depaul university notice of removal

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JONATHAN PHILLIPS, BRIAN LOKER, ADAM SMESTAD, XAVIER HAILEY, BRENT DAVIDSON, SHELLYE TAYLOR, ALLISON LEARY, and AMMANUAL LUBA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DePAUL UNIVERSITY, a/k/a as DePAUL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW, and DOES 1-20,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-1791 Honorable Judge: Magistrate Judge: Removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Chancery Division Cook Case No.: 12 CH 03523

__________________________________________________________________________

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Defendant DePaul University, a/k/a DePaul University College of Law (“DePaul”),

removes the action captioned Jonathan Phillips, et al. v. DePaul University, a/k/a as DePaul

University College of Law and Does 1-20, Case No. 12 CH 03523, from the Circuit Court of

Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, to the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332,

1441, 1446, and 1453. In support of this notice, DePaul states:

BACKGROUND

1. This case is one of over a dozen putative class actions filed by plaintiffs’ counsel

around the country challenging law school reporting of graduate employment data pursuant to

standards set by the American Bar Association (“ABA”) as the accrediting agency selected by

the United States Department of Education (“DOE”) with respect to the federal Higher

Case: 1:12-cv-01791 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/12 of 8 PageID #:1

2

Education Act of 1965 (“HEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.1 See 20 U.S.C. § 1099(b) (delegating

authority to the DOE to recognize accrediting agencies); 73 Fed. Reg. 11404, 11405 (Mar. 3,

2008) (recognizing the ABA as a nationally recognized accrediting agency).

2. The thrust of plaintiffs’ Complaint is that the ABA Section of Legal Education and

Admissions to the Bar, which is responsible for accrediting and regulating accredited law

schools, “has been largely derelict in its duties.” (Compl. ¶ 81.) Accordingly, their class action

Complaint seeks to remedy perceived deficiencies in reporting involving the entire “legal

education industry.” (Id. at ¶ 1 (“This action seeks to remedy a systemic, ongoing fraud that is

ubiquitous in the legal education industry ….”); see also id. at ¶ 10 (allegations referencing “De

Paul and the law school industry” and “De Paul – much like the rest of the law school

profession”); id. at ¶ 70 (“De Paul – like most law schools”).)

3. In the DePaul Complaint, plaintiffs assert claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud

and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“ICFA”), 815 ILCS 505, et seq.; fraud; and negligent

misrepresentation. A true and correct copy of the DePaul Summons, Complaint and Exhibits is

attached hereto as Exhibit A.

4. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of: “All persons who are either

presently enrolled or have attended the De Paul University College of Law to obtain a JD degree

within the statutory period.” (Compl. ¶ 89.)2

1 Plaintiffs’ pattern Complaint against DePaul includes, likely by mistake, several allegations against

another defendant law school, Chicago-Kent (Compl. ¶ 88), and seeks judgment against Chicago-Kent (id. at ¶¶ 112, 125).

2 The applicable statutes of limitations range from three to five years. See Ko v. Eljer Inds., Inc., 287 Ill. App. 3d 35, 43 (1st Dist. 1997) (under Illinois law, a negligent misrepresentation claim must be brought within five years); McCarter v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 130 Ill. App. 3d 97, 100 (3d Dist. 1985) (under Illinois law, a fraud claim must be brought within five years); 815 ILCS 505/10a(3) (under Illinois law, an ICFA claim must be brought within three years).


3

5. Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount, including the reimbursement of all

tuition paid to DePaul by the putative class, as well as other monetary, injunctive, and equitable

relief. (Id. at ¶ 15.)

6. Plaintiffs’ counsel have filed two other substantially similar suits in federal court,

asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. (See Harnish v. Widener

University School of Law, No. 12-cv-00608-WHW-MCA (D.N.J. 2012) (Dkt. No. 1, Complaint

¶ 14); MacDonald, Jr. v. Thomas M. Cooley Law School, No. 11-cv-00831-GJQ (W.D. Mich.

2011) (Dkt. No. 22, Amended Complaint ¶ 13).) True and correct copies of the Widener

Complaint and Cooley Amended Complaint are attached hereto as Exhibits B and C.

7. Plaintiffs’ counsel have indicated that they intend to expand their nationwide

litigation against the “legal education industry” by filing between 20 and 25 new lawsuits every

few months, and have commented that “[t]he key, right now, is to bring as many law schools as

possible into the fray.” (See Karen Sloan, THE NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL (Feb. 1. 2012), attached

hereto as Exhibit D.)

GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL

8. This case is subject to removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1441,

which allow a class action to be removed to the district court of the United States for the district

and division within which such action is pending, provided that the district court has original

jurisdiction. This Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Original Jurisdiction Under the Class Action Fairness Act

9. This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of

2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), because: (a) the citizenship of at least one of the proposed


4

class members is different from the defendant; (b) there are at least 100 members of the proposed

class; and (c) the matter in controversy exceeds $5 million.3

There Is Minimal Diversity.

10. The “minimal diversity” requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A), which requires

that any member of the purported class of plaintiffs be a citizen of a State different from DePaul,

is satisfied. One of the named plaintiffs is a citizen of California, a second named plaintiff is a

citizen of Washington, D.C., and DePaul is a citizen of Illinois.4 (Compl. ¶ 19 (“Brian Loker is

licensed to practice in California and is currently a member in good standing of the California

Bar”); see also Patterson & Sheridan, LLP biography of Palo Alto Office associate Brian Loker,

attached hereto as Exhibit E; Compl. ¶ 22 (“Brent Davidson passed the Illinois Bar Exam and

currently lives in Washington, DC” where he is the “program director at the DC-based

International Security and Biopolicy Institute”); Compl. ¶ 26 (“Defendant De Paul is an ABA-

accredited law school and an Illinois not-for profit corporation with its principal place of

business in Chicago”).)

11. Apart from the allegations in the Complaint concerning the two named plaintiffs

who live and work outside of Illinois, several of plaintiffs’ exhibits to the Complaint further

implicate diversity with respect to members of the proposed class of DePaul law school alumni

and students. (See, e.g., Compl. Ex. 2 (“Popular employment locations for 2010 DePaul

graduates include California, Florida, Michigan, Texas and Washington, DC”); Compl. Ex. 3

(“Popular employment locations for 2009 DePaul graduates include California, Indiana,

Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Washington, DC, and Wisconsin.”); Compl. Ex. 4

3 Section 1332(d)(4), requiring that the Court decline to exercise jurisdiction, does not apply.

4 For purposes of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, the citizenship of the defendants described as “DOES 1-20” is disregarded. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (“For purposes of removal under this chapter, the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded.”).


5

(“Popular employment locations for DePaul graduates include California, Colorado, Florida,

Indiana, Michigan, New York, Texas, Virginia, Washington, DC, and Wisconsin”); Compl. Ex.

2 (out-of-state enrollment for 2011 entering law school class was 45%); Compl. Ex. 3 (out-of-

state enrollment for 2010 entering law school class was 56%); Compl. Ex. 4 (out-of-state

enrollment for 2008 entering law school class was 53%).)5

There Are More Than 100 Members of The Proposed Class.

12. The requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5)(B) is satisfied because there are more

than 100 members of the proposed class, which has been defined as: “[a]ll persons who are either

presently enrolled or have attended the De Paul University College of Law to obtain a JD degree

within the statutory period.” (Compl. ¶ 89 (class definition).) Plaintiffs have alleged that DePaul

“currently enrolls about 1,000 students.” (Id. at ¶10; see also Compl. Ex. 2 (total enrollment for

Fall 2011 J.D. Students was 992).)

There is At Least $5 Million In Controversy.

13. The “matter-in-controversy” requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) is satisfied

because it is more likely than not that the aggregate claims of the putative class members exceed

$5 million exclusive of interest and costs. See Bloomberg v. Serv. Corp. Int’l, 639 F.3d 761, 763

(7th Cir. 2011) (case belongs in federal court after proponent provides plausible explanation for

how stakes exceed $5 million); see also Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446,

448-49 (7th Cir. 2005) (removing party need only show a reasonable probability that the stakes

exceed $5 million).

14. Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount, including the reimbursement of all

current and former students’ tuition paid to DePaul. (Compl. ¶ 15.) Even the most conservative

5 Plaintiffs’ exhibits to the Complaint do not provide out-of-state enrollment data for the 2009 entering law

school class.


6

calculations of tuition paid during the statutory periods demonstrate that the matter in

controversy exceeds the $5 million jurisdictional threshold. The DePaul Complaint alleges that:

“the current tuition for De Paul is $41,240, excluding living expenses” and that DePaul students

graduate on average with $121,324 in loans. (Compl. ¶ 9; see also Compl. Ex. 2 (total

enrollment for Fall 2011 J.D. Students was 992: 807 full-time students and 185 part-time

students; Fall 2011 tuition was $41,240 for full-time J.D. students and $26,800 for part-time J.D.

students).)6

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REMOVAL

15. DePaul is complying with all of the procedural requirements for removal under 28

U.S.C. § 1446.

16. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), this is the appropriate court for removal

because the state court in which this action was commenced, the Circuit Court of Cook County,

Illinois, is within this Court’s district and division. Copies of all pleadings and orders served

upon DePaul in this action, including the Summons and Complaint, are attached as Exhibit A.

This Notice of Removal is signed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

17. DePaul was served with a copy of the Complaint on February 14, 2012. Removal of

this action therefore is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) because the Notice of Removal is being

filed within 30 days of service of the Summons and Complaint.

18. Concurrently with the filing of this Notice of Removal, DePaul is giving written

notice to all parties of record and is filing a copy of this Notice of Removal with the court clerk

of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).

19. The prerequisites for removal have been met.

6 Tuition payments of $41,240 per student for the 807 full-time students total $33,425,940.


7

Dated: March 12, 2012

Respectfully submitted, Attorneys for Defendant DePaul University, a/k/a DePaul University College of Law /s/ Tina M. Tabacchi Lawrence C. DiNardo, #3128594 Tina M. Tabacchi, #6210961 JONES DAY 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3500 Suite 3500 Chicago, IL 60601 T: (312) 782-3939 F: (312) 782-8585 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Norman B. Berger, #6180053 Michael D. Hayes, #6187607 VARGA BERGER LEDSKY HAYES & CASEY 125 S. Wacker Dr. Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 T: (312) 341-9400 F: (312) 419-0225 Email: [email protected] [email protected]


8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I caused a copy of the foregoing Notice of Removal to be served this

12th day of March 2012, via electronic mail and U.S. mail to the following counsel of record:

Edward X. Clinton Sr. Edward X. Clinton Jr. The Clinton Law Firm 111 W. Washington St., Suite 1437 Chicago, Illinois 60602 [email protected] [email protected]

David Anziska The Law Offices of David Anziska 305 Broadway, 9th Floor New York, New York 10007 [email protected] Jesse Strauss Strauss Law PLLC 305 Broadway, 9th Floor New York, New York 10007 [email protected]

By: /s/ Tina M. Tabacchi Tina M. Tabacchi JONES DAY 77 West Wacker, Suite 3500 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Attorney for Defendant DePaul University, a/k/a DePaul University College of Law


EXHIBIT ADEPAUL SUMMONS, COMPLAINT AND

EXHIBITS

Case: 1:12-cv-01791 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 1 of 60 PageID #:9

EXHIBIT B HARNISH V. WIDENER UNIVERSITY SCHOOL

OF LAW COMPLAINT


0

David S. Stone Eric H. Jaso Jason C. Spiro Stone & Magnanini LLP 150 JFK Parkway, Short Hills, NJ 07078 Phone (973) 218-1111 Facsimile (973) 218-1106 David Anziska The Law Offices of David Anziska 305 Broadway, 9th Fl. New York, NY 10007 Phone (212) 822-1496 Facsimile (212) 822-1437 Jesse Strauss Strauss Law PLLC 305 Broadway, 9th Fl. New York, NY 10007 Phone (212) 822-1496 Facsimile (212) 822-1437 Counsel for Plaintiffs, individually and for all others similarly situated

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JOHN HARNISH, : Civil Action No._________________ JUSTIN SCHLUTH, : EDWARD GILSON, ROBERT : KLEIN, and ROBERT MACFADYEN, : on behalf of themselves : and all others similarly situated, : : CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, : : v. : : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

WIDENER UNIVERSITY SCHOOL : OF LAW, and : DOES 1-20, :

: Defendants. :

Case 2:12-cv-00608-WHW-MCA Document 1 Filed 02/01/12 Page 1 of 34 PageID: 1Case: 1:12-cv-01791 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 2 of 35 PageID #:124

tel:973-218-1111

1

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, allege, based

on the investigation of counsel and their personal knowledge, as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

“Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants. . .” – Justice Louis Brandeis

1. This action seeks to remedy a systemic, ongoing fraud that is prevalant in the

legal education industry and threatens to leave a generation of law students in dire financial

straits. Essentially, Plaintiffs seek transparency in the way law schools report post-graduate

employment data and salary information, by immediately requiring that they make critical,

material disclosures which will give both prospective and current students a more accurate

picture of the value of their law school education and their likelihood of obtaining future

permanent placements in the legal profession.

2. With approximately 1,500 students, including over 450 part-time students, spread

across two campuses, Widener University School of Law (“WLS”) is one of the largest law

schools in the country. Indeed, WLS’s enormous class size is a point of pride for the school,

which boasts to prospective students that “[a]s a graduate of Widener Law, you’ll join a network

of more than 12,000 alumni in 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 15 countries and

territories who are using their Widener Law degrees to pursue successful, rewarding careers.”

Further, the school claims that “[o]ur graduates have established successful careers in traditional

legal fields, such as government and private practice, as well as in nontraditional legal positions,

such as presidents of large corporations, broadcast journalists, and administrators in higher

education and medicine.” “Our successful alumni are employed across the country as partners,

CEOs, CFOs, judicial law clerks, and top government attorneys,” and they are “happy to lend

their insight, expertise, and connections to our new law students.” All of these myriad


http://law.widener.edu/Gateway/Alumni.aspx

2

opportunities and alumni connections, the school insists, result in a placement rate of well over

90 percent, a number which puts it on par with much higher ranked law schools.

3. The reality is very different. WLS fails to fulfill its placement claims. The vast

majority of WLS law students are not immediately placed in secure, full-time legal jobs

following graduation, As a result, WLS students do not receive the promised value of a WLS

degree. They are instead saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in non-dischargeable debt that

will take decades to pay off. The school has done this while misrepresenting and manipulating

its employment statistics to prospective students, employing the type of “Enron-style”

accounting techniques that would leave most for-profit companies facing government

investigations and the prospect of substantial civil fines. These deceptions are perpetuated so as

to prevent prospective students from realizing the obvious -- that attending WLS and paying

nearly $120,000 in tuition payments makes no economic sense.

4. Specifically, WLS, through both its print and Internet marketing materials, made

one fundamental uniform, written misrepresentation, claiming, with Madoff-like consistency,

that the overwhelming majority of its graduates during the class period -- roughly between 90

and 96 percent -- secure “employment” within nine months of graduation. The clear implication

is that employment means permanent employment in the legal profession. In reality, these

figures are false and/or misleading because they include any type of employment, including jobs

that have absolutely nothing to do with the legal industry, do not require a JD degree or are

temporary or part-time in nature. Rather, if WLS had disclosed the more pertinent employment

statistic -- i.e. those graduates who have secured full-time, permanent positions for which a JD

degree is required or preferred -- the numbers drop dramatically, and could be well below 40

percent, if not even lower.


3

5. Compounding those problems, there has been no place where prospective students

can find WLS’s “real” employment numbers. The school supplies the same false and misleading

statistics to the U.S. News & World Report (“US News”) and the American Bar Association

(“ABA”), the two primary sources of information for law school employment data. Using the

data provided by WLS, the ABA and U.S. News report as “employed” those who have secured

employment in any capacity in any kind of job, no matter how unrelated to the legal field.

6. WLS’s representations about employment and placement data have been false

and/or misleading for the following reasons:

a) WLS’s reported placement rates have remained consistently steady

following the aftermath of the “Great Recession,” as its reported placement rates were 94 percent

for the Class of 2009 and 93 percent for the Class of 2010. Currently, the legal employment

market is highly oversaturated, with law schools churning out 43,000 JD degrees each year, even

though roughly half as many jobs are available (26,000). Yet, with legal jobs becoming

increasingly scarce, WLS, instead of telling the sobering truth to prospective and current

students, continues to make the fantastical claim that the overwhelming majority of its graduates

are gainfully employed in the legal profession.

b) As set forth in detail below, the employment and salary data reported by

WLS are starkly at odds with employment statistics reported by the National Association of Law

Placement (“NALP”) -- 40 percent for law school graduates who secure full-time, permanent

legal employment -- despite its ranking in the fourth or bottom tier of all accredited law schools

by US News.

7. Unfortunately, WLS’s false and fraudulent representations and omissions are

apparently endemic in the law school industry. It is an industry secret that law schools employ a


4

variety of deceptive practices and accounting legerdemain to make themselves more attractive to

prospective students, including, among other things, hiring recent unemployed graduates as

“research assistants” or providing them with “public interest” stipends so as to classify them as

employed, excluding graduates who do not supply employment information from employment

surveys, refusing to categorize unemployed graduates who are not “actively” seeking

employment as unemployed, and classifying graduates who have only secured temporary, part-

time employment as being “fully” employed.

8. Similarly, by misrepresenting its employment data, WLS created an impression of

a bountiful employment opportunity that in reality does not exist, and caused Plaintiffs to

overvalue the prospects of their WLS education and take on substantial debt to finance their

WLS education. According to US News, WLS students graduate on average with a whopping

$111,909 in loans, placing them in the top 30th percentile of indebtedness among all law school

graduates. The 2010-2011 tuition for Widener was $34,890, excluding fees and living expenses,

making it one of the most expensive law schools in the country.

9. To a remarkable degree, WLS and the law school industry in general have been

astonishingly successful in deceiving prospective students about the value of a law degree in an

effort to maintain and increase both enrollment and tuition. Last year, a record 51,426 first-year

students enrolled in law schools, up by over 60 percent from 1971, while WLS’s enrollment has

held steady throughout the recession. Additionally, tuition at WLS -- much like the rest of the

law school industry -- has risen exponentially over the past two decades, far exceeding both

inflation and any increase in attorneys’ starting salaries, and since 2006 alone has increased by

about 20 percent.

10. The dramatic increase in law school tuition has dovetailed with the dramatic


5

increase in faculty compensation. Law school deans are perhaps the best remunerated in

academia today, enjoying both lavish perks and exorbitant salaries that rival those of Fortune 500

executives. For example, during the fiscal 2009 year, WLS’s dean Linda Ammons earned a

staggering $305,761 in total compensation.

11. Senator Barbara Boxer of California and Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa have

each sent multiple letters to the President of the ABA, taking the organization to task for failing

to properly police law schools. Additionally, a coalition of 55 law school student body

presidents have sent to Congress proposed legislation that would, among other things, create new

reporting standards for employment data, require law schools to submit annual employment

reports to the Department of Education (“DOE”), and empower the DOE to audit these reports.

