ABA Files Brief in Opposition to Duncan School of Law Complaint
CHICAGO, Jan. 3, 2012—In a brief filed today in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Tennessee, Knoxville Division, the American Bar Association responded to a complaint filed by Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law.
The response states that Duncan School of Law was not in “substantial compliance” with all of the section’s Standards for Approval of Law Schools. Standards with which the school was not compliant include the following:
Standard 203: Strategic Planning and Assessment
“[A] law school shall demonstrate that it regularly identifies specific goals for improving the law school’s program, identifies means to achieve the established goals, assesses its success in realizing the established goals and periodically re-examines and appropriately revises its established goals.”
Standards 303(a) and (c) and Interpretation 303-3: Academic Standards and Achievements
Standard 303(a): “A law school shall have and adhere to sound academic standards, including clearly defined standards for good standing and graduation.”
Standard 303(c): “A law school shall not continue the enrollment of a student whose inability to do satisfactory work is sufficiently manifest so that the student’s continuation in school would inculcate false hopes, constitute economic exploitation, or detrimentally affect the education of other students.”
Interpretation 303-3: “A law school shall provide the academic support necessary to assure each student a satisfactory opportunity to complete the program, graduate, and become a member of the legal profession…”
Standard 501(b) and Interpretation 501-3: Admissions and Student Services
Standard 501(b): “A law school shall not admit applicants who do not appear capable of satisfactorily completing its educational program and being admitted to the bar.”
Interpretation 501-3: “Among the factors to consider in assessing compliance with Standard 501(b) are the academic and admission test credentials of the law school’s entering students, the academic attrition rate of the law school’s students, the bar passage rate of its graduates, and the effectiveness of the law school’s academic support program.”
Finally, the response suggests that Duncan School of Law has not exhausted its right to appeal the decision by the Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar to deny provisional accreditation. That appeal, provided for by federal law and the section’s rules, should be satisfied before any review of the decision is undertaken, according to the response.
The ABA brief is available here; supporting exhibits are here. The declaration filed by the ABA’s consultant on Legal Education is available here.
The Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar and its Accreditation Committee are both recognized by the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) as the only federal accreditors for programs leading to the first degree in law. In this function, the Section and its Council are separate and independent of the ABA, as required by DOE regulations.
With nearly 400,000 members, the American Bar Association is the largest voluntary professional membership organization in the world. As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA works to improve the administration of justice, promotes programs that assist lawyers and judges in their work, accredits law schools, provides continuing legal education, and works to build public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law.
- 30 -
10:34 AM January 4, 2012
The ABA is a monopoly controlled by liberal individuals who want to force their agendas on the populace. The ABA attempted to prohibit the armed forces from recruiting on campus because it was opposed to the federal law on gays in the military (it is irrelevant whether you agree or disagree with the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, but the armed forces were simply following the law). Congress overruled the ABA. The ABA is also opposed to the death penalty and wants all death penalties stopped. Most people, rightly or wrongly, agree with the death penalty. That is the law of the land. Thirdly, the ABA has also taken a position that abortions should not be restricted. Each of those positions are political in nature. Whether you are for or against any of those positions, a serious question arises: Why is the ABA even getting involved in political discussions? Let the voters, legislators, and courts decide the law. Would it not be nice if the ABA simply focused on improving the practice of law as opposed to forcing their agenda down people’s throats.
7:30 PM January 4, 2012
The ABA is nothing more than a club that any lawyer is free to join or ignore, but that has managed, somehow, to make itself a force that sets standards to which state Supreme Courts kowtow. I am not aware of rampant bar exam failures based on cost of tuition or dollars per square foot for teaching space. I am a living example of the lack of relationship between undergrad and LSAT scores and success in law school and law practice and there are lots of folks out there who are glad I made it into, through and in the top of a law school that back in the day cost only about $150 per quarter plus books. If existing Law Schools (especially those that are well-endowed) are allowed to set standards for other law schools, by placing their highbrow grads (ABA members) on ABA Committees and they are allowed to force all law schools into the high expense.high tuition model, there is indeed an antitrust violation and a disservice to those who need lawyers who don’t have to charge $350 per hour in order to make their big building rent and overhead. The American antitrust law concept seeks to promote competition because competition results in efficiencies including lowering of costs and a quest for a better product. I hope Duncan/LMU hangs tough and gets this straightened out because the ABA has no business deciding what minimum environment or test score is essential to a great legal education.
8:15 PM January 4, 2012
... ABA is urging a decider not to meddle in its decision (PDF) final month to repudiate provisional accreditation to ...