Aba Letter Oct 2014

 

CHARLESTON SCHOOL OF L AW A LUMNI LUMNI A SSOCIATION SSOCIATION  BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

President John E. Robinson  Vice President  President  Cameron J. Blazer Secretary   Secretary Megan Hunt Dell Treasurer   Treasurer James McCutchen Members  Members  Wes Allison Jacqueline Anthony Marshall “Matt” Austin  Austin    Ashley Batson Scott Bischoff Kathleen Chewning  Alissa Collins Daniel J. Crooks Lauren Christy Ellison Fargnoli Robert “Trey” Harrell, III  III  Jennifer Hills Michelle McMahon Mary Jordan Lempesis Lauren Spears Jenny Stevens Sarah Woodard  Aimee Zmroczek

October 28, 2014 Barry A. Currier Managing Director Section of Legal Education  American Bar Association 321 North Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654 Thomas C. Galligan, Jr., President Colby-Sawyer College 541 Main Street New London, New Hampshire 03257 Professor Joan Howland, Associate Dean and Professor University of Minnesota Law School 229 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455  ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions Admissions to the Bar 321 N. Clark Street, 21st Floor Chicago, Illinois 60654 RE: Request for Major Change Acquiescence by Charleston School of Law Dear Mr. Currier, President Galligan, and Dean Howland: While there can be little doubt that the Accreditation Committee of the Section of Legal Education is well aware of the overwhelming student, faculty, and alumni opposition to any acquiescence to Infilaw’s plan to take over the Charleston School of Law, please allow this correspondence to summarize the specific concerns of the more than 1,000 alumni constituents we represent. These concerns overlap with those of the supermajority of the faculty, which has made a written record of its opposition to acquiescence, as well as an overwhelming number of current students, more than 125 of whom have taken breaks from briefing cases and Bluebooking law review articles

 

Page 2 of 5 and gaining experience through externships to write in opposition to acquiescence.  As the Committee and the Section consider Infilaw’s Infilaw’s proposal,  proposal, we trust that each member will be mindful of the important role the ABA plays in ensuring the quality of the educational programs at each approved law school. The United States Department of Education has delegated to the ABA the duty and authority to vet the quality of programs of study at each approved law school; this is the only means of determining which schools will be eligible to receive the federally backed student loan funds — funds funds without which no law school in this country could function. Especially in this era of increased media, community, and governmental attention to the short-and-long-term costs of education, scrutiny is justly placed on every school, whether public or private, and accrediting bodies like the ABA to ensure schools do not abuse the public trust in accessing this enormous source of capital. At the same time, we are mindful of the narrow perch from which the ABA must conduct its oversight in light of the ever-present threat of antitrust litigation surrounding your exercise of this duty. In navigating this nearly untenable landscape, the Committee and the Council are to be guided by the ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools. While these standards include limited specific guidance regarding acquiescence to major changes, inherent in any acquiescence must be a finding that the adherence to standards at the school seeking acquiescence will not recede in the wake of such acquiescence. And yet, in this case, that is precisely the concern —  concern — a concern which is supported by objective facts about Infilaw’s management of the three schools it already owns. While not an exhaustive list, the following standards are at risk of violation at the Charleston School of Law in the event of the proposed change in ownership: Standard 201: 201: Rather than demonstrate a commitment to the financial stability of the Charleston School of Law, since its arrival on the campus, Infilaw has made clear that it seeks to purchase the assets of the existing law school and its receivables and has in repeated written communications evinced a willingness to indebt and encumber the existing school all the way to insolvency in order to achieve its purpose. Standards 204, 206, and 405: 405: Already, every aspect of the Charleston School of Law’s functioning, including the educational program, appears to be subject to the management of the Infilaw organization, with little or no input from faculty. The faculty has made repeatedly clear its objections to the recent changes to the admissions standards foisted upon the school by Infilaw.

 