12. Accordingly, Plaintiffs now assert claims for violations of: a) Delaware’s

Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 6 Del. C. §§2531-36, et seq. Plaintiffs seek damages and

equitable relief on behalf of the Class (as defined in paragraph herein), which includes

but is not limited to the following: refunding and reimbursing current and former students for

tuition paid to WLS; an order enjoining WLS from continuing to market false and inaccurate

employment data and salary information; an order requiring that WLS retain a third party to

independently audit all employment and salary data;; costs and expenses, including attorneys’ and

experts’ fees;; and any additional relief that this Court determines to be necessary or appropriate

to provide complete relief to Plaintiffs and the proposed class.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and

1367, because the Plaintiffs reside in various states, including Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and

are therefore diverse from Defendant WLS which is based in Delaware, and the amount in


6

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.

14. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action under the Class Action

Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(“CAFA”), as to the named Plaintiffs and every

member of the Class, because the proposed Class contains more than 100 members, the

aggregate amount of controversy exceeds $5 million, and members reside across the U.S. and are

therefore diverse from the Defendants. For the class of 2010, only 16 percent of graduates

practiced in Delaware, while 57 percent practiced in Pennsylvania and 16 percent practiced in

New Jersey.

15. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant WLS, because they have

purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, such as a

deliberate targeting of the forum through advertisements, and therefore have significant

minimum contacts with this state. Indeed, they have availed themselves to the laws and markets

of New Jersey through the promotion, marketing and advertising of WLS in this State and on the

Internet to consumers in New Jersey.

16. Venue is proper within this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2), because a

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this

District.

PARTIES

I. Plaintiffs

17. John Harnish currently works as a bartender in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania who

lives in Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Mr. Harnish graduated from WLS’s Delaware Campus

in 2009, and in total paid tens of thousands of dollars in tuition and fees to the school while

incurring tens of thousands of dollars of debt. In applying and deciding to remain enrolled at


7

WLS, Mr. Harnish relied on salary data and employment information posted on WLS’s website,

marketing material and/or disseminated to third-party data clearinghouses and publications, such

as the ABA and US News, and specifically relied on WLS’s representations that, depending on

the year, approximately 90-95 percent of its graduates were employed within nine months of

graduation. Indeed, prior to Mr. Harnish enrolling in WLS, the school represented that about 90

percent of 2005 graduates secured employment within nine months of graduation, and while Mr.

Harnish was enrolled in WLS the school posted on its website an employment report asserting

that 96 percent of 2007 graduates secured employment within nine months of graduation.

Furthermore, Mr. Harnish when applying and deciding to remain enrolled in WLS was unaware

that the school’s reported placement rates included temporary and part-time employment and/or

employment for which a JD was not required or preferred -- employment Mr. Harnish would

have been eligible for even without obtaining a JD degree and paying WLS’s tuition. Had Mr.

Harnish been aware that WLS’s reported placement rates included temporary and part-time

employment and/or employment for which a JD was not required or preferred, he would have

elected to either pay less to WLS or perhaps not attend the school at all. Following his

graduation, faced with bleak prospects for full-time legal employment, Mr. Harnish decided to

continue to work as a bartender.

18. Justin Schluth is currently unemployed. He lives in New Jersey and is a member

in good standing of the Pennsylvania Bar. Mr. Schluth graduated from WLS’s Delaware campus


incurring tens of thousands of dollars of debt. In applying and deciding to remain enrolled at

WLS, Mr. Schluth relied on employment data and salary information posted on WLS’s website

and/or disseminated to third-party data clearinghouses and publications, such as the ABA and US


8

News. In applying and deciding to remain enrolled at WLS, Mr. Schluth relied on salary data

and employment information posted on WLS’s website, marketing material and/or disseminated

to third-party data clearinghouses and publications, such as the ABA and US News, and

specifically relied on WLS’s representations that, depending on the year, approximately 90-95

percent of its graduates were employed within nine months of graduation. Indeed, prior to Mr.

Schluth enrolling in WLS, the school represented that about 90 percent of 2005 graduates

secured employment within nine months of graduation, and while Mr. Schluth was enrolled in

WLS the school posted on its website an employment report asserting that 96 percent of 2007

graduates secured employment within nine months of graduation. Furthermore, Mr. Schluth

when applying and deciding to remain enrolled in WLS was unaware that the school’s reported

placement rates included temporary and part-time employment and/or employment for which a

JD was not required or preferred -- employment Mr. Schluth would have been eligible for even

without obtaining a JD degree and paying WLS’s tuition. Had Mr. Schluth been aware that

WLS’s reported placement rates included temporary and part-time employment and/or

employment for which a JD was not required or preferred, he would have elected to either pay

less to WLS or perhaps not attend the school at all. Following his graduation from law school,

Mr. Schluth continued his education at WLS, where he completed an LLM in 2010. Currently,

he is looking to secure full-time, permanent legal employment, which he has not received despite

being admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar.

19. Edward Gilson currently lives and works in Philadelphia and is a member in good

standing of the Pennsylvania Bar. Mr. Gilson graduated from WLS’s Delaware campus in 2009,

and in total paid tens of thousands of dollars in tuition and fees to the school while incurring tens

of thousands of dollars of debt. In applying and deciding to remain enrolled at WLS, Mr. Gilson


9

relied on employment data and salary information posted on WLS’s website and/or disseminated

to third-party data clearinghouses and publications, such as the ABA and US News. In applying

and deciding to remain enrolled at WLS, Mr. Gilson relied on salary data and employment

information posted on WLS’s website, marketing material and/or disseminated to third-party

data clearinghouses and publications, such as the ABA and US News, and specifically relied on

WLS’s representations that, depending on the year, approximately 90-95 percent of its graduates

were employed within nine months of graduation. Indeed, prior to Mr. Gilson enrolling in WLS,

the school represented that about 90 percent of 2005 graduates secured employment within nine

months of graduation, and while Mr. Gilson was enrolled in WLS the school posted on its

website an employment report asserting that 96 percent of 2007 graduates secured employment

within nine months of graduation. Furthermore, Mr. Gilson when applying and deciding to

remain enrolled in WLS was unaware that the school’s reported placement rates included

temporary and part-time employment and/or employment for which a JD was not required or

preferred -- employment Mr. Gilson would have been eligible for even without obtaining a JD

degree and paying WLS’s tuition. Had Mr. Gilson been aware that WLS’s reported placement

rates included temporary and part-time employment and/or employment for which a JD was not

required or preferred, he would have elected to either pay less to WLS or perhaps not attend the

school at all. Following his graduation from law school, Mr. Gilson could not find a permanent

position in the legal industry, despite sending out hundreds of resumes. He currently owns and

operates his own law firm.

20. Robert Klein currently works in a non-legal position with the Federal

Government. He is licensed to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and is a member in

good standing of both state bars. He currently lives in New Jersey and works in Philadelphia.


10

Mr. Klein graduated from WLS’s Delaware campus in 2009, and in total paid tens of thousands

of dollars in tuition and fees to the school while incurring tens of thousands of dollars of debt. In

applying and deciding to remain enrolled at WLS, Mr. Klein relied on employment data and

salary information posted on WLS’s website and/or disseminated to third-party data

clearinghouses and publications, such as the ABA and US News. In applying and deciding to

remain enrolled at WLS, Mr. Klein relied on salary data and employment information posted on

WLS’s website, marketing material and/or disseminated to third-party data clearinghouses and

publications, such as the ABA and US News, and specifically relied on WLS’s representations

that, depending on the year, approximately 90-95 percent of its graduates were employed within

nine months of graduation. Indeed, prior to Mr. Klein enrolling in WLS, the school represented

that about 90 percent of 2005 graduates secured employment within nine months of graduation,

and while Mr. Klein was enrolled in WLS the school posted on its website an employment report

asserting that 96 percent of 2007 graduates secured employment within nine months of

graduation. Furthermore, Mr. Klein when applying and deciding to remain enrolled in WLS was

unaware that the school’s reported placement rates included temporary and part-time

employment and/or employment for which a JD was not required or preferred -- employment

Mr. Klein would have been eligible for even without obtaining a JD degree and paying WLS’s

tuition. Had Mr. Klein been aware that WLS’s reported placement rates included temporary and

part-time employment and/or employment for which a JD was not required or preferred, he

would have elected to either pay less to WLS or perhaps not attend the school at all. Following

his graduation from law school, Mr. Klein could not find a permanent position in the legal

industry, despite sending out hundreds of resumes.

21. Robert MacFadyen lives in Bergen County, New Jersey and currently works for


11

a management company in a non-legal capacity. Mr. MacFadyen graduated from WLS’s

Harrisburg campus in 2008, and in total paid tens of thousands of dollars in tuition and fees to

the school while incurring tens of thousands of dollars of debt. In applying and deciding to

remain enrolled at WLS, Mr. MacFadyen relied on employment data and salary information

posted on WLS ’s website and/or disseminated to third-party data clearinghouses and

publications, such as the ABA and US News. In applying and deciding to remain enrolled at

WLS, Mr. MacFadyen relied on salary data and employment information posted on WLS’s

website, marketing material and/or disseminated to third-party data clearinghouses and

publications, such as the ABA and US News, and specifically relied on WLS’s representations

that, depending on the year, approximately 90-95 percent of its graduates were employed within

nine months of graduation. Indeed, prior to Mr. MacFadyen enrolling in WLS, the school

represented that about 90 percent of 2004 graduates secured employment within nine months of

graduation, and while Mr. MacFadyen was enrolled in WLS the school posted on its website an

employment report asserting that 90 percent of 2005 graduates secured employment within nine

months of graduation. Furthermore, Mr. MacFadyen when applying and deciding to remain

enrolled in WLS was unaware that the school’s reported placement rates included temporary and

part-time employment and/or employment for which a JD was not required or preferred --

employment Mr. MacFadyen would have been eligible for even without obtaining a JD degree

and paying WLS’s tuition. Had Mr. MacFadyen been aware that WLS’s reported placement


required or preferred, he would have elected to either pay less to WLS or perhaps not attend the

school at all. Following his graduation from law school, Mr. MacFadyen could not find a

position in the legal industry, despite sending out hundreds of resumes.


12

II. Defendants

22. Defendant WLS is an ABA accredited law school based in Wilmington, Delaware

with a satellite campus in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. All policies and procedures, including the

content of its marketing materials, are issued from its Wilmington campus. For the 2010-2011

academic year, it enrolled approximately 1,450 students, including 455 part-time students, and

currently it enrolls approximately 1,600 students. About 1,100 students attend the Wilmington

campus, which was founded in 1971, and 500 students attend its Harrisburg campus, which was

founded in 1989.

23. Tuition at WLS for the 2010-2011 was $34,890 for full-time students, while room

and board is estimated to be about at least $20,000 if not more, bringing the total annual cost for

attending WLS to approximately $55,000.

24. The true names and capacities (whether individual, corporate, associate or

otherwise) of Defendants Does 1 though 20, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sue

these Defendants by fictitious names and will seek leave to amend this Complaint after their

identities are learned. Each fictitious Defendant contributed to the acts and practices alleged

herein. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the fictitiously named Defendants proximately

caused Plaintiffs’ damages.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

25. Enrolling roughly 1,600 students annually, WLS’ enrollment has risen

dramatically over the past few decades. WLS currently enrolls one of the largest student bodies

in the country.

26. According to US News, WLS has some of the lowest admissions standards of any

accredited or provisionally accredited law school. For 2010, it accepted approximately 59


13

percent of all applicants, one of the highest acceptance rates of any law school. Its median LSAT

score is 151 and median GPA is 3.14, both of which are well within bottom of all schools.

27. Nevertheless, WLS does not apparently strive to keep these multitudes of

students. In 2008, for example, approximately 23 percent of the roughly 1,500 students who

enrolled in WLS failed to matriculate for their second year, while second-year students still

enjoyed an attrition rate of 2.3 percent.

28. WLS is part of the Widener University, a private, multi-campus university whose

main campus is in Chester, Pennsylvania, and which has campuses in Harrisburg, Exton and

Wilmington. The university enrolls in total 6,630 students per year, divided roughly evenly

between undergraduates and graduates.

29. WLS is accredited by the ABA’s Section of Legal Education and Admissions to

the Bar. As mandated by Section 509(a) of the ABA’s 2010-2011 Standards for Approval of

Law Schools (“Section 509(a)”), an accredited law school must “publish basic consumer

information” in a “fair and accurate manner reflective of actual practice.”

30. WLS publishes its employment statistics on its website under the “Career

Services” tab. In posting the data, the school boasts to prospective students that “[a]s a graduate

of Widener Law, you’ll join a network of more than 12,000 alumni in 50 states, the District of

Columbia, and 15 countries and territories who are using their WLS degrees to pursue

successful, rewarding careers.” Further, the school claims that “[o]ur graduates have established

successful careers in traditional legal fields, such as government and private practice, as well as

in nontraditional legal positions, such as presidents of large corporations, broadcast journalists,

and administrators in higher education and medicine.” “Our successful alumni are employed

across the country as partners, CEOs, CFOs, judicial law clerks, and top government attorneys,”


http://law.widener.edu/Gateway/Alumni.aspx

14

and they are happy to lend their insight, expertise, and connections to our new law students.” All

of these myriad opportunities and alumni connections, the school insists, result in a placement

rate of well over 90 percent, a number which puts it on par with much higher ranked law schools.

31. Currently, WLS posts on its website the employment data and salary information

for the class of 2010. See WLS’s 2010 Employment Data (the “2010 Employment Report”)

(attached as Ex. 1). This information is obtained by job surveys that WLS sends out to all recent

graduates, and all information contained in this report is unaudited, unverified and self-reported.

According to the 2010 Employment Report, approximately 93 percent of the class were

employed or pursuing advanced degrees within nine months of graduation, including 52 percent

in private practice, five percent in business, ten percent in government, six percent in public

interest and 27 percent in judicial clerkships.

32. Throughout the Class period, the placement numbers are equally as inflated. For

example, for the class of 2007, approximately 96 percent of the class were employed or pursuing

advanced degrees within nine months of graduation, including 49 percent in private practice,

seven percent in business, thirteen percent in government, three percent in public interest and 30

percent in judicial clerkships. See WLS’s 2007 Employment Data (the “2007 Employment

Report”) (attached as Ex. 2).

33. For the classes of 2008 and 2009, WLS enjoyed placement rates well above 90

percent and the national average. See WLS’s 2008-2009 Employment Profile (the “2008-2009

Employment Profile”) (attached as Ex. 3).

34. If anything, WLS’s employment record has increased over the past decade,

despite the economic turbulence since 2008. For example, WLS’s placement rates for the classes

of 2004 and 2005 were 90 percent respectively. See WLS’s Employment Data for Class of 2004


15

& 2005 (the “2004 & 2005 Employment Reports” (attaching Ex. 4).

35. Thus, the employment data posted by WLS during the Class period makes a

number of startling factual omissions that would give prospective students a more accurate

picture of their post-graduation employment prospects. Indeed, WLS simply presents an overall

employment number, and fails to break down what percentage of graduates were employed in

either part-time or temporary positions, or whether a job requires a JD degree. Accordingly,

based on these classifications, a graduate could be working as a barista in Starbucks -- or toiling

away in any capacity in any kind of job, no matter how menial or poorly compensated or

unrelated to law -- and would be deemed employed and working in “business,” even though such

employment is clearly temporary in nature and obviously does not require a JD degree.

Similarly, a contract attorney who has yet to secure permanent employment and is forced to toil

away in transitory document review projects would be deemed “employed” under WLS’s broad

guidelines.

36. The school also disseminates misleading employment data and salary information

to other sources that are advertised and readily available to prospective students. In general,

there are three primary sources that WLS -- along with all other accredited law schools --

provides such information to: US News, the ABA and the National Association of Law

Placement (“NALP)”.1

37. Based on data supplied by WLS, the ABA reported that 86 percent of 2005 WLS

graduates, 82 percent of 2006 WLS graduates, 84 percent of 2007 WLS graduates, 90 percent of

2008 WLS graduates and 90 percent of 2009 WLS graduates secured employment within nine

1 All ABA-accredited and provisionally-accredited law schools are required to provide

employment data to the ABA, but only submit such data to U.S. News and NALP on a voluntary basis.


16

months of graduation, while U.S. News reported that 83 percent of 2006 WLS graduates, 88.5

percent of 2007 WLS graduates, 91 percent of 2008 WLS graduates and 78 percent of 2009

WLS graduates secured employment within nine months of graduation.

38. In a letter sent to the deans of all accredited law schools, Brian Kelly, the editor-

in-chief of the US News, essentially conceded this point, acidly noting that the “entire law school

sector is perceived to be less than candid” when reporting employment data, and that many

schools appear “not to treat the ABA reporting rules with the seriousness one would assume.”

Robert Morse, “U.S. News Urges Law School Deans to Improve Employment Data,” U.S. News

& World Report, March 9, 2011. Acknowledging the obvious, Kelly concluded, “Perhaps we

need metrics besides total employment rates to evaluate a successful law program.” Id.

39. The employment data provided to US News constitutes 18 percent (four percent

for the employment rate upon graduation and 14 percent for the rate nine months after

graduation) of a law school’s ranking in US News, the second most important factor after a law

school’s peer assessment.

40. According to the 2009 and 2010 NALP National Summary Reports, law schools

must respond to the NALP questionnaire by specifically breaking down the exact type of

employment their graduates have obtained, differentiating between part-time and full-time jobs

or whether a position requires a JD degree. See NALP Class of 2009 National Summary Report

(“2009 NALP Employment Report”) & NALP Class of 2010 National Summary Report (“2010

NALP Employment Report”).

41. In other words, WLS has been breaking down its employment data into various

disaggregated categories, such as whether a is or part-time or JD preferred. See 2010

Employment Survey (see Ex. 3). Yet, rather than disclosing this data on its website and


17

marketing material it makes available to public at large, the school presented highly misleading

data to prospective and current students that grossly inflate post-graduation employment rates

and salary information while depicting an unrealistic, if not entirely inaccurate, picture of

bountiful career prospects that do not exist.

42. In reality, the employment data reported and marketed by WLS bears little

resemblance to the actual experiences and dim employment opportunities encountered by their

recent graduates. Perhaps fewer than 40 percent -- if not even fewer -- of recent WLS graduates

secure full-time, permanent employment for which a JD degree is required or preferred within

nine months of graduating, and that the majority of them work in either part-time or temporary

positions.

43. Indeed, there is no better proof that WLS manipulates its employment data than

the fact that the school’s placement rate remained eerily steady at 94 percent in 2008 and 2009

and 93 percent in 2010 following the aftermath of the “Great Recession,” which wreaked havoc

on the legal market, leading to thousands of mass layoffs.

