley was comprised of very high and extremely high risk students, with LSATs of 146/142/139 at the 75^th, 50^thand 25^th percentiles, respectively.  The public notice claimed that “the further report [from Cooley's Dean] and concrete steps taken by the Law School with respect to its admission policy and practices demonstrated the Law School’s compliance” but the ABA did not explain what was in the report or what steps had been taken to warrant reversing their earlier decision.  Given that the ABA was vigorously defending the earlier decision in federal court, it seemed reasonable to assume that Cooley must have made some very significant changes to their admissions policies.

A further suggestion that Cooley had made major changes came from Barry Currier, Managing Director, Accreditation and Legal Education.  In response to an inquiry from Dean Paul Caron of Pepperdine Law School about the Cooley decision, Mr. Currier stated: 

The ABA law school accreditation process includes opportunities for schools to address matters of non-compliance determined by the Accreditation Committee and the Council. When that occurs, and the committee or the council conclude that the steps taken by a school have addressed the concerns that led to the finding of non-compliance, then the appropriate action is to find that the school has returned to good standing on those issues.

Thanks to a document filed on May 25, 2018 as an exhibit in the ongoing lawsuit between Cooley and the ABA, we now know two things: first, we know what concrete steps Cooley has promised to take with respect to their admissions policies and practices, and second, we know that these changes were not significant and did not adequately address the concerns of the ABA.  The document in question is the private letter sent on April 18, 2018 from the ABA to Cooley explaining the public decision of the Accreditation Committee.  And although the letter answers some questions about the ABA’s decision, it raises far more questions than it answers.

Cooley vs. the ABA – The Plot Thickens

I was wrong.  WMU Thomas Cooley School of Law and the ABA haven’t settled their lawsuit after all.  After I wrote the column on April 28 speculating that they had, there was no action in the lawsuit for a couple of weeks, so it seemed like the parties might be biding their time waiting to inform the Court that they had reached a settlement.  But today, I went onto Pacer and found that both parties are still actively litigating, with a recent flurry of motions and replies and responses.  In fact, Cooley filed a response to the ABA’s motion for summary judgment yesterday, and it’s a doozy. 

Arizona Summit Joins the ABA Litigation Parade

This just in: Arizona Summit has followed the lead of sister InfiLaw Schools Florida Coastal and Charlotte and sued the ABA.  I haven't seen the lawsuit yet, which was filed by Kirkland & Ellis, but it apparently makes similar claims as the other two lawsuits.  

The school issued a press release which contains wildly exaggerated claims by Interim Dean Penny Willrich, such as this gem: "dozens of other schools with similar or lower incoming credentials of their students were not – and many still have not been – found out of compliance or sanctioned by the ABA."  This is simply and demonstrably false.  Every other law school with similar or lower incoming credentials of students as Arizona Summit in 2015 and 2016 has also been found out of compliance or sanctioned by the ABA, with the exception of Southern University.  One law school is hardly "dozens".  Although Arizona Summit did raise its median LSAT in 2017 to 148 (by shrinking to 49 students) this was only after the school had been placed on probation in March of 2017.  For the preceding five years, Arizona Summit had been among the half a dozen or so schools in the country with the weakest entrance credentials. Arizona Summit had a median LSAT of 143 in 2016 and 2015, 144 in 2014 and 2013 and 145 in 2012.  And of course Arizona Summit has had among the lowest bar pass rates in the country for the last four years, and had the lowest "ultimate" pass rate for the class of 2015 on the ABA's recent spreadsheet.   Just last week, the Arizona February  bar exam results were announced, and Arizona Summit had a  19.8% pass rate, 31% for first-time takers, and 13.5% for repeaters.  Another telling statistic is that Arizona Summit had nearly twice as many repeaters (81) as first-time takers (45).  These latest bar results are a legacy of Arizona Summit's predatory admissions policies in 2014 and 2015. 

Here is another blatantly hyperbolic statement by Arizona President Don Lively. Referring to the ABA's decision to place Arizona Summit on probation: "it is hard to imagine a more blatant due process violation."  Actually, Don, it is hard to imagine a more blatant example of exploitation of unqualified students than you have been running for years.  I predict the ABA's decision to place Arizona Summit on probation will be upheld by the U.S. District Court.

 

 

Admissions, Accreditation and the ABA: An Analysis of Recent Law School Lawsuits

Recently, the ABA has been sued by Western Michigan University Thomas Cooley School of Law, and two InfiLaw schools: Florida Coastal School of Law and the defunct Charlotte School of Law. In addition, the ABA was named as a co-defendant along with InfiLaw and Charlotte School of Law in an amended complaint filed in a fraud lawsuit by a former Charlotte law professor and a Charlotte law student.  These lawsuits allege that the ABA has failed in its duties as a law school accrediting agency in a variety of ways.

In this (very long) article, I will attempt to make sense of the various allegations made against the ABA in these lawsuits.  In order to understand the lawsuits, it is important first to have some historical context regarding enrollment trends and the recent history of the ABA’s approach to law school accreditation, particularly with respect to its enforcement of Admissions Standard 501 of the ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools.

In Defense of Florida Coastal

I know what you are thinking. Is this some kind of a joke?  But no, it isn’t. I am actually writing to say that Florida Coastal is being treated unfairly by the ABA.