Page 3 of 5  And yet those concerns have been ignored and numerous students admitted whose admission credentials do not meet with the standards deemed educationally and ethically appropriate by the faculty. The faculty, the contracts of whom Infilaw has expressly not not contemplated  contemplated acquisition, has effectively been stripped of all meaningful governance and oversight of the academic program. Further, both the tenured and non-tenured faculty have reported directly to the Section the climate of employment insecurity that has been created by Infilaw’s usurpation in deed, if not in word, of administrative control at the Charleston School of Law. Standards 301, 501, and 503: 503 : Bar passage rates at Infilaw schools have taken precipitous declines in recent years, at the same time that the schools have made admissions changes to accept larger and larger numbers of students whose admissions credentials demonstrate an objectively low likelihood of success on the bar exam. Since the announcement of its management services agreement with the Charleston School of Law, Infilaw appears to have suggested, if not required, a similar change in the admissions standards of the Charleston School of Law. Indeed, whereas Standard 301 makes bar passage and participation in the legal profession the overriding objective of the provision of legal education, in internal communications forwarded by Infilaw representatives to current CSOL students, Infilaw has made no secret of its plan to train a large segment of its student population for jobs in which a law degree (as opposed to bar passage) provides a potential employment advantage. (Exhibit A  –   Email from Annette Ritter to Denise Sacco) This is neither in keeping with the letter or the spirit of the Standard. Additionally, this body should evaluate whether Infilaw’s implementation of its  AAMPLE admissions program at the Charleston School of Law is a violation of Standard 503. This body previously sanctioned Rutgers University  –   Camden for analogous actions taken without prior approval. Standard 510: 510: In the August 13, 2014, issue of the  Atlantic   magazine, Professor Paul Campos methodically  Atlantic dissected Infilaw’s pursuit of an ever-expanding ever-expanding piece of the student loan pie. Paul Campos, The Law School Scam, Scam, T HE  A TLANTIC TLANTIC  (Aug. 13, 2014). Infilaw’s practice of

 

Page 4 of 5 “counseling” vulnerable customers into becoming indebted students should give pause to the ABA. Allowing Infilaw to bring this practice to the Charleston School of Law without further study would be irresponsible. Standard 701: 701: The small, densely populated peninsula of Charleston presents space challenges to any school or business seeking to expand. Prior to the announcement of the Infilaw transaction, the Charleston School of Law had plans underway to construct a new building for classrooms and administrative offices on land the school purchased from the City of Charleston. Those plans have been shelved, and it is our understanding that the property cannot be transferred in Infilaw. In more than a year since the transaction’s announcement, no meaningful progress has been made to alleviate the space and facilities concerns already present at the school. Nothing about the past year should give this Committee confidence that sufficient progress will be made by Infilaw in the future. If, as has been suggested, an application for acquiescence in ownership change has never been denied in the past, that fact is perhaps notable, but by no case.  In fact, to means dispositive of what wh at the Committee’s action should be in this case. In acquiesce under the facts of this case would be unprecedented: in May 2014, a committee of the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education, led by two lawyers, voted to deny Infilaw a license to operate the Charleston School of Law, and rather than face the almost certain prospect of a loss before the full Commission, Infilaw withdrew its application. Infilaw has no license to operate any any   school in South Carolina, much less this school. Never before has the ABA granted any kind of license to an entity lacking the basic right to operate a school. Never before has a change of ownership so clearly posed a choice between fealty to market forces versus commitment to quality in legal education. Never before has a change in ownership prompted such concerted public opposition. Nor should the Committee be guided by the canard that the ABA-approval of Infilaw’s other three schools should in any way bind the Committee’s  Committee’s  actions with regard to this school; if Standard 101(b) has any meaning, the approvals of Charlotte, Arizona Summit, and Florida Coastal do not confer some sort of irrefutable conformity with the standards on this proposed transaction nor inevitable entitlement to acquiescence. If anything, the issues raised by concerned observers in the last fifteen months may call into question the present conformity of the Infilaw schools to the Standards.

 

Page 5 of 5 The work of the Committee and of the Council is vitally important to students who pursue legal education in this country and, ultimately, to those whose legal needs will be met by those students. The parties seeking the acquiescence are the only ones given a seat at the table to present their case; please do not conflate the imposed absence of those who oppose the transaction with tacit approval. We implore the Committee to be mindful of the well-being of these constituents when evaluating the application before you. If you are guided by the Standards, you will deny the request for major change acquiescence at this time. Sincerely, Charleston School of Law  Alumni Association Board of Directors President John E. Robinson  Vice President  President  Cameron J. Blazer Secretary   Secretary Megan Hunt Dell Treasurer   Treasurer James McCutchen

Enclosure:

Wes Allison Jacqueline Anthony Marshall “Matt” Austin  Austin    Ashley Batson Scott Bischoff Kathleen Chewning

Christy Fargnoli Robert “Trey” Harrell, III  III  Jennifer Hills Michelle McMahon Mary Jordan Lempesis Lauren Spears

 Alissa Collins Daniel J. Crooks Lauren Ellison

Jenny Stevens Sarah Woodard  Aimee Zmroczek

Exhibit A –  Email  Email from Annette Ritter to Denise Sacco

 

Exhibit A Matthew Kelly <[email protected]>

Fwd: FW: Curriculum Committee recommendation of course program for  Center for Law Practice Technology 1 message Adrian Wilkes <aewilk es @c harles t onlaw.edu>