44. Moreover, an examination of the 2009 NALP Employment Report confirms the

obvious -- i.e. that WLS manipulates employment data, and that substantially fewer than 90-plus

percent of 2009 and 2010 graduates are gainfully employed.

45. Still, even that number is subject to manipulation, since the NALP data is based

on unaudited, unverified, self-reported information. In actuality, if law schools were required to

employ proper scientific methodologies to ascertain the true employment status of all of their

graduates -- i.e. by actually speaking to each graduate instead of relying on self-reported data

from those who actually supply it -- the employment number would be much lower.


18

46. Moreover, upon information and belief, WLS tabulates, calculates and tallies the

raw data inputted in the job surveys filled out by recent graduates in a shoddy, slipshod manner,

choosing to omit or ignore critical statistical data that would substantially lower both placement

rates and salary information reported both in its employment reports and distributed to third-

party data clearinghouses.

47. One must also bear in mind that the NALP employment number includes data

supplied by all law schools, many of which are ranked higher and have considerably more

prestige than WLS, which is currently ranked by US News in the bottom or fourth tier of all

accredited and provisionally accredited law schools. As such, logic dictates that WLS’s true

employment rate would be significantly below the statistical mean of the bell curve.

48. Upon information and belief, WLS has also employed a limited program to

further manipulate their employment numbers, by, among other things, hiring unemployed

graduates as “research assistants” or other “make work” positions for a specified period of time,

so as to classify them as “employed” in various employment surveys. In some instances, upon

information and belief, these internships begin in the ninth month following graduation, right

before WLS would be required to report its employment data to the ABA, NALP and US News.

49. WLS’s manipulation of employment data is particularly troubling considering that

its students are graduating in one of the grimmest legal job markets in decades. Since 2008

alone, the largest 250 law firms in the country have eliminated 10,000 positions, while

commoditized, legal-entry work such as document review is increasingly being outsourced to

countries outside the US, such as India. The entry-level employment offer rate for 2009 summer

associates was at a historic low of 69 percent, as compared to 90 percent in 2008 and 93 percent

in 2007. Scores of law firms have cancelled summer programs, and in a recent survey 55 percent


19

of law schools reported a decrease of 30 percent or more of the number of firms doing on-

campus interviews, an unprecedented decline. In another survey, only 3 percent of on-campus

recruiters indicated that they were looking to hire third-year law students, as compared to 25

percent in 2008 and 42 percent in 2007.

50. At the same time WLS manipulates its data, its students are saddling themselves

with tens of thousands of dollars in huge, non-dischargeable debt. According to US News, WLS

students graduate on average with a staggering $111,909 in loans, placing them well within the

top 30th percentile of indebtedness among all law school graduates, with a stunning 91 percent of

them taking out loans to attend the school.5 Nationwide, the debt burden of law school graduates

continues to rise unabated, and the average debt burden for all law school graduates is almost

$100,000, up sharply from $16,000 in 1987.

51. Worse yet, WLS is primarily marketing its product to naïve, relatively

unsophisticated consumers -- many of whom are barely removed from college -- who are often

making their first “big-ticket” purchase based on asymmetrical information. These prospective

students are applying to law school with one objective in mind: to attain the kind of job that

provides compensation and a lifestyle that is commensurate with and worthy of the enormous

time, money and personal sacrifice invested in a legal education. However, if WLS was to

5According to FinAid.org, a graduate needs to make at least $138,000 annually to repay $100,000 without enduring financial hardship, or $92,000 annually to repay the debt with financial difficultly. See http://www.finaid.org.calculators/loanpayments/phtml. According to a recently published paper by Jim Chen, the Dean of the University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, a student would have to earn three times a law school’s annual tuition to make the investment of attending law school economically worthwhile. Karen Sloan, “Law School, a Ticket to Economic Security? Better Run the Numbers,” The National Law Journal, December 12, 2011; see also Jim Chen, “A Degree of Practical Wisdom: The Rate of Educational Debt to Income as a Basic Measurement of Law School Graduates’ Economic Viability,” William Mitchell Law Review, Vol. 38, 2012. For example, for a student who attends a law school with an annual tuition of $40,000 -- i.e. the tuition at most private schools -- that would mean he would need to earn at least $120,000 to make the investment worthwhile.


20

disclose accurate employment data and the steep odds its graduates face in securing gainful

employment, it would become abundantly clear to any rational purchaser how poor of an

investment attending WLS actually is.

52. Currently, WLS enrolls approximately 1,600 students, a number which has

remained remarkably constant even since the onset of the “Great Recession”. Law schools

awarded over 44,000 JD degrees in 2010, a more than 16 percent increase from 2002, while the

number of students taking the law school entrance examination (LSAT) increased by over 20

percent between 2007 and 2009. For the 2009-2010 academic year, a record 154,549 students

enrolled in American law schools, including a record 51,426 first-year students, up by over 60

percent from the 91,225 students who enrolled in ABA accredited law schools in 1971. The total

number of law schools has increased by nine percent over the past decade and by over 25 percent

over the past four decades, and, despite the ominous employment trends and dearth of available

jobs, there are a handful of new law schools that are slated to open their doors in the next few

years. Allowing the status quo to persist will almost certainly ensure that tens of thousands of

law school graduates -- a whole “lost” generation of lawyers -- will continue to be churned out

over the next decade with little realistic chance of ever earning back their investment.6

53. Fortunately, after much public hand-wringing and increased media scrutiny, the

tectonic plates in the legal profession have finally begun to shift, as practitioners and politicians

6 Finally, after years of steady growth, law school applications for the 2011-2012 academic year dropped by 10 percent. See Nathan Koppel, “Bloom’s Off Law School Rope,” Wall Street Journal Law Blog, September 28, 2011, http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/09/28/bloom-remains-off-law-school-rose/. Undoubtedly, this stems from the recent upsurge in media scrutiny on the inability of law school graduates to obtain gainful employment and the overall grim reality of one of the worst legal job market in decades. See e.g. David Segal, “Is Law School a Losing Game?” New York Times, January 8, 2011.


http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/09/28/bloom-remains-off-law-school-rose/


21

alike are starting to roundly demand that law schools change their deceptive ways and accurately

report all available employment information.

54. Senator Barbara Boxer of California has sent three separate letters to the ABA

taking them to task for failing to properly police the law school industry. See Letters from

Senator Barbara Boxer to Stephen Zack, dated March 31, 2011 & May 20, 2011 (attached as Ex.

5). In her May 20th letter, she directly implored the ABA to require that all law schools

independently audit and verify employment data and salary information that are either included

in marketing material to prospective students or disseminated to third-party information

clearinghouses and publications, such as US News and the ABA. In her third letter sent on

October 6, 2011, she further admonished the organization for “resorting to half measures instead

of tackling a major problem head on” despite the deafening public outcry for greater scrutiny in

the way law schools disclose placement rates. See Letter from Senator Barbara Boxer to Wm. T.

Robinson III, dated October 6, 2011 (attached as Ex. 6). Senator Boxer has even reached across

the aisle with her colleague Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma to ask the Department of

Education to step in and investigate the law school industry for its systemic failure to properly

disclose employment prospects to prospective and current students. See Letter from Senator

Barbara Boxer & Senator Tom Coburn to Kathleen Tighe, dated October 13, 2011 (attached as

Ex. 7).

55. Similarly, a coalition of 55 law school student body presidents have sent to

Congress proposed legislation that would ensure “enhanced accuracy, accountability and

transparency in the reporting of data pertaining to legal education.” See Student Bar

Association’s Proposed Bill (“SBA Bill”) and accompanying Press Release (attached as Ex. 8).

Among other things, the proposed legislation creates a new standard for reporting employment


22

data, requires law schools to submit annual employment reports to the Department of Education,

mandates that law school deans personally endorse such reports, and empowers the DOE to audit

the reports. The SBA Bill expressly aims to parallel federal securities laws, where publicly-held

companies must submit annual reports to the SEC disclosing material financial information.

56. The problem has gotten so out of hand that Bill Hebert, President of the California

Bar Association, in a much publicized article in the California Bar Journal, exhorts law school

deans to adopt more rigorous reporting standards by disclosing the type of detailed employment

and salary data that would allow students to get a realistic picture of their post-graduate financial

situation. Bill Hebert, “What is the Value of the Law Degree?” California Bar Journal, February

2011(attached as Ex. 9). Hebert chides schools for “hiding employment outcomes in aggregate

statistical forms,” and impresses upon them the need to reveal the exact percentage of their

graduates who have actually obtained full-time, permanent employment -- the type of

information Plaintiffs are now seeking. Id.

57. Along these lines, Howard B. Miller, the previous President of the California

Bar, went so far as to all but accuse law schools of committing fraud in the way they tabulate and

report employment information to third party data clearinghouses like the ABA and U.S. News.

Specifically, he wrote in the California Bar Journal: “There is notoriously unreliable self-

reporting by law schools and their graduates of employment statistics. They are unreliable in

only one direction, since the self reporting by law schools of ‘employment’ of graduates at

graduation and then nine months after graduation are, together, a significant factor in the U.S.

News rankings -- which are obsessed over, despite denials, by law schools and their

constituencies. The anecdotes are as telling as the statistics: prestigious lawyers in the state are

hiring their own children to work in their firms because even with their connections they were


23

unable to find employment elsewhere.”

58. The ABA’s Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar is responsible

for accrediting and regulating all accredited legal institutions. In general, the ABA has

absolutely no mechanism by which to address Plaintiffs’ claims, since law school students and

graduates are strictly prohibited from bringing such claims before the organization. Indeed, Rule

24 of the ABA Standards for Approval of Law Schools expressly states:

This process is not available to serve as a mediating or dispute-resolving process for persons with complaints about the policies or actions of an approved law school. The Council, Accreditation Committee and the Consultant on Legal Education will not intervene with an approved law school on behalf of an individual with a complaint against or concern about action taken by a law school that adversely affects that individual. The outcome of this process will not be the ordering of any individual relief for any person or specific action by a law school with respect to any individual. (Emphasis added). 8

59. The ABA’s Legal Education Council is dominated by law school deans, as both

its current chair, John O’Brien of the New England School of Law, and chair-elect, Kent

Syverud of the Washington University School of Law, are deans of large, prominent law schools.

Likewise, the committee of the Legal Education Council which is directly responsible for

regulating the reporting of post-graduate placement data – i.e. the Questionnaire Committee – is

dominated by law school deans and professors, including its current chair Dean Art Guadio of

the Western New England College School of Law. See generally Ex. 10 p. 2 (noting that legal

academics and university presidents and vice presidents comprise approximately 48, 52 and 64

percent of the three accreditation-related committees).

8 Similarly, Plaintiffs cannot seek redress from the Department of Education, which administers Federal financial assistance to students, since the DOE only authorizes suits against the Secretary of Education, not against individual schools. See 20 U.S.C. § 1082(a)(2).


24

60. The undue influence exerted by the legal academy over the ABA has led the

National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, which advises the

Department of Education on accreditation issues, to question the ABA’s overall competency as

an accrediting body. Specifically, the committee found that the ABA had failed to comply with

17 regulations, including, among others, failing “to set a standard for job placement by its

member institutions.” See http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2011/06/aba-is.html. One of

the members on the committee, Arthur Keiser, publicly accused the ABA of “not getting it,”

noting that an accrediting agency would never accredit an institution with 17 outstanding issues.

Id; see also Ex. 11 at p.1 (quoting June 11, 2011 article from The Chronicle of Higher

Education which describes the committee’s members as expressing “frustration that they could

not take stronger actions or at least state their concerns [regarding the ABA’s lackluster

accreditation process] with stronger language.”)

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

61. This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a class action pursuant

to Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs bring this action,

on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, as representative members of the

following proposed class (the “Class”):

All persons who are either presently enrolled or graduated from the Widener University

School of Law within the statutory period for the six-year period prior to the date this

Complaint is filed through the date that this Class is certified.

62. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, WLS, its employees, officers and

directors, the Judge(s) assigned to this case, and the attorneys of record in this case. Plaintiffs


http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2011/06/aba-is.html

25

reserve the right to amend the Class definition if discovery and further investigation reveal that

the Class should be expanded or otherwise modified.

63. For the foregoing reasons, this action fulfills the standards and requirements as

outlined in Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure:

A. The Parties are Numerous and Easily Ascertainable

64. The proposed Class is so numerous that it is manifestly impracticable to bring

them all before the court. Though the exact number and identities of the Class members is

unknown at this time, they likely number hundreds of people, because around 500 students

graduate from WLS each year. The number and identities of the Class members may be

ascertained from Defendants’ records and files, and may easily be notified about the pendency of

this action through individually mailed notice and/or notice by publication.

B. Common Questions of Law and Facts Predominate

65. This action presents questions of law and facts common to the Class, including,

but not limited to, the following:

a. Whether Defendants represented that approximately 90-95 percent of their

graduates secure employment within nine months of graduation;

b. Whether Defendants represented salary information without disclosing

the percentage of students reporting salary information;

c. Whether Defendants engaged in deceptive, misleading, unfair, fraudulent

and/or otherwise unlawful practices through its non-disclosure of material facts and

affirmative misleading statements regarding post-graduate employment data and salary

information;


26

d. Whether Defendants’ conduct violated Delaware’s Deceptive Trade

Practices Act as alleged herein;

e. Whether Plaintiffs and Class members are entitled to recover actual

damages as a result of the actions alleged herein;

f. Whether Plaintiffs and members of the Class are entitled to recover

restitution of tuition monies remitted to Defendants as a result of the actions alleged herein;

g. Whether Plaintiffs and Class members of the Class are entitled to recover

punitive damages as a result of the actions alleged herein;

h. Whether Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to an award of

reasonable attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment interest and costs of this suit;

i. Whether Defendants should be forced to retain independent, non-related

third-parties to audit and verify their post-graduate employment data and salary information;

j. Whether Defendants should be enjoined from continuing to make false

and misleading representations and omissions regarding their post-graduate employment data

and salary information; and

k. Whether Plaintiffs and Class members paid inflated tuition based on

material misleading statements, representations and omissions.

C. Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Typical of the Class

66. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims and of the members of the Class

because they have all been damaged in the same manner and way as a result of Defendants’

failure to disclose material facts and policies of misrepresentation and omissions. Accordingly,

the interests of the representative Plaintiffs are co-extensive with the interests of each Class

member, and all have a common right of recovery based upon the same facts.


27

D. The Class Representatives Can Adequately Represent the Class

67. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the

Class, in that they have no interests that are antagonistic to or that irreconcilably conflict with

those of other Class members, Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in the

prosecution of class action litigation, including substantial experience in the types of claims

alleged herein.

E. A Class Action Is Superior To All Other Available Methods For The Fair And Efficient Adjudication Of Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ Claims 68. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ claims. A class action is superior to preserve

Class Members’ claims who would otherwise forego litigation given the burden and expense of

individual prosecution of their claims, in comparison to the amount of damages suffered by each

individual Class Member. Individualized litigation would burden the courts, would increase the

delay and expense to all parties and the Court, and would produce the potential for inconsistent

or contradictory judgments and would establish incompatible standards of conduct for

Defendants. The individual prosecution of separate actions would create a risk of adjudications

which may be dispositive of the interests of other Class Members not parties to the adjudications,

or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests. Furthermore, final

injunctive relief is appropriate against Defendants with respect to members of a Class as a whole,

as opposed to individual injunctions. Certification of a class action to resolve these disputes will

reduce the possibility of repetitious litigation involving hundreds of thousands of Class members,

and allow supervision by a single court.


28

69. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class, pray for an

order certifying the Class and appointing Plaintiffs and their counsel of record to represent the

Class.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Against All Defendants for Violations of Delaware’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act,

6 Del. C. §§2531-36 et seq)

70. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth above as if

fully stated herein.

71. Defendants’ actions constitute unlawful, unfair, deceptive and fraudulent practices

as defined by Delaware’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 6 Del. C. §§2531-36 et seq.

72. As part of its fraudulent marketing practices and recruitment program, WLS

engaged in a pattern and practice of knowingly and intentionally making numerous false

representations and omissions of material facts, with the intent to deceive and fraudulently

induce reliance by Plaintiffs and the members of the Class. These false representations and

omissions were uniform and identical in nature, and include, without limitation, the following:

a. Stating false placement rates during the recruitment and retention process,

including that approximately 90-95 percent of WLS graduates secured

employment within nine months of graduation;

b. Manipulating post-graduate employment data, so as to give the appearance that

the overwhelming majority of recent graduates secure full-time, permanent

employment for which a JD degree is required or preferred;


29

c. Disseminating false post-graduate employment data and salary information to

various third-party data clearinghouses and publications, such as the ABA and US

News;

d. Making deceptive and misleading statements, representations and omissions

concerning WLS’s reputation with potential employers;;

e. Making deceptive and misleading statements, representations and omissions

concerning the value of a WLS degree;

f. Making deceptive and misleading statements, representations and omissions

concerning the pace at which recent graduates can obtain gainful employment in

their chosen field; and

g. Causing students to pay inflated tuition based on materially misleading

statements, representations and omissions, including, specifically that

approximately 90-95 percent of WLS graduates secure gainful employment.

73. In general, Plaintiffs and members of the Class enrolled at WLS for the purpose

of securing upon graduation full-time, permanent employment for which a JD degree is required

or preferred. Defendants’ acts, practices and omissions, therefore, were material to Plaintiffs’

decision to enroll and attend WLS, and further proximately caused Plaintiffs and other members

of the Class to pay inflated tuition.

74. The Defendants’ above-alleged actions constitute unfair business practices since

the actions were deceptive, immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, substantially injurious,

and operate to the competitive disadvantage of other law schools. They are also likely to deceive

the public. Moreover, the injury to the Plaintiffs was substantial and outweighs the utility of the

Defendants’ practices.


30

75. The unfair and deceptive trade acts and practices have directly, foreseeably and

proximately caused damage to Plaintiffs and other members of the Class.

76. The Defendants’ practices, in addition, are unfair and deceptive because they have

caused Plaintiffs and the Class substantial harm, which is not outweighed by any countervailing

benefits to consumers or competition, and is not an injury consumers themselves could have

reasonably avoided.

77. The Defendants’ acts and practices have misled and deceived the general public in

the past, and will continue to mislead and deceive the general public into the future, by, among

other things, causing them to apply to and enroll at WLS under false pretenses.

78. Plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief ordering the

Defendants to immediately cease these unfair business practices, as well as disgorgement and

restitution to Plaintiffs of all revenue associated with their unfair practices, or such revenues as

the Court may find equitable and just.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, pray for

relief and judgment against Defendants WLS and Does 1 though 20 as follows:

1. For preliminary and injunctive relief enjoining Defendants, their agents, servants,

employees and all persons acting in concert with them from continuing to engage in

their unlawful recruitment program and manipulation of post-graduate employment

data and salary information, and all other unfair, unlawful and /or fraudulent business

practices alleged above and that may yet be discovered in the prosecution of this

action;

2. For certification of the Class;


31

3. For the partial restitution and disgorgement of tuition monies remitted to WLS,

totaling $75 million, which is the difference between the inflated tuition paid by Class

members based on the material misrepresentations that approximately 90-95 percent

of graduates are employed within nine months of graduation and the true value of a

WLS degree;

4. For damages;

5. For punitive damages;

6. For an accounting by Defendants for any and all profits derived by them from the

herein-alleged unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent conduct and/or business practices;

7. For injunctive relief ordering that WLS retains unrelated, independent third-parties to

audit and verify post-graduate employment data and salary information;

8. For attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to all applicable laws;;

9. For prejudgment interest; and

10. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DATED: February 1, 2012 Respectfully Submitted,

STONE & MAGNANINI LLP By: /s/ David S. Stone David S. Stone

Eric H. Jaso Jason C. Spiro Stone & Magnanini LLP 150 JFK Parkway, Short Hills, NJ 07078 Phone (973) 218-1111 Facsimile (973) 218-1106


tel:973-218-1111

32

David Anziska The Law Offices of David Anziska 305 Broadway, 9th Fl. New York, NY 10007 Phone (212) 822-1496

Facsimile (212) 822-1437 Jesse Strauss Strauss Law, PLLC

305 Broadway, 9th Fl. New York, NY 10007 Phone (212) 822-1496

Facsimile (212) 822-1437

Counsel for Plaintiffs, individually and for all others similarly situated

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all causes of action so triable.

DATED: February 1, 2012 Respectfully Submitted,

STONE MAGNANINI LLP By: /s/ David S. Stone David S. Stone

Eric H. Jaso Jason C. Spiro Stone & Magnanini LLP 150 JFK Parkway, Short Hills, NJ 07078 Phone (973) 218-1111 Facsimile (973) 218-1106 David Anziska The Law Offices of David Anziska 305 Broadway, 9th Fl. New York, NY 10007 Phone (212) 822-1496

Facsimile (212) 822-1437


tel:973-218-1111

33

Jesse Strauss Strauss Law PLLC


Facsimile (212) 822-1437

Counsel for Plaintiffs, individually and for all others similarly situated


EXHIBIT C MACDONALD, JR. V. THOMAS M. COOLEY LAW

SCHOOL AMENDED COMPLAINT


David Anziska Law Offices of David Anziska 305 Broadway, 9th Fl. New York, NY 10007 Phone (212) 822-1496 Facsimile (212) 822-1437

Steven Hyder (P69875) The Hyder Law Firm, P.C. PO Box 2242 Monroe, MI 48161 [email protected] Phone (734) 757-4586

Jesse Strauss (admitted NY - 4182002) Strauss Law PLLC 305 Broadway, 9th Fl. New York, NY 10007 Phone (212) 822-1496 Facsimile (212) 822-1437 Counsel for Plaintiffs, individually and for all others similarly situated

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

JOHN T. MACDONALD JR., CHELSEA : Case No. 11-cv-00831 A. PEJIC, SHAWN HAFF, : Hon. Gordon J. Quist STEVEN BARON, DIMPLE KUMAR, : CARRIE KALBFLEISCH, : ANDERS CHRISTENSEN, : DANNY WAKEFIELD, DAN GUINN, : BENJAMIN FORSGREN, : SHANE HOBBS, and KEVIN PRINCE, : on behalf of themselves and all : others similarly situated, : : AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT :

Plaintiffs, : : v. : :

THOMAS M. COOLEY LAW SCHOOL, : and DOES 1-20, :

Defendants. : :

: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 1:11-cv-00831-GJQ Doc #22 Filed 11/09/11 Page 1 of 69 Page ID#286Case: 1:12-cv-01791 Document #: 1-4 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 2 of 70 PageID #:159

mailto:[email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………...1

JURISDICTION AND VENVUE………………………………………………………………...7

PARTIES………………………………………………………………………………………….8

I. Plaintiffs…………………………………………………………………………..8

II. Defendants……………………………………………………………………….22

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS……………………………………………………………………23

I. Background Information…………………………………………………………23

A. A Veritable “JD Factory”………………………………………………...23

B. Becoming “America’s Largest Law School” While Maintaining an 80 Percent Placement Rate……………………………...24

C. History of Unfounded Claims……………………………………………25

II. Underlying Fraud Allegations……………………………………………………26

A. Statements Constituting Fraud…………………………………………...26

B. Disseminating False Information to Third Parties……………………….30

III. Manipulating Employment Data…………………………………………………32

A. Proof of Fraud……………………………………………………………32

B. Intent to Defraud…………………………………………………………37

IV. Manipulating Salary Information………………………………………………...40

V. Challenging the Status Quo……………………………………………………...42

VI. Role of the ABA…………………………………………………………………45

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS……………………………………………………………..50


ii

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION……………………………………………………………………53

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION………………………………………………………………..56

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION…………………………………………………………………..60

PRAYER FOR RELIEF…………………………………………………………………………63


Plaintiffs, acting for themselves and for all persons who currently attend or graduated

from the Thomas M. Cooley Law School during the relevant time period (collectively

“Plaintiffs”), allege as follows. Plaintiffs’ allegations are based on the investigation of counsel,

including but not limited to reviews of advertising and marketing material, various publicly

available information and interviews of former students, and are thus made on information and

belief, except as to individual actions of Plaintiffs, as to which Plaintiffs have personal

knowledge.

PRELIMINARY STATEME NT

“Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant” – Justice Louis Brandeis

1. This action seeks to remedy a systemic, ongoing fraud that is ubiquitous in the

legal education industry and threatens to leave a generation of law students in dire financial

straits. Essentially, Plaintiffs want to bring an element of “sunlight” or transparency to the way

law schools report post-graduate employment data and salary information, by requiring that they

make critical, material disclosures that will give both prospective and current students a more

accurate picture of their post-graduate financial situation, as opposed to the status quo where law

schools are incentivized to engage in all sorts of legerdemain when tabulating employment

statistics.

2. Churning out nearly 1,000 newly-minted JD graduates each year, the Thomas M.

Cooley School of Law (“Thomas Cooley,” “TCLS,” or “Defendants”) is by far the largest law

school in the country with approximately 4,000 students spread out across four campuses, the

overwhelming majority of whom -- 82 percent -- are enrolled on a part-time basis. Indeed,

Thomas Cooley’s enormous class size and diverse student body is a point of pride for the school,

which expressly markets itself as being “committed to providing a legal education to people from


2

all walks of life.” To that end, Thomas Cooley in its Mission Statement represents that its

underlying purpose is to “prepare its graduates for entry into the legal profession through an

integrated program with practical legal scholarship as its guiding principle and focus,” by

imbuing them with the requisite skills and knowledge “needed to be a success in the law and a

valuable member of society.”

3. Unfortunately, in reality, far from preparing its many, many students for entry

into the legal profession and imbuing them with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in

law, the school consigns most of them to years of indentured servitude, saddling them with tens

of thousands of dollars in crushing, non-dischargeable debt that will take literally decades to pay

off. The school has done this while blatantly misrepresenting and manipulating its employment

statistics to prospective students, employing the type of “Enron-style” accounting techniques that

would leave most for-profit companies facing the long barrel of a government investigation and

the prospect of paying a substantial civil fine. These deceptions are perpetuated so as to prevent

prospective students from realizing the obvious -- that attending Thomas Cooley and forking

over nearly $100,000 in tuition payments is a terrible investment which makes little economic

sense and, most likely, will never pay off.

4. Specifically, Thomas Cooley, through both print and internet marketing materials

it produced and disseminated, makes two uniform, written misrepresentations:

a. First, from August 11, 2005 to the present (“Class Period”), TCLS

reported with “Madoff”-like consistency that, depending on the year, between 76 and 82 percent

of its graduates secured employment within nine months of graduation. The context of these

representations make it appear to the reasonable consumer, such as Plaintiffs, that the jobs

reported are full-time, permanent positions for which a law degree is required or preferred.


3

These numbers are false because Thomas Cooley’s reported employment numbers include any

type of employment, including jobs that have absolutely nothing to do with the legal industry, do

not require a JD degree or are temporary or part-time in nature. If TCLS was to disclose the

number of graduates who have secured full-time, permanent positions for which a JD degree is

required or preferred, the numbers would drop dramatically, and could be well below 25

percent, if not even lower.

b. Second, during the Class Period, TCLS grossly inflated its graduates’

reported mean salaries, by calculating them based on a small, deliberately selected subset of

graduates who submit their salary information. If the Defendants were to disclose salary data

based on a broad, statistically meaningful representation of its graduates, by including more

graduates who have failed to secure full-time, permanent employment, the reported mean salaries

would decline precipitously.

5. Thomas Cooley’s representations are demonstrably false for the following

reasons:

a. Thomas Cooley’s reported placement rates and salary information have

remained eerily steady throughout the past decade, even though the total number of graduates

from 2004 to 2009 has increased from 404 to 958 students -- an astounding 137 percent. Indeed,

TCLS’s own internal documents reveal that school administrators during this period of

unparalleled growth were concerned that larger classes would diminish their graduates’ job

prospects, but no meaningful change in the employment statistics materialized, and TCLS’s

placement rate barely budged from 82 to 78 percent between those years.

b. Thomas Cooley’s reported placement rates and salary information have

barely dipped since the onslaught of the “Great Recession,” as the placement rates for the Class


4

of 2009 was an impressive 78 percent and 76 percent for the Class of 2010. Currently, the legal

employment market is highly oversaturated, with law schools churning out 43,000 JD degrees

each year, even though roughly half as many jobs are available (26,000). Yet, with legal jobs

becoming increasingly scarce, Thomas Cooley, instead of telling the sobering truth to

prospective and current students, continues to make the fantastical claim that the overwhelming

majority of its graduates are gainfully employed.

c. As set forth in painstaking detail below, the employment and salary data

reported by Thomas Cooley are at odds with employment statistics reported by NALP, meaning

that for TCLS’s statistics to be accurate it would likely need to be placing students well above

the 40 percent of law school graduates nationally who secure full-time, permanent legal

employment, despite its extremely lenient admission standards and being ranked in the bottom

tier by every major law school rankings.

6. Unfortunately, Thomas Cooley’s false and fraudulent representations and

omissions are endemic in the law school industry, as nearly every school to a certain degree

blatantly manipulates their employment data to make themselves more attractive to prospective

students. It is a dirty industry secret that law schools employ a variety of deceptive practices

and accounting legerdemain to “pretty up” or “cook” the job numbers, including, among other

things, hiring recent unemployed graduates as “research assistants” or providing them with

“public interest” stipends so as to classify them as employed, excluding graduates who do not

supply employment information from employment surveys, refusing to categorize unemployed

graduates who are not “actively” seeking employment as unemployed and classifying graduates

who have only secured temporary, part-time employment as being “fully” employed.


5

7. Compounding problems, there is no place where prospective students can find

Thomas Cooley’s real employment numbers. Indeed, the school provides the same dubious

statistics to the U.S. News & World Report (“US News”) and the American Bar Association

(“ABA”), the two primary sources of information for law school employment data. Like

Thomas Cooley, these sources count as “employed” those who have secured employment in any

capacity in any kind of job, no matter how unrelated to the legal field.

8. By playing fast and loose with its employment data, Thomas Cooley creates an

impression of bountiful employment opportunity that in reality does not exist, and bamboozles

Plaintiffs into taking on substantial debt to finance their TCLS education. According to US

News, TCLS students graduate on average with a whopping $105,798 in loans, with over 90

percent of them assuming debt to attend the school. The current annual tuition for full-time

students at Thomas Cooley is $36,750, excluding thousands of dollars in living expenses, making

it one of the more expensive law schools in the country, despite the fact that it is ranked in the

fourth or bottom tier by the U.S. News in their annual law school rankings.

9. To a remarkable degree, Thomas Cooley and the law school industry in general

have been astonishingly successful in deceiving prospective students about the value of a law

degree in an effort to maintain and increase both enrollment and tuition. Last year, a record

51,426 first-year students enrolled in law schools, up by over 60 percent from 1971, while

Thomas Cooley has enrolled over 1,500 first-year students in each of the past six years.

Additionally, tuition at Thomas Cooley -- much like the rest of the law school industry -- has

risen exponentially over the past two decades, far exceeding both inflation and any increase in

attorneys’ starting salaries, and since 2006 alone has risen by an incredible $12,000 or nearly 50

percent.


6


increase in faculty compensation, a fact which is especially true at Thomas Cooley where the

faculty have handsomely profited at their students’ expense. For example, for the fiscal year

2008, Thomas Cooley Dean, Don LeDuc, earned a staggering $548,047 in total compensation

and additional $523,213 for the fiscal year 2009, making him one of the highest paid law school

deans in the country, while retired Dean and school founder, Thomas Brennan, earned nearly

$370,000 in total compensation both during 2008 and 2009.

11. After much public hand-wringing and increased scrutiny, the legal profession has

finally begun to recognize the systemic fraud the law school industry has been perpetuating.

Senator Barbara Boxer of California and Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa have each sent

multiple letters to the President of the ABA, taking the organization to task for failing to properly

police the law school industry. Additionally, a coalition of 55 law school student body

presidents have sent to Congress proposed legislation that would, among other things, create new

reporting standards for employment data, require law schools to submit annual employment

reports to the Department of Education (“DOE”), and empower the DOE to audit these reports.

The problem has grown so acute that even both the current and past presidents of the California

Bar Association in much publicized op-ed pieces each separately implored law school deans to

adopt more rigorous reporting standards by disclosing the type of detailed employment and

salary information that would allow students to get a more realistic picture of their post-graduate

financial situation.

12. These entreaties had fallen mostly on deaf ears until now, as the ABA’s

committee on accrediting law schools has just recently enacted guidelines that would expressly

require law schools to report their true post-graduate employment rate, by disclosing the type of


7

information Plaintiffs are seeking here: the exact percentage of graduates who have obtained

permanent, full-time legal employment. Specifically, law schools will be required to break down

their employment data so as to indicate whether a position is full-time or part-time, permanent or

temporary, funded by the law school or an affiliated university, and whether bar passage or a JD

degree is required or preferred. Unfortunately, these changes come too late for Plaintiffs since

they have already taken on tens of thousands of dollars in non-dischargeable debt based on

Thomas Cooley’s deceptive and misleading statements. Moreover, there is no means by which

Plaintiffs can obtain relief from the ABA because the organization specifically disallows disputes

between individuals and approved law schools and the Federal Department of Education has no

mechanism in place to entertain such concerns, nor are such statutorily authorized.

13. Accordingly, Plaintiffs now seek to vindicate their interests through the court

system and hold Thomas Cooley accountable for its deceptive and misleading practices. This

action asserts claims: a) under Michigan’s Consumer Protection Act, MCLS §445.901, et seq.

(the “MCPA”);; b) for Fraud; and c) for Negligent Misrepresentation. Plaintiffs seek damages

and equitable relief on behalf of the class, which includes but is not limited to the following:

refunding and reimbursing current and former students for a portion of the tuition paid to

Thomas Cooley; an order enjoining Thomas Cooley from continuing to market its false and

inaccurate employment data and salary information; an order requiring that TCLS retains a third

party to independently audit all employment and salary data; costs and expenses, including

attorneys’ and experts’ fees;; and any additional relief that this Court determines to be necessary

or appropriate to provide complete relief to Plaintiffs and the class.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE


8

13. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action under the Class Action

Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(“CAFA”), as to the named Plaintiffs and every

member of the Class, because the proposed Class contains more than 100 members, the

aggregate amount of controversy exceeds $5 million, less than two-thirds of the members reside

in Michigan, and members reside across the U.S. and are therefore diverse from the Defendants.

14. The Court has personal jurisdiction in this action by virtue of the fact that

Defendants are based and headquartered in Michigan and have conducted business in Michigan.

15. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) inasmuch as the

unlawful practices are alleged to have been committed in this District, Defendants regularly

conduct business in this District, including operating its flagship Lansing campus, and at least

some of the Plaintiffs reside in this District.

PARTIES

I. Plaintiffs

16. John T. MacDonald Jr. is a practicing attorney in Lansing, Michigan who is

currently a member in good standing of the Michigan Bar. Prior to attending law school, Mr.

MacDonald was a commissioned Naval Officer who served for four years with distinction before

receiving an honorable discharge. Mr. MacDonald graduated from Thomas Cooley’s Lansing

campus in 2010, and in total paid tens of thousands of dollars in tuition and fees to the school

while incurring tens of thousands of dollars more in debt. Mr. MacDonald did not enroll in

Thomas Cooley with the intention of using his JD degree for an ongoing business or to start a

non-legal business, but rather intended to use his JD degree to prospectively better himself and

his personal circumstances through the attainment of full-time employment in the legal sector. In

applying and deciding to remain enrolled at Thomas Cooley, Mr. MacDonald relied on salary


9

data and employment information posted on TCLS’s website, marketing material and/or

disseminated to third-party data clearinghouses and publications, such as the ABA and US News,

and specifically relied on TCLS’s representations that, depending on the year, approximately 80

percent of its graduates were employed within nine months of graduation and earned a median

salary of roughly $50,000. Indeed, prior to Mr. McDonald’s enrolling in Thomas Cooley, the

school posted on its website an employment report asserting that 82 percent of 2005 graduates

secured employment within nine of graduation, and while Mr. McDonald was enrolled in TCLS

the school posted on its website an employment report asserting that 82 percent of 2006

graduates secured employment within nine months of graduation. Furthermore, Mr. MacDonald

when applying and deciding to remain enrolled in Thomas Cooley was unaware that the school’s

reported placement rates included temporary and part-time employment and/or employment for

which a JD was not required or preferred -- employment Mr. MacDonald would have been

eligible for even without obtaining a JD degree and paying TCLS’s tuition. Had Mr. MacDonald

been aware that Thomas Cooley’s reported placement rates included temporary and part-time


elected to either pay less to TCLS or perhaps not attend the school at all. Following his

graduation from law school, Mr. MacDonald could not find full-time, permanent legal

employment and was forced to open up his own law firm which he currently still operates.

17. Chelsea A. Pejic is a practicing attorney in Chicago, Illinois who is currently a

member in good standing of the Illinois Bar. Ms. Pejic graduated from Thomas Cooley’s

Lansing campus in 2006, and in total paid tens of thousands of dollars in tuition and fees to the

school while incurring tens of thousands of dollars more in debt. Ms. Pejic did not enroll in

Thomas Cooley with the intention of using her JD degree for an ongoing business or to start a


10

non-legal business, but rather intended to use her JD degree to prospectively better herself and

her personal circumstances through the attainment of full-time employment in the legal sector.