Let’s review:

In my last post, about the ABA's puzzling decision finding WMU Thomas Cooley Law School's admissions polices in compliance with ABA Standards, (The ABA Finds Thomas Cooley In Compliance. But Why?) I made the following point:

By finding Cooley to be in compliance with 501(b), when several other schools with less egregious admission practices have recently been found out of compliance,the ABA has opened itself up to more accusations of arbitrary and capricious decision-making (exactly the accusations that Cooley has made) and potentially additional litigation. After all, if the least selective law school in the country is in compliance with Standard 501(b), then how can any other law school be found out of compliance?

Well, it didn’t take long for this prediction to come to fruition.  On Thursday, Florida Coastal School of Law and its parent company InfiLaw Corporation, filed suit against the ABA in federal court in Florida for its recent decision finding Florida Coastal out of compliance with several ABA Standards, including 501(b). After reviewing the complaint, I think Florida Coastal makes a pretty good case. 

The ABA Finds Thomas Cooley In Compliance. But Why?

UPDATED APRIL 30 (SEE BOTTOM)

The ABA made a surprise announcement this week, reversing their earlier decision that WMU Thomas Cooley Law School was out of compliance with Admissions Standard 501(b) and finding the school is now in compliance.  So how did the least selective law school in the country convince the ABA to let it off the hook?  I have been trying to make sense of this decision and have a theory.  But before I share it, let’s review the history. 

Cooley law school has been known as a law school of last resort for many years. Often it has been the least selective law school in the country and always in the bottom 5 or so.  Over the last couple of years, Cooley’s admissions standards dropped further than ever before, into virtually uncharted territory,  In 2015, as I wrote in this column,  “the class that Cooley admitted in 2015 is statistically the worst entering class of law students in the history of American legal education at an ABA-Accredited law school.”    (As an aside, this quote has made it into a couple of stories about Trump lawyer and Cooley alum Michael Cohen in recent weeks.)  I called for the ABA to take action against Cooley in January 2016, and repeated that call several times subsequently (see, e.g., here and here). 

Eventually, the ABA decided it could ignore Cooley’s flagrant disregard of Standard 501(b) no longer.  Thus, on November 13, 2017, the ABA Council notified Cooley that the school was out of compliance with Standard 501(b) and Interpretation 501-1.  The Council was affirming a decision of the Accreditation Committee made in September 2017 which Cooley had appealed.  The school was ordered to submit a report by February 1, 2018 with additional details.   The next day, Cooley sued the ABA, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the ABA from posting the letter of noncompliance on its website.   Cooley’s injunction request was denied, but Cooley continued to pursue the lawsuit against the ABA, disputing the ABA’s findings of non-compliance with the Admissions Standards, and the ABA’s denial of their request to open a new location. 

One More Reason To Sanction Charleston School of Law

Charleston Law School was tied for fifth with Thomas Jefferson in my list of the least selective law schools in the country for the 2017 entering class, with LSATs of 148/145/142.   In another recent column, I noted that Charleston had a dismal 43.59% first-time bar passage rate in 2017, down from 58.60% in 2016.   South Carolina has just released information on the pass rate for the February 2018 bar and Charleston grads are still struggling.  Only 21 of 64 Charleston students who took the exam passed, for a 32.81% pass rate, as compared to the average for takers from all other schools at 62.5% (120 of 192).  South Carolina does not distinguish between first-time takers and repeat takers so we don’t know exactly what the first-time pass rate was, but it was almost certainly very bad.  And it is important to keep in mind that South Carolina has among the easiest bar exams in the country with a cut score of 266 on the Uniform Bar Exam.  If Charleston students can’t pass the South Carolina bar, they are unlikely to fare better in other states. 

Readers may remember that Charleston fended off advances from InfiLaw in 2014 out of concerns that Infilaw’s lower academic standards would damage the school’s reputation if InfiLaw took over.  But Charleston is now admitting students very nearly as weak as Charlotte School of Law and Florida Coastal did at their nadir, and Charleston’s bar pass rates are very nearly as bad as the nearest InfiLaw school, Florida Coastal.  Florida Coastal’s first-time bar pass rate was 40% for 2016 and 39.52% in 2017, but the Florida bar is tougher than the South Carolina bar.  Ironically, Florida Coastal is now turning things around, while Charleston is going in the opposite direction.  Florida Coastal has significantly raised standards (151/148/145 for 2017), and, significantly, refused to take most of Charlotte’s transfer students last year, enrolling only 4.  In contrast,  Charleston took in an incredible 58 transfer students from Charlotte.  Those students, primarily from the 2016 entering class at Charlotte, had incredibly weak entrance credentials, (LSAT 148/144/141  GPA 3.07/2.80/2.48), weaker even than the abysmal entrance credentials at Charleston that year. Predictably, these students did very poorly at Charlotte.  The median 1L GPA of the group of transfer students was an anemic 2.33.  Although students with first year law school GPAs below 2.5 are at very high risk of bar failure, Charleston took dozens of such students, virtually assuring a continued very low bar passage rate for the next couple of years. 

Clearly, Charleston is no longer worried about its reputation and seems to be following the InfiLaw/Thomas Cooley playbook of maximizing revenue for as long as they can get away with it. It is a shame that this once promising school has sunk to such depths. 

It is high time for the ABA to step in and put a stop to this exploitation.