Fri, Oc t 11, 2013 at 11:13 AM

To: Matthew Kelly <[email protected]> Adrian E. Wilkes Juris Doctor Candidate Senator, Student Bar Association Charleston School of Law, Class of 2016 The Citadel, Class of 2011

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Peter Goplerud  <[email protected]> [email protected] > Date: Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:50 AM Subject: FW: Curriculum Committee recommendation of course program for Center for Law Practice Technology To: "[email protected] " [email protected] " <[email protected] >

 Adrian,  Adrian, Here are the courses that were approved for the Center for Law Practice Technology. Peter 

From:  Annette Ritter From:  Sent: Thursday, Sent:  Thursday, September 05, 2013 12:09 PM To:   Faculty (Full-Time Expanded) To:  Denise Sacco Cc: Denise Cc: Subject: FW: Subject:  FW: Curriculum Committee recommendation of course program for Center for Law Practice Technology

Faculty Members,

The Curriculum Committee will be presenting a proposal before the faculty at next Thursday’s faculty meeting recommending approval of the ten-course curriculum for the Center for Law Practice Technology, which can lead to a Certific Certificate ate in Law Practice Pract ice Technology Tec hnology and Management. The curriculum is based in large part part on Richard Richard Susskind’s Sussk ind’s book, Tomorrow Tomorrow’s ’s Lawyer’s: An Introduction to Your Future, Future, Bill Hen Hender derson’s son’s Article, Artic le, A Blue Print for  Change, and Justice, Lawyering and the Legal Education in the Digital Age authored by Richard Granat and

 

Stephanie Kimbro. Richard Granat and Stephanie Kimbro will be the co-directors of the Center as well as affiliate faculty at Coastal. They have provided a brief overview of this program below (in red). Additionally, the Course Proposals for all ten (10) courses have been attached as well as Terri Davlantes’ Proposal for a Certificate in Law Practice Technology and Law Practice Management which Terri disseminated before the August faculty meeting.   The Curriculum Committee has reviewed the Course Proposals, conferenced with both Richard Granat and Stephanie Kimbro, requested detailed course objectives, explanations of how the courses tie together and differ, verification of rigor in each course and questioned how frequently the courses should be offered. After completing this process, the Curriculum Committee unanimously voted in favor of these ten courses as a unified curriculum for the Center for Law Practice Technology with one exception. The Committee voted that all ten (10) courses be offered once per year. This way the courses can be offered more frequently, but need not be offered every semester depending on enrollment, faculty availability, etc.   If you have any questions, suggestions or concerns, please feel free to let me and the Committee members know.  

are four themes or goals There are goals underlying the design of the program: program:   1.  Focus on solo and small law firm practice; 2.   A second focus on increa inc reasing sing employab employability ility of students for entry level positions in large largerr legal organizations, domestically and internationally, clustered around careers which require a JD degree plus skills in technology and management; 3.   A nationnation-wide wide distance dist ance lear l earning ning program; program; 4.   Appea  Appeall to interna international tional students for certain courses. Theme 1: Focus on Solo and Small Law Practice 1.  Students who graduate from Coastal need to be ready to go into practice for themselves as solo

or small practitioners because their employment prospects may be dismal and only a relatively small percentage of Coastal students will get jobs in law firms. The purpose of the core course, Law Practice Technology and Management, is to prepare law students for this reality by empowering them to create a business plan that they can implement either immediately after graduation or within a five year period after being admitted as a member of the Bar. This course stands alone. It's focus is on solo and small law firm practice in the United States and is only peripherally related to the other elective elec tive courses in the program. This course would be required required for the Certificate Program. Theme 2: New Careers in the Legal Profession. 2.  Almost all of the elective courses train a student in a set of skills that are directly related to a job

role in a larger law firm, corporate legal department, consulting firm, or alternative provider such as an outsourcing company or e‐discovery provider. Each job role has a discrete job title with a discrete sets of required skills. Each of the elective courses, has been designed to enable the student to add a project to their portfolio which demonstrates skill acquisition. acquisition. This will then qualify students stu dents for an entry level position or higher within a larger legal organization. While it is difficult to predict