In applying and deciding to remain enrolled at Thomas Cooley, Ms. Pejic relied on salary data

and employment information posted on TCLS’s website, marketing material and/or disseminated


specifically relied on TCLS’s representations that, depending on the year, approximately 80


salary of roughly $50,000. Indeed, prior to Ms. Pejic’s enrolling in Thomas Cooley, the school

posted on its website employment reports asserting that 79 percent of 2002 graduates secured

employment within nine of graduation, and while Ms. Pejic was enrolled in TCLS the school

posted on its website employment reports asserting that 77 percent of 2003 graduates and 79

percent of 2004 graduates secured employment within nine months of graduation. Furthermore,

Ms. Pejic when applying and deciding to remain enrolled in Thomas Cooley was unaware that

the school’s reported placement rates included temporary and part-time employment and/or

employment for which a JD was not required or preferred -- employment Ms. Pejic would have

been eligible for even without obtaining a JD degree and paying TCLS’s tuition. Had Ms. Pejic


employment and/or employment for which a JD was not required or preferred, she would have

elected to either pay less to TCLS or perhaps not attend the school at all. Following her

graduation from law school, Ms. Pejic, despite circulating hundreds of resumes, could not obtain

gainful legal employment and was forced to endure a long bout of unemployment. She has also

worked as a voluntary staff attorney and a temporary contract attorney, while also operating for a

brief period of time her own firm.


11

18. Shawn Haff is a practicing attorney in Grand Rapids, Michigan who is currently a

member in good standing of the Michigan Bar. Mr. Haff graduated from Thomas Cooley’s

Grand Rapids campus in 2010, and in total paid tens of thousands of dollars in tuition and fees to

the school while incurring tens of thousands of dollars more in debt. Mr. Haff did not enroll in




applying and deciding to remain enrolled at Thomas Cooley, Mr. Haff relied on salary data and

employment information posted on TCLS’s website, marketing material and/or disseminated to

third-party data clearinghouses and publications, such as the ABA and US News, and specifically

relied on TCLS’s representations that, depending on the year, approximately 80 percent of its

graduates were employed within nine months of graduation and earned a median salary of

roughly $50,000. Indeed, prior to Mr. Haff’s enrolling in Thomas Cooley, the school posted on

its website an employment report asserting that 82 percent of 2005 graduates secured

employment within nine of graduation, and while Mr. Haff was enrolled in TCLS the school

posted on its website an employment report asserting that 82 percent of 2006 graduates secured

employment within nine months of graduation. Furthermore, Mr. Haff when applying and

deciding to remain enrolled in Thomas Cooley was unaware that the school’s reported placement


required or preferred -- employment Mr. Haff would have been eligible for even without

obtaining a JD degree and paying TCLS’s tuition. Had Mr. Haff been aware that Thomas

Cooley’s reported placement rates included temporary and part-time employment and/or



12

less to TCLS or perhaps not attend the school at all. Following his graduation from law school,

Mr. Haff could not find full-time, permanent legal employment and was forced to take

temporary, contract assignments reviewing documents in order to make ends meet. Currently, he

owns and operates his own law firm.

19. Steven Baron currently resides in Los Angeles, California. He graduated from

Thomas Cooley’s Lansing campus in 2008, and in total paid tens of thousands of dollars in

tuition and fees to the school while incurring tens of thousands of dollars more in debt. Mr.

Baron did not enroll in Thomas Cooley with the intention of using his JD degree for an ongoing

business or to start a non-legal business, but rather intended to use his JD degree to prospectively

better himself and his personal circumstances through the attainment of full-time employment in

the legal sector. In applying and deciding to remain enrolled at Thomas Cooley, Mr. Baron

relied on salary data and employment information posted on TCLS’s website, marketing material


News, and specifically relied on TCLS’s representations that, depending on the year,

approximately 80 percent of its graduates were employed within nine months of graduation and

earned a median salary of roughly $50,000. Indeed, prior to Mr. Baron’s enrolling in Thomas

Cooley, the school posted on its website employment reports asserting that 77 percent of 2003

graduates and 79 percent of 2004 graduates secured employment within nine of graduation, and

while Mr. Baron was enrolled in TCLS the school posted on its website employment reports

asserting that 82 percent of 2005 and 2006 graduates secured employment within nine months of

graduation. Furthermore, Mr. Baron when applying and deciding to remain enrolled in Thomas

Cooley was unaware that the school’s reported placement rates included temporary and part-time

employment, and/or employment for which a JD was not required or preferred -- employment


13

Mr. Baron would have been eligible for even without obtaining a JD degree and paying TCLS’s

tuition. Had Mr. Baron been aware that Thomas Cooley’s reported placement rates included


preferred, he would have elected to either pay less to TCLS or perhaps not attend the school at

all. Following his graduation from law school, Mr. Baron, despite circulating hundreds of

resumes, has been unable to obtain any kind of sustained employment and is currently

unemployed.

20. Dimple Kumar is a practicing attorney in New York who is currently a member

in good standing of the New York Bar. Mr. Kumar graduated from Thomas Cooley’s Lansing

campus in January 2009, and in total paid tens of thousands of dollars in tuition and fees to the

school while incurring tens of thousands of dollars more in debt. Mr. Kumar did not enroll in




applying and deciding to remain enrolled at Thomas Cooley, Mr. Kumar relied on salary data

and employment information posted on TCLS’s website, marketing material and/or disseminated


specifically relied on TCLS’s representations that, depending on the year, approximately 80


salary of roughly $50,000. Indeed, prior to Mr. Kumar’s enrolling in Thomas Cooley, the school


percent of 2004 graduates secured employment within nine of graduation, and while Mr. Kumar

was enrolled in TCLS the school posted on its website employment reports asserting that 82


14

percent of 2005 and 2006 graduates secured employment within nine months of graduation.

Furthermore, Mr. Kumar when applying and deciding to remain enrolled in Thomas Cooley was

unaware that the school’s reported placement rates included temporary and part-time


Mr. Kumar would have been eligible for even without obtaining a JD degree and paying TCLS’s

tuition. Had Mr. Kumar been aware that Thomas Cooley’s reported placement rates included


preferred, he would have elected to either pay less to TCLS or perhaps not attend the school at

all. Following his graduation from law school, Mr. Kumar could not find full-time, permanent

legal employment for over nine months and was forced to take temporary, contract assignments

reviewing documents in order to make ends meet, until he found full-time employment

practicing landlord-tenant law. Currently, he owns and operates his own law firm.

21. Carrie Kalbfleisch is a practicing attorney in Shelbyville, Kentucky who is

currently a member in good standing of the Kentucky Bar. Ms. Kalbfleisch graduated from


tuition and fees to the school while incurring tens of thousands of dollars more in debt. Ms.

Kalbfleisch did not enroll in Thomas Cooley with the intention of using her JD degree for an

ongoing business or to start a non-legal business, but rather intended to use her JD degree to

prospectively better herself and her personal circumstances through the attainment of full-time

employment in the legal sector. In applying and deciding to remain enrolled at Thomas Cooley,

Ms. Kalbfleisch relied on salary data and employment information posted on TCLS’s website,

marketing material and/or disseminated to third-party data clearinghouses and publications, such

as the ABA and US News, and specifically relied on TCLS’s representations that, depending on


15

the year, approximately 80 percent of its graduates were employed within nine months of

graduation and earned a median salary of roughly $50,000. Indeed, prior to Ms. Kalbfleisch’s

enrolling in Thomas Cooley, the school posted on its website an employment report asserting

that 82 percent of 2005 graduates secured employment within nine of graduation, and while Ms.

Kalbfleisch was enrolled in TCLS the school posted on its website an employment report

asserting that 82 percent of 2006 graduates secured employment within nine months of

graduation. Furthermore, Ms. Kalbfleisch when applying and deciding to remain enrolled in

Thomas Cooley was unaware that the school’s reported placement rates included temporary and

part-time employment and/or employment for which a JD was not required or preferred --

employment Ms. Kalbfleisch would have been eligible for even without obtaining a JD degree

and paying TCLS’s tuition. Had Ms. Kalbfleisch been aware that Thomas Cooley’s reported

placement rates included temporary and part-time employment and/or employment for which a

JD was not required or preferred, she would have elected to either pay less to TCLS or perhaps

not attend the school at all. Following her graduation from law school, Ms. Kalbfleisch started

her own law firm.

22. Dan Guinn is a practicing attorney in Ohio who is currently a member in good

standing of the Ohio Bar. Prior to attending both college and law school, Mr. Guinn served for

over eight years in the United States Navy. Mr. Guinn graduated from Thomas Cooley’s

Lansing campus in 2009, and in total paid tens of thousands of dollars in tuition and fees to the

school while incurring tens of thousands of dollars more in debt. Mr. Guinn did not enroll in





16

applying and deciding to remain enrolled at Thomas Cooley, Mr. Guinn relied on salary data and





roughly $50,000. Indeed, prior to Mr. Guinn’s enrolling in Thomas Cooley, the school posted on


employment within nine of graduation, and while Mr. Guinn was enrolled in TCLS the school


employment within nine months of graduation. Furthermore, Mr. Guinn when applying and



required or preferred -- employment Mr. Guinn would have been eligible for even without

obtaining a JD degree and paying TCLS’s tuition. Had Mr. Guinn been aware that Thomas




Mr. Guinn could not find full-time, permanent legal employment and was forced to take

temporary, contract assignments reviewing documents in order to make ends meet. Currently, he

owns and operates his own law firm.

23. Anders Christensen is a practicing attorney in Utah who is currently a member in

good standing of the Utah Bar. Mr. Christenson graduated from Thomas Cooley’s Lansing



17

while incurring tens of thousands of dollars more in debt. Mr. Christensen did not enroll in

Thomas Cooley with the intention of using his JD degree for an ongoing business or start a non-

legal business, but rather intended to use his JD degree to prospectively better himself and his

personal circumstances through the attainment of full-time employment in the legal sector. In

applying and deciding to remain enrolled at Thomas Cooley, Mr. Christensen relied on salary

data and employment information posted on TCLS’s website, marketing material and/or




salary of roughly $50,000. Indeed, prior to Mr. Christensen’s enrolling in Thomas Cooley, the

school posted on its website an employment report asserting that 82 percent of 2005 graduates

secured employment within nine of graduation, and while Mr. Christensen was enrolled in TCLS

the school posted on its website an employment report asserting that 82 percent of 2006

graduates secured employment within nine months of graduation. Furthermore, Mr. Christensen

when applying and deciding to remain enrolled in Thomas Cooley was unaware that the school’s


which a JD was not required or preferred -- employment Mr. Christensen would have been

eligible for even without obtaining a JD degree and paying TCLS’s tuition. Had Mr. Christensen



elected to either pay less to TCLS or perhaps not attend the school at all. Following his

graduation from law school, Mr. Christensen worked as a law clerk for a Utah law firm, and is

currently an associate at the same firm.


18

24. Danny Wakefield currently does not practice law even though he has passed the

Utah Bar Exam and used to be a member in good standing of the Utah Bar until he voluntarily

assumed inactive status due to the fact that he was unable to obtain any type of employment in

the legal industry. Mr. Wakefield graduated from Thomas Cooley’s Lansing campus in 2007,

and in total paid tens of thousands of dollars in tuition and fees to the school while incurring tens

of thousands of dollars more in debt. Mr. Wakefield did not enroll in Thomas Cooley with the

intention of using his JD degree for an ongoing business or to start a non-legal business, but

rather intended to use his JD degree to prospectively better himself and his personal

circumstances through the attainment of full-time employment in the legal sector. In applying

and deciding to remain enrolled at Thomas Cooley, Mr. Wakefield relied on salary data and





roughly $50,000. Indeed, prior to Mr. Wakefield’s enrolling in Thomas Cooley, the school


percent of 2003 graduates secured employment within nine of graduation, and while Mr.

Wakefield was enrolled in TCLS the school posted on its website employment reports asserting

that 79 percent of 2004 graduates and 82 percent of 2005 graduates secured employment within

nine months of graduation. Furthermore, Mr. Wakefield when applying and deciding to remain

enrolled in Thomas Cooley was unaware that the school’s reported placement rates included


preferred -- employment Mr. Wakefield would have been eligible for even without obtaining a


19

JD degree and paying TCLS’s tuition. Had Mr. Wakefield been aware that Thomas Cooley’s


which a JD was not required or preferred, he would have elected to either pay less to TCLS or

perhaps not attend the school at all. Following his graduation from law school, Mr. Wakefield

was unable to find any type of employment in the legal sector, and currently manages the

deliveries of telephone books.

25. Benjamin Forsgren is a contracts manager in Utah who is currently a member in

good standing of the Utah Bar. Mr. Forsgren graduated from Thomas Cooley’s Lansing campus


incurring tens of thousands of dollars more in debt. Mr. Forsgren did not enroll in Thomas

Cooley with the intention of using his JD degree for an ongoing business or to start a non-legal

business, but rather intended to use his JD degree to prospectively better himself and his personal


and deciding to remain enrolled at Thomas Cooley, Mr. Forsgren relied on salary data and





roughly $50,000. Indeed, prior to Mr. Forsgren’s enrolling in Thomas Cooley, the school posted

on its website employment reports asserting that 77 percent of 2003 graduates and 79 percent of

2004 graduates secured employment within nine of graduation, and while Mr. Forsgren was

enrolled in TCLS the school posted on its website employment reports asserting that 82 percent

of 2005 and 2006 graduates secured employment within nine months of graduation.


20

Furthermore, Mr. Forsgren when applying and deciding to remain enrolled in Thomas Cooley

was unaware that the school’s reported placement rates included temporary and part-time


Mr. Forsgren would have been eligible for even without obtaining a JD degree and paying

TCLS’s tuition. Had Mr. Forsgren been aware that Thomas Cooley’s reported placement rates

included temporary and part-time employment and/or employment for which a JD was not

required or preferred, he would have elected to either pay less to TCLS or perhaps not attend the

school at all. Following his graduation from law school, Mr. Forsgren has worked as a contracts

manager at a company in Utah.

26. Shane Hobbs currently resides in Pennsylvania. Mr. Hobbs graduated from


tuition and fees to the school while incurring tens of thousands of dollars more in debt. Mr.

Hobbs did not enroll in Thomas Cooley with the intention of using his JD degree for an ongoing

business or to start a non-legal business, but rather intended to use his JD degree to prospectively

better himself and his personal circumstances through the attainment of full-time employment in

the legal sector. In applying and deciding to remain enrolled at Thomas Cooley, Mr. Hobbs

relied on salary data and employment information posted on TCLS’s website, marketing material


News, and specifically relied on TCLS’s representations that, depending on the year,

approximately 80 percent of its graduates were employed within nine months of graduation and

earned a median salary of roughly $50,000. Indeed, prior to Mr. Hobbs’s enrolling in Thomas

Cooley, the school posted on its website an employment report asserting that 82 percent of 2005

graduates secured employment within nine of graduation, and while Mr. Hobbs was enrolled in


21

TCLS the school posted on its website an employment report asserting that 82 percent of 2006

graduates secured employment within nine months of graduation. Furthermore, Mr. Hobbs when

applying and deciding to remain enrolled in Thomas Cooley was unaware that the school’s


which a JD was not required or preferred -- employment Mr. Hobbs would have been eligible for

even without obtaining a JD degree and paying TCLS’s tuition. Had Mr. Hobbs been aware that

Thomas Cooley’s reported placement rates included temporary and part-time employment and/or



Mr. Hobbs has been unable to secure any type of legal employment, and has worked as a

substitute teacher and day laborer at a golf course.

27. Kevin Prince is a practicing attorney in Michigan who is currently a member in

good standing of the Michigan Bar. Mr. Prince graduated from Thomas Cooley’s Lansing


while incurring tens of thousands of dollars more in debt. Mr. Prince did not enroll in Thomas

Cooley with the intention of using his JD degree for an ongoing business or to start a non-legal

business, but rather intended to use his JD degree to prospectively better himself and his personal


and deciding to remain enrolled at Thomas Cooley, Mr. Prince relied on salary data and






22

roughly $50,000. Indeed, prior to Mr. Prince’s enrolling in Thomas Cooley, the school posted on


employment within nine of graduation, and while Mr. Prince was enrolled in TCLS the school


employment within nine months of graduation. Furthermore, Mr. Prince when applying and



required or preferred -- employment Mr. Prince would have been eligible for even without

obtaining a JD degree and paying TCLS’s tuition. Had Mr. Prince been aware that Thomas




Mr. Prince was forced to take temporary, contract assignments reviewing documents in order to

make ends meet, until finding full-time, permanent employment nearly a year after graduating

from law school.

II. Defendants

28. Defendant Thomas Cooley is an ABA accredited law school and non-profit

corporation headquartered in Lansing, Michigan, but with satellite campuses also in Ann Arbor,

Auburn Hills and Grand Rapids. For the 2010-2011 academic year, it enrolled a total of 4,001

students, 82 percent of whom are matriculated on a part-time basis. The current annual tuition

for full-time students at Thomas Cooley is $36,750, while miscellaneous costs such as room,

board and living expenses bring the total cost to attending TCLS to an estimated $52,000. For

the fiscal year 2009, Thomas Cooley’s total operating revenue was $117,577,686 including


23

$108,979,296 in tuition fees, and its total operating costs are $97,196,760, including $47,158,197

in monies paid out for employees’ salaries. In the past two years, the school has paid its Dean,

Don LeDuc, $548,047 and $523,213 in total compensation, while still paying its former Dean

and school founder, Thomas Brennan, $368,581 in total compensation for 2008 and $370, 245

for 2009. Thomas Cooley’s 11 other highest paid employees earned between $200,225 and

$249,499 in total compensation respectively.

29. The true names and capacities (whether individual, corporate, associate or

otherwise) of Defendants Does 1 though 20, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sue

these Defendants by fictitious names and will seek leave to amend this Complaint after their

identities are learned. Each fictitious Defendant contributed to the acts and practices alleged

herein. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the fictitiously named Defendants proximately

caused Plaintiffs’ damages.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

I. Background Information

A. A Veritable “JD Factory”

30. Churning out nearly 1,000 newly-minted JD graduates each year, Thomas Cooley

is by far the largest law school in the country with approximately 4,000 students spread out

across four campuses, the overwhelming majority of whom -- 82 percent -- are enrolled on a

part-time basis. Just recently, on August 8, 2011, Thomas Cooley announced that it will be

opening a Tampa Bay-area campus in Riverview, Florida in May 2012 that can accommodate a

planned enrollment of 700 students.

31. According to US News, Thomas Cooley has the lowest admissions standards of

any accredited or provisionally accredited law school in the country. For 2010, it accepted 83


24

percent of all applicants, an acceptance rate that is nearly 15 percentage points more than the

second least selective law school, Phoenix School of Law. The mean LSAT score for incoming

students is 146 and the mean undergraduate GPA is 2.99, both lows for all accredited and

provisionary accredited law schools.

32. Yet despite its relatively lax admissions standards, remaining enrolled in Thomas

Cooley is quite difficult, as the school has, comparatively speaking, lackluster retention rates.

For example, in 2008 almost 32 percent of the roughly 1,500 students who enrolled in Thomas

Cooley failed to matriculate for their second year, while, incredibly, second-year students still

enjoyed an attrition rate of 10 percent. Even 22 third-year students -- approximately three

percent of the class -- either failed or dropped out during the academic year. Indeed, failing out

hundreds of students each year seems to be an essential part of Thomas Cooley’s business model,

which is to enroll the maximum number of students, regardless of whether they are adequately

prepared for law school, all the while retaining millions of dollars in tuition fees.

B. Becoming “America’s Largest Law School” While Maintaining an 80 Percent Placement Rate 33. Beginning in the early 2000s, Thomas Cooley embarked on a strategy to become

“America’s Largest Law School.” See “Thomas Cooley’s Strategic Plan Summary June 2004

Report” (attaching Ex. 1). Consequently, between 2001 and 2004, Thomas Cooley’s entering

class increased dramatically, rising from 918 students in 2001 to 1385 students in 2004, thereby

fulfilling the administration’s goal. Id. Likewise, as discussed supra, the number of graduates

jumped from404 in 2004 to 503 in 2005 to 612 in 2006 to a whopping 958 in 2009.

34. However, in achieving this goal, the Thomas Cooley administration openly fretted

that “[e]mployment remains a major challenge.” Id at p.3. Yet, despite increasing its total

number of graduates by an astounding 137 percent from 2004 to 2009, Thomas Cooley, defying


25

all rules of statistical probability and the principles of mathematics, has somehow maintained an

80 percent placement rate with “Madoff”-like consistency, even though the legal market --

especially in the State of Michigan, where the largest percentage of Thomas Cooley graduates

practice -- has essentially stagnated.

C. History of Unfounded Claims

35. In marketing itself to prospective students, Thomas Cooley makes a number of

bold, if not incredulous statements that are incommensurate with its low academic and

reputational standings in the legal marketplace. For example, Dean LeDuc and former Dean

Brennan publish their own law school rankings titled “Judging the Law Schools,” which,

coincidentally, ranks Thomas Cooley as the second “best” law school in the country, right below

the top-ranked school, Harvard Law School, and well above such notable institutions as Yale,

Columbia, the University of Chicago and Stanford. These largely self-serving rankings include

numerous factors that, at first glance, have little pedagogical or edifying value and have

absolutely nothing to do with training students to be attorneys, such as the overall size of the

student body, total minority enrollment, library total square footage, library seating capacity, and

the square footage of a law school’s physical premises. Each of these factors are given equal

statistical weight to other, seemingly more important factors, like bar passage rate and

percentage of graduates employed.

36. Naturally, Thomas Cooley’s law school rankings have been met with great

skepticism, if not outright ridicule, and no reputable academic or legal commentator takes it

seriously.1 Nonetheless, the school continues to publish its “Judging the Law Schools” year in

1 See e.g. Elie Mystal, “Latest Cooley Rankings Achieve New Heights of Intellectual Dishonesty,” Abovethelaw.com, February 8, 2011,http://abovethelaw.com/2011/02/latest-cooley-law-school-rankings-achieve-new-heights-of-intellectual-dishonesty/ (“This, my friends, is funny.


http://abovethelaw.com/2011/02/latest-cooley-law-school-rankings-achieve-new-heights-of-intellectual-dishonesty/

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/02/latest-cooley-law-school-rankings-achieve-new-heights-of-intellectual-dishonesty/

26

and year out, releasing its 12th edition in February 2011, and engage in dubious marketing

practices that are all too emblematic of its bottom-line mentality.

II. Underlying Fraud Claims

37. Thomas Cooley is accredited by the ABA’s Section of Legal Education and

Admissions to the Bar. As mandated by Section 509(a) of the ABA’s 2010-2011 Standards for

Approval of Law Schools (“Section 509(a)”), an accredited law school must “publish basic

consumer information” in a “fair and accurate manner reflective of actual practice.” As of now

and throughout the Class Period, law schools would satisfy this virtually meaningless and non-

existent criterion by reporting jobs that are temporary or part-time or have absolutely nothing to

do with obtaining a JD degree as “employment.”

38. Pursuant to this requirement, Thomas Cooley publishes its employment statistics

on its website under the “Consumer Information” tab. In posting the data and marketing itself to

prospective students, the school includes a separate tab, titled “Alumni Success Stories,” which

highlights the employment achievements of recent graduates and includes glowing testimonials

from graduates explaining how attending Thomas Cooley helped them secure their current

positions.

A. Statements Constituting Fraud

39. Currently and for the past eight months, Thomas Cooley has posted on its

website the employment data and salary information for the Class of 2010, which is composed of

But it’s also serious. Because there are real people studying at Cooley right now, and I don’t think they understand how horrible it makes the school look when the administration publishes things like this… There are a lot of legal educators who hate the U.S. News law school rankings. There are a lot of people who think that the way U.S. News does things is wrong. But whatever chance you have of making your alternative rankings gain traction flies out of the window when you put yourself at #2 -- four tiers higher than where U.S. News has you.”);; see also Michael Kraemer, “Thomas Cooley is an Embarrassment,” Politicalcartel.org, March 3, 2010, http://politicalcartel.org/2010/03/03/thomas-cooley-law-school-is-an-embarrassment/.


http://abovethelaw.com/tag/u-s-news-law-school-rankings/

http://politicalcartel.org/2010/03/03/thomas-cooley-law-school-is-an-embarrassment/

27

students who graduated in September 2009, January 2010 and May 2010. See 2010 Thomas

Cooley Employment Report and Salary Survey (the “2010 Employment Report”) (attaching Ex.

2). This information is obtained by job surveys that Thomas Cooley sends out to all recent

graduates, and all information contained in this report is unaudited, unverified and self-reported.

According to the 2010 Employment Report, based on a relatively paltry response rate of 83

percent2 (meaning that 154 of 934 graduates failed to respond to the survey), approximately 76

percent of the class were employed nine months after graduation, including 50 percent of whom

were allegedly working in private practice, 18 percent in “business,” 15 percent in government,

two percent in public interest, and three percent both in judicial clerkships and academia. The

average reported salary for the entire class was $54,796, including $52,318 for those in private

practice, $71,470 for those in “business,” and $53,312 for those in government.

40. Throughout the Class Period, Thomas Cooley has reported similar employment

reports demonstrating its graduates’ purported success. For example, for the Class of 2009,

based on a relatively paltry response rate of 84 percent3 (i.e. 151 of 958 graduates failed to

respond to the survey), approximately 78 class were employed nine months after graduation,

including 56 percent of whom were allegedly working in private practice, 17 percent in

“business,” 14 percent in government, four percent in public interest, five percent in judicial

clerkships and three percent in academia. See 2009 Thomas Cooley Employment Report and

Salary Survey (the “2009 Employment Report”) (attaching Ex. 3).4 The average salary for the

2Nationally, approximately 97 percent of 2010 law school graduates responded to their schools’ employment survey. 3According to US News, Thomas Cooley’s response rate was the third lowest of all accredited law schools for 2009, and nationally approximately 96 percent of 2009 graduates responded to their schools’ employment survey. 4Upon information and belief, Defendants posted on its website the 2009 Employment Report between 2010 and 2011.


28

entire class was $52,000, including $52,000 for those in private practice, $61,000 for those in

“business,” and $50,000 for those in government.

41. For the Class of 2006, the numbers seemed even more impressive. Based on a

relatively paltry response rate of 82 percent (i.e. 111 of 612 graduates failed to respond to the

survey), approximately 82 percent of the class were employed nine months after graduation,

including 47 percent of whom were allegedly working in private practice, 20 percent in

“business,” 17 percent in government, six percent in public interest, eight percent in judicial

clerkships and two percent in academia. See 2006 Thomas Cooley Employment Report and

Salary Survey (the “2006 Employment Report”) (attaching Ex. 4)5. The average salary for the

entire class was $52,000, including $54,000 for those in private practice, $61,000 for those in

“business,” and $48,000 for those in government.

42. For the Class of 2005, based on a shockingly low response rate of 68 percent (i.e.

161 of 503 graduates failed to respond to the survey), approximately 82 percent of the class were

employed nine months after graduation, including 50 percent of whom were allegedly working in

private practice, 16 percent in “business,” 15 percent in government, five percent in public

interest, ten percent in judicial clerkships and two percent in academia. See 2005 Thomas

Cooley Employment Report and Salary Survey (the “2005 Employment Report”) (attaching Ex.

5).6 The average salary for the entire class was $49,000, including $49,000 for those in private

practice, $60,000 for those in “business,” and $45,000 for those in government.

43. For the Class of 2004, based on a response rate of 82 percent (i.e. 72 out of 404

graduates failed to respond to the survey), approximately 79 percent of the class were employed

5Upon information and belief, Defendants posted on its website the 2006 Employment Report between 2007 and 2010, and did not post employment reports for 2007 and 2008. 6Upon information and belief, Defendants posted on its website the 2005 Employment Report between 2006 and 2007.


29

nine months after graduation, including 45 percent of whom were allegedly working in private

practice, 16 percent in “business,” 18 percent in government, ten percent in public interest, eight

percent in judicial clerkships and three percent in academia. See 2004 Thomas Cooley

Employment Report and Salary Survey (the “2004 Employment Report”) (attaching Ex. 6). 7

44. Throughout the Class Period, Thomas Cooley itself admits that its reported

placement rates have hovered between 76 and 82 percent, “with a similar range reported back to

2000,” even though its total number of graduates has increased by 137 percent over the past five

years. See Thomas Cooley Press Release, dated July 14, 2011 (attaching Ex. 7). 8

45. Tellingly, the employment reports make a number of startling factual omissions

that would give prospective students a more accurate picture of their post-graduation

employment prospects. For example, Thomas Cooley simply presents an overall employment

number, and fails to break down what percentage of graduates were employed in either part-time

or temporary positions, or whether a job requires a JD degree. Accordingly, based on these

classifications, a graduate could be working as a barista in Starbucks -- or toiling away in any

capacity in any kind of job, no matter how menial or poorly compensated or unrelated to law --

and would be deemed employed and working in “business,” even though such employment is

clearly temporary in nature and obviously does not require a JD degree.9 Similarly, a contract

7 Upon information and belief, Defendants posted on its website the 2004 Employment Report between 2005 and 2006. 8Thomas Cooley circulated this press release upon filing two sham, SLAPP lawsuits against Plaintiffs’ Counsel, David Anziska and Jesse Strauss, and four “John Doe” plaintiffs for alleged defamatory statements made over the Internet. This crude, cynical attempt to intimidate prospective plaintiffs, chill free speech and police the Internet has been made with near universal derision, and Plaintiffs’ counsel have simultaneously moved to dismiss Thomas Cooley’s baseless claims and to sanction both Thomas Cooley and its attorneys. 9Indeed, two of the Plaintiffs, Danny Wakefield and Shane Hobbs, due to their inability to secure any type of legal employment, have been forced to work as a telephone book salesman


30

attorney who has yet to secure permanent employment and is forced to toil away in transitory

document review projects would be deemed “employed” under Thomas Cooley’s broad

guidelines.

46. Thomas Cooley also grossly inflates its graduates’ reported mean salaries, by

calculating them based on a small, deliberately selected subset of graduates who actually submit

their salary information, thereby presenting statistically meaningless data that is not an

emblematic representation of the entire class. Thus, to take the above example, if a graduate

working in Starbucks as a barista did not report his/her salary information that could potentially

have a significant statistical effect on Thomas Cooley’s reported mean salary for those employed

in “business,” lowering the number substantially from a seemingly impressive $71,470 for the

Class of 2010.

B. Disseminating False Information to Third Parties

47. The school also disseminates employment data and salary information to other

sources that are readily available to prospective students. In general, there are three primary

sources that Thomas Cooley -- along with all other accredited law schools -- provides such

information to: US News, the ABA and the National Association of Law Placement (“NALP”).10

However, the US News and the ABA simply require law schools to report an overall employment

number, and do not require schools to distinguish between part-time and full-time jobs or

temporary and permanent employment. Consequently, the data contained in these sources is

and as a substitute teacher/day laborer, respectively, in order to make ends meet, positions that they obviously could have obtained without a JD degree. See infra ¶24, ¶ 26.

10 All ABA-accredited and provisionally-accredited law schools are required to provide employment data to the ABA, but only submit such data to U.S. News and NALP on a voluntary basis.


31

riddled with the same legerdemain, dubious calculations and deliberate omissions as found in the

employment information posted and marketed by Thomas Cooley on its website and brochures.

48. In a letter sent to the deans of all accredited law schools, Brian Kelly, the editor-

in-chief of the US News, essentially conceded this point, acidly noting that the “entire law school

sector is perceived to be less than candid” when reporting employment data, and that many

schools appear “not to treat the ABA reporting rules with the seriousness one would assume.”

Robert Morse, “U.S. News Urges Law School Deans to Improve Employment Data,” U.S. News

& World Report, March 9, 2011 (attaching Ex. 8). Acknowledging the obvious, Kelly

concludes, “Perhaps we need metrics besides total employment rates to evaluate a successful law

program.” Id.

49. Nonetheless, despite knowing full well of the deficiencies in law school-supplied

employment data, such information constitutes a whopping 18 percent (four percent for the

employment rate upon graduation and 14 percent for the rate nine months after graduation) of a

law school’s ranking in US News, the second most important factor after a law school’s peer

assessment.

50. As for NALP, law schools, when responding to their questionnaires, must not

simply report an overall employment number, but specifically break down the exact type of

employment their graduates have obtained, differentiating between part-time and full-time jobs

or whether a position requires a JD degree. Unfortunately, NALP does not either publish or

make available to the public these questionnaires, and instead compiles and tabulates their data

into a single document which contains aggregate statistical information from all law schools.

See NALP Class of 2009 National Summary Report (“NALP Employment Report”) & NALP

Class of 2010 National Summary Report (“2010 NALP Employment Report”)(attaching Ex. 9).


32

51. In other words, Thomas Cooley, by virtue of its participation in NALP’s annual

employment survey, clearly has the means to, and actually does, distinguish between various

degrees of employment, and breaks down the exact percentage of its recent graduates who have

secured either part-time or full-time employment or whether a position requires a JD degree.

Yet, rather than including these numbers on its website and marketing material and making this

information available to public at large, the school continues to present highly misleading data to

prospective and current students that grossly inflate post-graduation employment rates while

depicting an unrealistic, if not entirely inaccurate picture of bountiful career prospects that do not

exist.

III. Manipulating Employment Data

52. In reality, the employment data reported and marketed by Thomas Cooley bears

little resemblance to the actual experiences and dim employment opportunities encountered by

their recent graduates. Based on interviews with former students and other investigatory work,

Plaintiffs believe that perhaps fewer than 25 percent -- if not even fewer -- of recent Thomas

Cooley graduates secure full-time, permanent employment for which a JD degree is required or

preferred within nine months of graduating, and that the majority of them work in either part-

time or temporary positions.

A. Proof of Fraud

53. Indeed, perhaps there is no better proof that Thomas Cooley grossly inflates its

placement rates than the fact that these rates have remained eerily steady throughout the past

decade, even though the school has experienced a seismic growth spurt, and its total number of

graduates between 2004 and 2009 has increased by an astounding 554 students or roughly 137

percent. Compare Ex. 3 and Ex. 6. For that matter, the school’s reported placement rates for the


33

classes of 2009 and 2010 have barely dipped, despite the onslaught of the “Great Recession”

which has decimated the legal industry, leading to thousands of mass layoffs.

54. Similarly, basic deductive reasoning suggests that the school is failing to disclose

that the majority of its graduates are employed in either part-time or temporary or non-legal

positions. According to the 2010 Employment Report, 157 out of a total 285 graduates working

in private practice are employed by law firms with 2-10 attorney, while 70 graduates -- or nearly

25 percent -- are solo practitioners. See Ex. 2. Most likely, the overwhelming majority of these

graduates are not gainfully employed, and are either working on a part-time or temporary basis.

To that end, only 11 students -- or about one percent of Thomas Cooley’s entire graduating class

– are purportedly working in firms with more than 100 attorneys.

55. Moreover, an examination of the 2009 NALP Employment Report confirms that

Thomas Cooley blatantly manipulates employment data, and that substantially fewer than 76-78

percent of recent graduates are gainfully employed.

56. According to NALP, 88.2 percent of all law school graduates are “employed”

within nine months of graduation. However, upon greater scrutiny, this number is virtually

meaningless, as it includes any kind of employment, no matter how unrelated to the legal field.

See Ex. 8.

57. Rather, the 2009 NALP Employment Report further breaks down this number into

specific percentages of graduates who are working either part-time or in non-legal jobs. By

doing this, it appears that, in actuality, only 62.9 percent of all graduates have secured some kind

of full-time legal employment.

58. Still, even that number is grossly inflated, as the 2009 NALP Employment Report

does not distinguish between temporary and permanent employment, and, thus, does not


34

expressly exclude temporary positions. If the report was to exclude temporary employment,

most likely the employment number would fall well below 50 percent.11

59. Still, even that number is probably significantly inflated, since the NALP data is

based on unaudited, unverified, self-reported information. In actuality, if law schools were

required to employ proper accounting methodologies to ascertain the true employment status of

all of their graduates -- i.e. by actually speaking to each graduate instead of relying on self-

reported data from those who actually supply it -- the employment number would be much

lower.

60. Moreover, upon information and belief, Thomas Cooley, much like many other

law schools, tabulates, calculates and tallies the raw data inputted in the job surveys filled out by

recent graduates in a shoddy, slipshod manner, cynically choosing to omit or ignore critical

statistical data that would substantially lower both placement rates and salary information

reported in its employment reports and distributed to third-party data clearinghouses.12

61. One must also bear in mind that the NALP employment number includes data

supplied by all law schools, the overwhelming majority of whom are ranked significantly higher

11 For greater analysis on the accuracy -- or inaccuracy -- of law school employment data

see Professor Paul Campos’s article in the New Republic, “Served: How Law Schools Completely Misrepresent Their Job Numbers” (April 25, 2011), where he courageously takes law schools to task for adopting dubious accounting methods in tabulating and reporting recent graduates’ employment data. (Attached as Ex. 10). In particular, he deftly demonstrates through some impressive deductive reasoning how for one highly ranked state school the actual percentage of graduates who have secured full-time, permanent legal positions could be as low as 33 percent. (Id).

12 For example, one law school, the University of California-Davis School of Law, was found to be classifying students who were studying for the bar exam as being “employed at the time of graduation,” even though they obviously were not earning any money for their studies and did not have a job lined up following taking the bar. Joel Murray, “Professional Dishonesty: Do U.S. Law Schools Who that Report False or Misleading Employment Statistics Violate Consumer Protection Laws?” Working Paper at pp. 12, fn. 49, June 7, 2011 (available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1854709).


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1854709

35

and have considerable more prestige than Thomas Cooley, which is ranked by US News in the

fourth or bottom tier of all accredited law schools. As such, logic dictates that Thomas Cooley’s

true employment rate would be well below the statistical mean of the bell curve.