 

employment outcomes, the Center’s goal is that the addition of skills in the digital arena will have an impact on the student’s job jo b prospects, giving Coastal’s students an edge in finding employment in some of the fastest growing areas of the legal profession. The elective courses falling under Theme 2 include: a.  Legal Document Automation  – potential job title: Document Automation Specialist. b.  Legal Expert Systems  - Job title: Expert Ex pert Systems Syst ems Developer; Legal Knowledge Engineer. c.   eDiscovery Management  – Job title: eDiscovery Manager- high demand for this position and  job title. d.  Legal Project Management  – Job title: Legal Project Manager – manages projects in a variety of legal settings- general counsel’s office; large law firm’s; outsourcing companies. e.  Legal Project Operations  – Job title: Legal Process Specialist; Legal Productivity Specialist.   Recent literature on these subjects include:   http://www.digital-lawyer http://www.dig ital-lawyer.com/document-a .com/document-automationutomation-applications applications  

http://www.digital-lawyer.com/expert-legal-systems  

http://www.digital-lawyer.com/legal-process-re-design  

Each job titles that link toand themay 5 elective courses above require distinctly unique skills. courseofisthe a stand-alone course be taken independently to gain experience in that oneEach area or in combination with the other courses proposed herein to meet the requirements for a Certificate in Law Practice Technology and Management.   The course in “Access to Justice and Legal Technology ” in combination with one of the five courses above is intended to increase the student’s employability with legal services programs, courts, and government agencies. While these jobs are very limited, the number of professionals who have these skills is also severely limited.

The course in “Lawyers as Entrepreneurs” is designed to orient the students to positions in venturebacked legal start-ups, start-ups, in the t he US and interna internationally, tionally, (no (nott law firm employment, but employment requiring a JD degree in a non-law firm context.). Unlike the core course which is oriented to solo and small law firm practice, this course prepares the student for employment in non-traditional legal entities, such as venture-backed legal start-ups.

 

The course in “Ethics of Practicing Law in a Digital World ” compliments both “Law Practice Technology and Management  “ and “Lawyers as Entrepreneurs. ” The Ethics course as it is a more more focused and deeper discussion of how the ABA Model Rules affect the development and implementation of technology in law firms and innovation in the legal profession and, includes a detailed examination of  ethics opinions and cases that require analysis of the ABA Model Rules and the research conducted by the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20.

The course in “Social Media for Lawyers” is a specialized marketing course for students going into solo practice as well as small law firms. In this course the students learns how to use social media to expand the marketing reach of a law firm in an ethically compliant way. While social media might be mentioned, for example, when discussing marketing in Law Practice Technology and Management, this course dives into issues with specific platforms, management tools, and privacy and security settings and management.   Theme 3: Distance Learning Concept: 3.  The third theme underlying the design of the program is that it will be offered to law students

nationwide, and perhaps eventually internationally, not just Coastal students. This is the rationale for the distant‐learning design. Only a handful of law schools offer of fer courses like this in the United States and the courses these schools offer are traditional classroom based courses. By offering a national , and international, program we have the possibility of creating a distinct brand for Coastal as a center for legal technology technology and innovation. innov ation. Moreover, a distant learning platform lends itself to recruiting recruiting national and international faculty who are true thought leaders in their respective specialties. Theme 4: International Reach

4.  Preliminary conversations at the College of Law in London , and one or two other law schools, plus the experience of the University of Miami’s http://www.lawwithoutwalls.org/ suggests that there will be international demand for courses within the program, and demand for an international Certificate.  

Thank you for your attention to this matter.  

Annett Ann ette e J. Ritte R itter  r   Associate  Assoc iate Professor of Professional Skills Florida Coastal School of Law Director of Trial Practice & Mock Trial   8787 Baypine Road Jacksonville, Florida 32256

 

904-680-7668   (office) 904-680-7668 [email protected]   “Education is the key to unlock  the golden door of freedom.” George Washington Carver 

 

Annett Ann ette e J. Ritte R itter  r   Associate  Assoc iate Professor of Professional Skills Florida Coastal School of Law Director of Trial Practice & Mock Trial   8787 Baypine Road Jacksonville, Florida 32256 904-680-7668 904-680-7668   (office) [email protected]   “Education is the key to unlock  the golden door of freedom.” George Washington Carver 

 

12 attachments Access to Justice and Legal Technology.docx 74K ediscovery_management_Final.docx 105K Ethics_of_Practicing_Law_in_a_Digital Ethics_of_Practicing_Law_ in_a_Digital World_Final2.docx 37K Introduction to Law Practice Operations Management.docx 43K Law Practice Technology and Management_final3.docx

 

34K Lawyers as E ntreprenuers_Final.docx Lawyers ntreprenuers_Final.docx 75K Legal Document Automation.docx 86K Legal_Expert_Systems_Final.docx 85K Project Management for Lawyers_Final.docx 45K Social Media in Law Practice_Final2.docx 79K Background_Courses_Design.docx 55K Memo to Faculty re Proposal to Create a CLPT.docx 78K