62. Upon information and belief, Thomas Cooley has also employed a limited

program to further “pretty up” their employment numbers, by, among other things, hiring

unemployed graduates as “research assistants” or other “make work” positions for a specified

period of time, so as to classify them as “employed” in various employment surveys. In some

instances these internships begin in the ninth month following graduation, right before Thomas

Cooley would be required to report its employment data to the ABA, NALP and US News.

63. This practice is emblematic of the extreme measures many law schools across the

country have undertaken recently to paper over the devastation that the Great Recession has

wrought. According to NALP, 42 percent of all law schools have created post-graduate “jobs

programs” into which they hired their own recently graduated students. In particular, for the

Class of 2009, it is estimated that these programs provided over 800 jobs, accounting for a full

two percentage points in the NALP overall employment rate. For the Class of 2010, this number

has jumped to 1,200 jobs, or approximately 2.7 percent of all jobs taken by law school graduates.

See “Selected NALP Findings for the Class of 2010” (attaching Ex. 11). Thus, instead of coming

clean to prospective and current students and acknowledging the steep odds that graduates face

in securing gainful employment, law schools continue to bury their heads in the sand like nothing

is wrong, as if they can somehow wish away the brutal reality of the current economic

environment.

64. Thomas Cooley’s manipulation of employment data is all the more galling

considering that its students are graduating in one of the grimmest legal job markets in decades.


36

Since 2009 alone, some 15,000 attorney and legal-staff jobs have been eliminated by large

corporate law firms, while commoditized, legal-entry work such as document review is

increasingly being outsourced to countries outside the US, such as India. The entry-level

employment offer rate for 2009 summer associates was at a historic low of 69 percent, as

compared to 90 percent in 2008 and 93 percent in 2007. Scores of law firms have cancelled

summer programs, and in a recent survey 55 percent of law schools reported a decrease of 30

percent or more of the number of firms doing on-campus interviews, an unprecedented decline.

In another survey, only 3 percent of on-campus recruiters indicated that they were looking to hire

third-year law students, as compared to 25 percent in 2008 and 42 percent in 2007.

65. The job statistics for the Class of 2010 are equally grim, if not more so.

According to NALP, the overall employment rate for new law school graduates is the lowest it

has been since 1996. See Ex. 11. Only 68.4 percent of the class have obtained employment for

which a JD degree is required, while barely over 50 percent of the class are working in private

practice, a five-percent drop from the previous year. Id. A paltry 71 percent of the class have

obtained a job that is both full-time and permanent. Id. The number of graduates working as

solo practitioners has similarly soared, rising to 5.7 percent of all graduates employed in private

practice, which is most likely a result of graduates, faced with negligible job prospects, being

forced to hang up their own shingle. Id.

66. The starting salaries of newly minted lawyers have likewise dropped precipitously

over the past few years. The national median salary for the Class of 2010 was $63,000, a $9000

-- or 13 percent -- decline from the previous year, while the national mean salary was $84,111,

an almost $10,000 -- or ten percent -- decline from the previous year. 13 Moreover, because many

13 See http://www.nalp.org/classof2010_salpressrel.


http://www.nalp.org/classof2010_salpressrel

37

large law firm salaries cluster around $145,000 and $160,000, whereas most smaller firm salaries

hover in the $40,000 to $65,000 range, relatively few salaries were actually near the overall

median or mean.

67. A recent study by the consulting company Economic Modeling Specialist, Inc.

(“EMSI”) confirms the historically weak job market and dire employment prospects facing

current law school graduates.14 According to the study, every state besides Nebraska and

Wisconsin are producing more attorneys than they need for the foreseeable future. Across the

country, there were twice as many people who passed the bar in 2009 -- 53,508 -- as there were

job openings -- 26,239. In Michigan the numbers are particularly daunting, with 1,024 people

having passed the bar, even though the state is estimated to only need 862 new lawyers for each

year through 2015. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects the creation of 28,000 new lawyer

positions annually, well below the roughly 43,000 freshly-minted JDs pumped out in 2009.

B. Intent to Defraud

68. Thomas Cooley, as with any law school, has every incentive to perpetuate this

mass deception, because they are not required by the ABA, Department of Education or any

other governing body to independently audit or verify their employment data. The incentive to

cheat is so great that one law school dean, Phillip J. Closius of the University of Baltimore

School of Law, in a New York Times exposé about the manipulation of placement rates went to

the extent of publicly conceding that “[t]here are millions of dollars riding on students’ decisions

about where to go to law school, and that creates real institutional pressures [to manipulate

data].”15

14 See http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/the-lawyer-surplus-state-by-state/. 15 On July 29, 2011, Mr. Closius formally resigned as dean from the University of

Baltimore. In stepping down, Mr. Closius circulated a highly controversial -- and surprisingly


http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/the-lawyer-surplus-state-by-state/

38

69. Thomas Cooley’s tuition has risen dramatically over the past decade, with annual

increases that far exceed the level of inflation, and currently the tuition for full-time students

stands at $36,750, as opposed to the $24,750 that it cost a student to attend Thomas Cooley in

2005-2006. This sharp increase mirrors the tuition trend in the legal education industry in

general. Over the past two decades, law school tuition has risen exponentially, far exceeding any

increase in lawyers’ starting salaries, and at many private institutions can exceed well over

$40,000 annually, excluding living expenses. Between 1989 and 2009 alone, tuition rates have

shot up by 317 percent, well above the 71 percent seen at the undergraduate level.


increase in faculty compensation and size. The total number of law school faculty positions has

grown rapidly over the past two decades, rising from 7,241 full-time faculty members in 1990 to

10,965 full-time positions in 2008. Law school professors and deans are perhaps the best

remunerated in academia today, enjoying both lavish perks and exorbitant salaries that rival

those of Fortune 500 executives. For example, Thomas Cooley took in over $116 million in

revenue for the fiscal year 2009, and in the past two years paid its Dean, Don LeDuc, $548,047

frank -- resignation letter in which he conceded that the University of Baltimore president had asked for his resignation, and that the tensions between them had largely stemmed from the law school’s rapidly rising tuition and the fact that the University was essentially using the school to subsidize the undergraduate program, retaining an astounding 45 percent of all revenue generated by law tuition, fees and state subsidies. See http://abovethelaw.com/2011/07/a-law-dean-resigns-and-spills-the-beans-on-how-his-university-has-been-taking-advantage-of-law-students/#more-85162. The problem had grown so acute that the ABA’s Accreditation Committee requested that the University submit a report by March 2012 “which provides in part a rationale for the School of Law’s share of costs for non-law school activities and central administration services and information about any agreement between the Law School and the University regarding a fair process by which the Law School’s contribution to the University for direct and indirect costs will be determined.” Id.


http://abovethelaw.com/2011/07/a-law-dean-resigns-and-spills-the-beans-on-how-his-university-has-been-taking-advantage-of-law-students/#more-85162



39

and $523,213 in total compensation as compared to about $230,000 a mere six years ago, while

still paying its former Dean and school founder, Thomas Brennan, $368,581 and $370,245 in

total compensation. Thomas Cooley’s 11 other highest paid employees earned between

$200,225 and $249,499 in total compensation respectively, and the school spent over $47 million

on faculty salaries.

71. More disturbingly, Thomas Cooley misleads and defrauds its students while

saddling them with tens of thousands of dollars in crushing, non-dischargeable debt. According

to US News, TCLS students graduate on average with a staggering $105,798 in loans, with a

stunning 93 percent of them taking out loans to attend the school.16 Nationwide, the debt burden

of law school graduates continues to rise unabated, and the average debt burden for all law

school graduates is almost $100,000, up sharply from $16,000 in 1987.

72. Worse yet, Thomas Cooley is primarily marketing its product to naïve, relatively

unsophisticated consumers -- many of whom are barely removed from college -- who are often

making their first “big-ticket” purchase based on asymmetrical information. These prospective

students are applying to law school with one objective in mind: to attain the kind of job that

provides compensation and a lifestyle that is commensurate with and worthy of the enormous

time, money and personal sacrifice invested in a legal education. However, if Thomas Cooley

was to disclose accurate employment data and the steep odds its graduates face in securing

gainful employment, it would become abundantly clear to any rational purchaser how poor of an

investment attending TCLS is.

16 According to FinAid.org, a graduate needs to make at least $138,000 annually to repay $100,000 without enduring financial hardship, or $92,000 annually to repay the debt with financial difficultly. See http/www.finaid.org.calculators/loanpayments/phtml.


40

73. To a remarkable extent, Thomas Cooley -- like most law schools -- has been

astonishingly successful in pulling the wool over prospective students. Currently, the school

enrolls about 4,000 students, and its enrollment has skyrocketed since 2006, when the ABA

finally granted accreditation to its three satellite campuses. Last year, law schools awarded over

43,000 JD degrees (an additional 41,156 this year), an increase of 11 percent from a decade

earlier, while the number of students taking the law school entrance examination (LSAT)

increased by over 20 percent between 2007 and 2009.17 For the 2009-2010 academic year, a

record 154,549 students were enrolled in American law schools, including a record 51,426 first-

year students, up by over 60 percent from the 91,225 students who enrolled in ABA accredited

law schools in 1971. The total number of law schools has increased by nine percent over the

past decade and by over 25 percent over the past four decades, and, despite the ominous

employment trends and dearth of available jobs, there are a handful of new law schools that are

slated to open their doors in the next few years. Allowing the status quo to persist will almost

certainly ensure that tens of thousands of law school graduates -- a whole “lost” generation of

lawyers -- will continue to be churned out over the next decade with absolutely no realistic

chance of ever earning back their investment. 18

17 Finally, after years of double-digit growth, law school applications for the 2011-2012 academic year dropped by 10 percent. See Nathan Koppel, “Bloom’s Off Law School Rope,” Wall Street Journal Law Blog, September 28, 2011, http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/09/28/bloom-remains-off-law-school-rose/. Undoubtedly, this stems from the recent upsurge in media scrutiny on the inability of law school graduates to obtain gainful employment and the overall grim reality of one of the worst legal job market in decades. See e.g. David Segal, “Is Law School a Losing Game?” New York Times, January 8, 2011.

18True to its past pattern and practices of making unfounded claims that are simply not supported by facts, Thomas Cooley, despite the wealth of evidence indicating to the contrary, erroneously contends that the legal industry has somehow been immune to the ravages of the recession. See in general http://www.cooley.edu/reports/nationalem ployment.html. In fact, Thomas Cooley has issued its own report to expressly counter the narrative of “bloggers” and “small elements within the media” that attending law school could be financially ruinous and




http://www.cooley.edu/reports/nationalem%20%20ployment.html

41

IV. Manipulating Salary Information

74. Further, Thomas Cooley grossly inflates their graduates’ reported mean salaries,

by calculating them based on a small, deliberately selected subset of graduates who actually

reported their salary information, and not on a broad, statistically meaningful representation of

its graduates.

75. For that matter, Thomas Cooley doesn’t even publish in its employment report the

percentage or number of graduates who actually report salary information. See Exs. 2-6. As

such, there is no possible way for a prospective student looking at Thomas Cooley’s marketing

material to determine if the reported salary information accurately reflects the salaries earned by

recent Thomas Cooley graduates.

76. Additionally, an examination of employment data produced by U.S. News

demonstrates the dubious value and deceptive nature of Thomas Cooley’s mean salary

information. According to US News, for the Class of 2009, only 38 percent of graduates

working in the private sector -- i.e. private practice or “business” -- reported salary information,

which is a mere 18 percent of the all graduates reporting employment data. Meanwhile US News

which supposedly summarizes data produced by the U.S. Bureau of Labor that allegedly demonstrates that the actual unemployment rate for lawyers is 1.5 percent.

Needless to say, this report is full of logical fallacies, false assumptions, and deliberate half-truths and omissions, including, chiefly, that the data is self-reported and involves the employment rate for all attorneys, not recent graduates. See in general, Matt Leichter, “Dear Prospective Law Students, Do Not ‘Reasonably Rely’ on Cooley’s ‘Report One’” The AmLaw Daily, November 3, 2011, http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2011/11/dear-prospective-law-students-do-not-reasonably-rely-on-cooleys-report-one.html. Additionally, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (“BLS”) itself predicts that between 2008 and 2018 the U.S. economy will add roughly 240,000 attorney jobs, while ABA-accredited law schools are estimated to graduate over 440,000 graduates during that period of time. Id. The BLS’s Occupational Outlook Handbook specifically states about the employment prospects of recent law school graduates that “competition for job openings should continue to be keen because of the large number of students graduating from law school each year,” a sentiment it has persistently reiterated each year since 1996. Id


http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2011/11/dear-prospective-law-students-do-not-reasonably-rely-on-cooleys-report-one.html

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2011/11/dear-prospective-law-students-do-not-reasonably-rely-on-cooleys-report-one.html

42

did not report the percentage of students working in non-private-sector positions, such as

government or public interest, who disclosed salary information.

77. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs believe that a substantial portion of recent

TCLS graduates make significantly less than the reported mean salaries, and that Thomas Cooley

has intentionally failed to include these salaries in any statistical analysis or calculations.

Thomas Cooley knowingly and purposely omits the salaries of graduates who have secured only

temporary or part-time employment from its official marketing material. This material

nondisclosure has the effect of “goosing” the numbers, making it appear their graduates earn

substantially more money than the reality of the situation.

78. In actuality, many TCLS graduates are in dire financial straits, living paycheck to

paycheck, barely able to pay off their tens of thousands of dollars in non-dischargeable debt,

much less save enough money for down payments for homes or other major purchases that

signify one’s entrance into adulthood. They are working in mostly dead-end jobs, doing

document review and other menial, mindless drudgery, essentially functioning as glorified

paralegals or secretaries with little control over their careers. In short, they do not earn -- and

most likely will never earn -- the kind of money that could possibly make attending Thomas

Cooley a worthwhile investment.

V. Challenging the Status Quo

79. Fortunately, after much public hand-wringing and increased media scrutiny, the

tectonic plates in the legal profession have finally begun to shift, as practitioners and politicians

alike are starting to roundly demand that law schools change their deceptive ways and accurately

report all available employment information.


43

80. For example, Senator Barbara Boxer of California has sent three separate letters

to the ABA taking them to task for failing to properly police the law school industry. See

Letters from Senator Barbara Boxer to Stephen Zack, dated March 31, 2011 & May 20, 2011

(attaching Ex. 12). In her May 20th letter, she directly implored the ABA to require that all law

schools independently audit and verify employment data and salary information that are either

included in marketing material to prospective students or disseminated to third-party information

clearinghouses and publications, such as US News and the ABA. In her third letter sent on

October 6, 2011, she further admonished the organization for “resorting to half measures instead

of tackling a major problem head on” despite the deafening public outcry for greater scrutiny in

the way law schools disclose placement rates. See Letter from Senator Barbara Boxer to Wm. T.

Robinson III, dated October 6, 2011 (attaching Ex. 13). Senator Boxer has even reached across

the aisle with her colleague Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma to ask the Department of

Education to step in and investigate the law school industry for its systemic failure to properly

disclose employment prospects to prospective and current students. See Letter from Senator

Barbara Boxer & Senator Tom Coburn to Kathleen Tighe, dated October 13, 2011 (attaching Ex.

14).

81. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa has sent his own letter to the ABA, demanding

that the organization answer 31 detailed questions pertaining to the ABA’s regulation of the law

school industry. See Letter from Senator Charles Grassley to Stephen Zack, dated July 11, 2011

(attaching Ex. 15). In particular, Senator Grassley references the questionable practices

employed by law schools when offering merit-based scholarships (i.e. they extend substantially

more scholarships than they can possibly renew), the supersaturated job market facing new

graduates, and the increased debt burden assumed by law school students as raising serious


44

concerns whether tax payers will ultimately be on the hook for the billions of millions of dollars

in federally-backed loans that ultimately flow into law school coffers each year. Following an

inadequate response by the ABA to his queries, Senator Grasserly has sent a second letter, dated

August 8, 2011, challenging the ABA’s apparent confidence that law students will be able to pay

back their government-backed, non-dischargeable loans despite the dearth of available job

opportunities. See Letter from Senator Charles Grassley to Stephen Zack, dated August 8, 2011,

& Accompanying Press Release (the “Second Grassley Letter”)( attaching Ex. 16).

82. Similarly, a coalition of 55 law school student body presidents, fed up with the

ABA’s inability to properly police law schools, have sent to Congress proposed legislation that

would ensure “enhanced accuracy, accountability and transparency in the reporting of data

pertaining to legal education.” See Student Bar Association’s Proposed Bill (“SBA Bill”) and

accompanying Press Release (attaching Ex. 17). Among other things, the proposed legislation

creates a new standard for reporting employment data, requires law schools to submit annual

employment reports to the Department of Education (“DOE”), mandates that law school deans

personally endorse such reports, and empowers the DOE to audit the reports. The SBA Bill

expressly aims to parallel federal securities laws, where publicly-held companies must submit

annual reports to the SEC disclosing material financial information.

83. The problem has gotten so far out of hand that Bill Hebert, President of the

California Bar Association, in a much-publicized article in the California Bar Journal exhorts law

school deans to adopt more rigorous reporting standards by disclosing the type of detailed

employment and salary data that would allow students to get a realistic picture of their post-

graduate financial situation. Bill Hebert, “What is the Value of the Law Degree?” California Bar

Journal, February 2011(attaching Ex. 18). Hebert chides schools for “hiding employment


45

outcomes in aggregate statistical forms,” and impresses upon them the need to reveal the exact

percentage of their graduates who have actually obtained full-time, permanent employment -- the

type of information Plaintiffs are now seeking. Id.

84. Along these lines, Howard B. Miller, the previous President of the California Bar,

went so far as to all but accuse law schools of committing fraud in the way they tabulate and

report employment information to third party data clearinghouses like the ABA and U.S. News.

Specifically, he wrote in the California Bar Journal: “There is notoriously unreliable self-

reporting by law schools and their graduates of employment statistics. They are unreliable in

only one direction, since the self reporting by law schools of ‘employment’ of graduates at

graduation and then nine months after graduation are, together, a significant factor in the U.S.

News rankings -- which are obsessed over, despite denials, by law schools and their

constituencies. The anecdotes are as telling as the statistics: prestigious lawyers in the state are

hiring their own children to work in their firms because even with their connections they were

unable to find employment elsewhere.” Howard B. Miller, “Truth in Lending and Careers,”

California Bar Journal, May 2010 (attaching Ex. 19).

VI. Role of the ABA

85. The ABA’s Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar is responsible

for accrediting and regulating all accredited legal institutions. Unfortunately, despite years of

vociferous complaints by industry insiders regarding the pervasive practice that law schools

blatantly manipulate employment data, the ABA has been largely derelict in its duties,

essentially allowing law schools to behave with impunity as they bamboozle their students.

86. In general, the ABA has absolutely no mechanism by which to address Plaintiffs’

claims, since law school students and graduates are strictly prohibited from bringing such claims


46

before the organization. Indeed, Rule 24 of the ABA Standards for Approval of Law Schools

expressly states:

This process is not available to serve as a mediating or dispute-resolving process for persons with complaints about the policies or actions of an approved law school. The Council, Accreditation Committee and the Consultant on Legal Education will not intervene with an approved law school on behalf of an individual with a complaint against or concern about action taken by a law school that adversely affects that individual. The outcome of this process will not be the ordering of any individual relief for any person or specific action by a law school with respect to any individual. (Emphasis added). 19

87. Considering the makeup of the two ABA committees that regulate law schools, it

is not surprising that the ABA has consistently acted on the law school industry’s behalf at the

expense of students and graduates. The ABA’s Legal Education Council is dominated by law

school deans, as both its current chair, John O’Brien of the New England School of Law, and

chair-elect, Kent Syverud of the Washington University School of Law, are deans of large,

prominent law schools. Likewise, the committee of the Legal Education Council which is

directly responsible for regulating the reporting of post-graduate placement data -- i.e. the

Questionnaire Committee -- is dominated by law school deans and professors, including its

current chair, Dean Art Gaudio of the Western New England College School of Law. See in

general Ex. 16 (Second Grassley Letter) at p. 2 (noting that legal academics and university

presidents and vice presidents comprise approximately 48, 52 and 64 percent of the three

accreditation-related committees).

19 Similarly, Plaintiffs cannot seek redress from the Department of Education, which administers Federal financial assistance to students, since the DOE only authorizes suits against the Secretary of Education, not against individual schools. See 20 U.S.C. § 1082(a)(2).


47

88. The undue influence exerted by the legal academy over the ABA has led the

National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, which advises the

Department of Education on accreditation issues, to question the ABA’s overall competency as

an accrediting body. Specifically, the committee found that the ABA had failed to comply with

17 regulations, including, among others, failing “to set a standard for job placement by its

member institutions.” See http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2011/06/aba-is.html. One of

the members on the committee, Arthur Keiser, publicly accused the ABA of “not getting it,”

noting that an accrediting agency would never accredit an institution with 17 outstanding issues.

Id; see also Ex. 15 (First Grassley Letter) at p.1 (quoting June 11, 2011 article from The

Chronicle of Higher Education which describes the committee’s members as expressing

“frustration that they could not take stronger actions or at least state their concerns [regarding the

ABA’s lackluster accreditation process] with stronger language.”)

89. It is only until recently that the ABA has finally adopted measures that would

require greater reporting transparency, by mandating that law schools “unbundle” employment

data. See “Questionnaire Committee’s Memo on Reporting Placement Data on Annual

Questionnaire,” dated July 27, 2011 (attaching Ex. 20). Admittedly, these new guidelines mark a

positive first step forward and at least attempts to rectify the most egregious deceptive practices,

by, among other things, expressly mandating that law schools distinguish between various

degrees of employment, such as permanent or temporary, JD-required and not requiring a JD

degree, and whether a position is funded by a law school.

90. Nonetheless, the ABA has not gone nearly far enough in disincentivizing schools

from “cooking” the data. First, the guidelines will not go into effect for at least another year,

thereby allowing law schools to continue deceiving prospective students. For example, the ABA


http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2011/06/aba-is.html

48

will not require that law schools publicly disclose the true employment data for the Class of

2010, even though it is retroactively requiring that school obtain such data for bookkeeping

purposes.20 Second, the guidelines still permit schools to continue self-reporting all employment

data and salary information, and do not require that they retain unrelated, independent third-

parties to audit and verify such data. Finally, these changes come too late for Plaintiffs and

thousands of TCLS graduates like them who have already taken on tens of thousands of dollars

in non-dischargeable debt based on Thomas Cooley’s deceptive and misleading statements.

91. Indeed, based on the ABA’s recent behavior one wonders how serious the

organization is in implementing these reforms. After initially agreeing to rely on the

independent-minded and industry gold-standard NALP to gather the relevant employment data,

the ABA, in a complete 180-degree turn, attempted to cut NALP out of the process entirely,

expressly rejecting the recommendation of the Questionnaire Committee that NALP and the

ABA work jointly together. See e.g., “Letter from James Leipold and Marcelyn Cox to Christine

Durham,” dated July 28, 2011 (attaching Ex. 21). In assessing the reason for this apparent

about-face, James Leipold, NALP’s Executive Director, in an interview with the National Law

20Robert Morse, “ABA Falls Short in Efforts to Improve Law School Placement Data,” U.S. News & World Report, September 1, 2011 (“The ABA says it will not publish school specific salary data [for the Class of 2010], but instead will publish salaries by state and region not linked to the performance of any school. These state and region results are not limited to the data from any particular law school. Prospective students want to know the average salaries of the graduates from each law school as part of being able to determine the economic viability of earning a J.D. degree from that school. The ABA should have the power to get law schools to report accurate salary data on a school-by-school basis and should trust law students to be able to understand the meaning and limits of such data.”); see also Karen Sloan, “ABA Stalls on Honing Law Schools’ Job Placement Reports,” The National Law Journal, September 26, 2011 (“The ABA Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar ‘has done a huge disservice to prospective law students, law schools and the legal profession,’ said Law School Transparency Executive Director Kyle McEntee. ‘The legal employment rate is a basic yet crucial part of informing prospective law students. The failure to require law schools to disclose this rate legitimizes questions about whether the section is a body captured by special interests.’”) (emphasis added).


49

Journal stressed, “I think they [the ABA] see NALP's candor about the state of the legal job

market as harmful to the industry. I believe their intent is to recapture their ability to control the

message to the public about the status of the job market. There's a conflict of interest here.”21

While the two organizations, for the time being, have articulated a desire “to move forward” and

“discuss ways to address the needs of all parties,” no official compromise has been reached on

this issue.22

92. The sobering reality of the situation is that law schools are no different than the

proverbial fox guarding the henhouse, and when given the opportunity and incentive to act

within their self-interests by making themselves look better, they almost certainly will. Earlier

this year, the Dean of Villanova Law School was forced to come clean and admit that the school

in the past “knowingly” reported false and inaccurate information to the ABA.23 Likewise, the

21 Karen Sloan, “NALP Clashes with ABA over Jobs Data – and Hints at Legal Action,”

National Law Journal, August 1, 2011; see also, Professor William D. Henderson, “More Data but Less Transparency,” National Law Journal, August 2, 2011, (noting that ABA’s proposal would undermine NALP’s ability to collect, analyze and publish accurate employment data;; “In a nutshell, here is the problem. Law schools are heavily burdened by information requests. The law schools will comply with any information request from the ABA because the ABA is their accrediting agency. If the ABA and NALP cover much of the same ground but use different terminology -- the ABA will have to invent its own to avoid infringing on NALP's detailed classification system -- then some schools may forgo the voluntary submission to NALP. Unfortunately, NALP cannot publish reliable industry-level statistics if law schools cannot spare the time and expense to fill out a duplicative information request.”).

22 Rachel Zahorsky, “NALP Backs Off Threat to Sue ABA, Renews Spirit of Collaboration,” ABA Journal, August 5, 2011, http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/aba_and_nalp_renew_collaboration_efforts_at_aba_annual_meeting/.

23Incredibly, the ABA, despite Villanova’s acknowledgment that it systematically misrepresented its students’ median LSATs and GPAs for an extended period of time, essentially slapped the school on the wrist, requiring that it merely post a “public censure” on its website for the next two years. See e.g., Elie Mystal, “Villanova Might Need A Kiss From Mommy Since The ABA Slapped Their Wrist Wreally Wreally Whard,” Abovethelaw.com, August 15, 2011, http://abovethelaw.com/2011/08/villanova-might-need-a-kiss-from-mommy-since-the-aba-slapped-their-wrist-wreally-wreally-whard/ (“We shouldn’t be surprised that the American Bar


http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/aba_and_nalp_renew_collaboration_efforts_at_aba_annual_meeting/

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/aba_and_nalp_renew_collaboration_efforts_at_aba_annual_meeting/

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/08/villanova-might-need-a-kiss-from-mommy-since-the-aba-slapped-their-wrist-wreally-wreally-whard/




http://abovethelaw.com/american-bar-association-aba/

50

University of Illinois College of Law has recently admitted to grossly inflating their reported

median LSAT score and grade point average that were posted on its website.24 Rather, just as

publicly-held companies must independently audit their financial statements so as to ensure the

integrity of the marketplace, the same must be demanded of law schools so as to ensure that

prospective students -- i.e. consumers -- are making well-informed, carefully-considered

decisions based on 100-percent accurate information.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

93. This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a class action pursuant

to Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs bring this action,

on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, as representative members of the

following proposed class (the “Class”):

All persons who are either presently enrolled or have been enrolled in a JD program at

any Thomas Cooley campus anytime since August 11, 2005.

94. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, Thomas Cooley, its employees, officers

and directors, the Judge(s) assigned to this case, and the attorneys of record in this case.

Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the Class definition if discovery and further investigation

reveal that the Class should be expanded or otherwise modified.

Association barely cares about law schools misleading prospective law students when the organization doesn’t even really seem to mind when law school lie directly to the ABA itself. The Villanova Law LSAT scandal has been resolved, and boy are you going to be underwhelmed by the penalties associated with lying to the ABA for four years.”) 24Karen Sloan, “Illinois Acknowledges Goosing Credentials of Incoming Students,” National Law Journal, September 19, 2011, http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202514918155&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&pt=NLJ.com-%20Daily%20Headlines&cn=20110920nl.


http://abovethelaw.com/villanova-university-school-of-law/

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202514918155&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&pt=NLJ.com-%20Daily%20Headlines&cn=20110920nl



51

95. For the foregoing reasons, this action fulfills the standards and requirements as

outlined in Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure:

A. The Parties are Numerous and Easily Ascertainable

96. The proposed Class is so numerous that it is manifestly impracticable to bring

them all before the court. Though the exact number and identities of the Class is unknown at this

time, they can be ascertained through appropriate discovery, and likely contain thousands of

people, as nearly one thousand students graduate from Thomas Cooley each year. The number

and identities of other Class members may be determined from Defendants’ records and files,

and potential Class members may easily be notified about the pendency of this action.

B. Common Questions of Law and Facts Predominate

97. This action presents questions of law and facts common to the Class, including,

but not limited to, the following:

a. Whether Defendants are engaged in deceptive, misleading, unfair,

fraudulent and/or otherwise unlawful practices through their non-disclosure of material facts and

affirmative misleading statements regarding post-graduate employment data and salary

information, and by specifically representing that approximately 76-82 percent of their graduates

secure employment within nine months of graduation at a salary of roughly $50,000;

b. Whether Defendants know the true and real percentage of recent graduates

who secure full-time, permanent employment for which a JD degree is required or preferred and

are, therefore, gainfully employed, and if that number is substantially lower than 76-82 percent;

c. Whether Defendants know the true mean salary of their graduates, and if

that number is substantially lower than $50,000;


52

d. Whether Defendants’ conduct violated the MCPA and constitute fraud,

constructive fraud and/or negligent misrepresentation, as alleged herein;

e. Whether Plaintiffs and Class members are entitled to recover actual

damages as a result of the actions alleged herein;

f. Whether Plaintiffs and members of the Class are entitled to recover

restitution of tuition monies remitted to Defendants as a result of the actions alleged herein;

g. Whether Plaintiffs and members of the Class are entitled to ancillary

relief, including the disgorgement of unearned profits, as a result of the actions alleged herein;

h. Whether Plaintiffs and Class members of the Class are entitled to recover

punitive damages as a result of the actions alleged herein;

i. Whether Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to an award of

reasonable attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment interest and costs of this suit;

j. Whether Defendants should be forced to retain independent, non-related

third-parties to audit and verify their post-graduate employment data and salary information; and

k. Whether Defendants should be enjoined from continuing to make false

and misleading representations and omissions regarding their post-graduate employment data

and salary information.

C. Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Typical of the Class

98. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims and of the members of the Class

because they have all been damaged in the same manner and way as a result of Defendants’

failure to disclose material facts and policies of misrepresentation and omissions. Accordingly,

the interests of the representative Plaintiffs are co-extensive with the interests of each Class

member, and all have a common right of recovery based upon the same facts.


53

D. The Class Representatives Can Adequately Represent the Class

99. Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Class because Plaintiffs are members

of the Class and their interests do not conflict with the interests of the Class. The interests of the

Class will be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiffs and their undersigned counsel, who are

competent and experienced in the prosecution of class action litigation.

E. A Class Action Provides a Substantial Benefit to the Courts and Litigants

100. Should individual Class members be required to bring separate actions, courts

throughout Michigan would be confronted by a multiplicity of lawsuits, thus burdening the court

system while also creating the risk of inconsistent rulings and contradictory judgments. In

contrast to proceeding on a case-by-case basis, in which inconsistent results would magnify the

delay and expense to all parties and the court system, this class action will present far fewer

management difficulties while providing unitary adjudication, economies of scale and

comprehensive supervision by a single court.

101. Members of the Class almost invariably lack the means to pay attorneys to

prosecute their claims individually. Given the complexity of the issues presented here,

individual claims are not sufficiently sizeable to attract the interests of highly able and dedicated

attorneys who will prosecute them on a contingency basis. Only by aggregating claims can

Plaintiffs gain the leverage necessary to pursue a just and global resolution of the issues raised in

this Complaint.

102. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class, pray for an

order certifying the Class and appointing Plaintiffs and their counsel of record to represent the

Class.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION


54

(Against All Defendants for Violations of the Consumer Protection Act, MCLS §445.901, et seq.)



104. Defendants’ actions constitute unlawful, unfair, deceptive and fraudulent

actions/practices as defined by the Consumer Protection Act, MCLS §445.901, et seq. or the

MCPA, as they occurred in the course of trade or commerce.

105. Plaintiffs did not enroll in Thomas Cooley with the intention of using their JD

degree for an ongoing business or to start a non-legal business, but rather intended to use their JD

degree to prospectively better themselves and their personal circumstances through the

attainment of full-time employment in the legal sector.

106. As part of its fraudulent marketing practices and recruitment program, Thomas

Cooley engaged in a pattern and practice of knowingly and intentionally making numerous false


induce reliance by Plaintiffs and the members of the Class and cause them to pay inflated tuition.

These false representations violated the MCPA as follows:

a. Falsely stating that, depending on the year, approximately 80 percent of Thomas

Cooley graduates secured employment within nine months of graduation, when,

in fact, TCLS’s reported employment rate included temporary and part-time

employment and/or employment for which a JD was not required or preferred –

employment Plaintiffs would have been eligible for even without obtaining a

TCLS degree and paying TCLS tuition;


55

b. Falsely stating that, depending on the year, Thomas Cooley graduates earned, on

average, approximately $50,000, when, in fact, only a small subset of graduates

earned such salaries;

c. Failing to reveal that Thomas Cooley’s reported employment rate included

temporary and part-time employment and/or employment for which a JD was not

required or preferred, which made the posted statistics misleading and could not

be reasonably known to Plaintiffs;

d. Failing to provide the promised benefit of a Thomas Cooley JD degree, namely

that, depending on the year, approximately 80 percent of TCLS graduates secure

full-time, permanent employment for which a JD degree is required or preferred

and earned on average $50,000;

e. Making the material representation that, depending on the year, approximately 80

percent of Thomas Cooley graduates are employed nine months after graduation

and earn on average $50,000, thereby suggesting a state of affairs that was

different than it actually was because TCLS’s statistics included temporary and

part-time employment and/or employment for which a JD was not required or

preferred; and

f. Failing to reveal that its reported employment rate included temporary and part-

time employment and/or employment for which a JD was not required or

preferred, facts that are material to the transaction (i.e. Plaintiffs decision to pay

TCLS’s tuition), and in fact resulted in Plaintiffs paying inflated tuition.

107. The Defendants’ above-alleged actions constitute unfair business practices since

the actions were deceptive, immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, substantially injurious,


56

and operate to the competitive disadvantage of other law schools. They are also likely to deceive

the public. Moreover, the injury to the Plaintiffs was substantial and outweighs the utility of the

Defendants’ practices.

108. The Defendants’ practices, in addition, are unfair and deceptive because they have

caused Plaintiffs and the Class substantial harm, which is not outweighed by any countervailing

benefits to consumers or competition, and is not an injury consumers themselves could have

reasonably avoided.

109. The Defendants’ acts and practices have misled and deceived the general public in

the past, and will continue to mislead and deceive the general public into the future, by, among

other things, causing them to apply to and enroll at Thomas Cooley under false pretenses.

110. Plaintiffs are entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief ordering the

Defendants to immediately cease these unfair business practices, as well as disgorgement and

restitution to Plaintiffs of all revenue associated with their unfair practices, or such revenues as

the Court may find equitable and just, including the partial reimbursement of tuition. Plaintiffs

further request that the Court enters a declaratory judgment that Thomas Cooley’s representation

that approximately 80 percent of their graduates are employed and earn roughly $50,000

constitutes MCPA violations, insomuch as most of these graduates have not secured full-time,

permanent employment for which a JD degree is required or preferred. Plaintiffs also request

that they be awarded all attorneys to the extent permitted by the MCPA.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Against All Defendants for Fraud)




57







including that, depending on the year, approximately 80 percent of TCLS

graduates secured employment within nine months of graduation;


the overwhelming majority of recent TCLS graduates secure full-time, permanent


c. Grossly inflating the salaries earned by recent TCLS graduates, by reporting that

they earned approximately $50,000, even though only a small subset of graduates

earned such wages;

d. Disseminating false post-graduate employment data and salary information to


News;


concerning the value of a TCLS law degree;





58

g. Causing students to pay inflated tuition based on material misleading statement,

representations and omissions, including, specifically, that, depending on the year,

approximately 80 percent of TCLS graduates secure gainful employment and

earned approximately $50,000.

113. In general, Plaintiffs and members of the Class enrolled at Thomas Cooley for the

purpose of securing full-time, permanent employment upon graduation. Defendants’ acts and

practices, therefore, were material to Plaintiffs’ decision to enroll and attend TCLS, and were

justifiably relied upon by Plaintiffs, and further proximately caused Plaintiffs and other members


114. Plaintiffs and members of the Class did in fact justifiably rely on these material

representations and omissions when deciding to enroll at Thomas Cooley. Specifically, Plaintiffs

reviewed and relied upon post-graduate employment data and salary information posted on

Thomas Cooley’s website and included in marketing brochures, as well as all such information



percent of its graduates were employed within nine months of graduation and earned a mean

salary of roughly $50,000.

115. The material representations and omissions were part of a common scheme,

practice and plan conceived and executed by Thomas Cooley to mislead, deceive and defraud

Plaintiffs and members of the Class. Defendants made these statements and representations

regarding their graduates’ employment data and salary information, including their graduates’

ability to secure full-time, permanent employment for which a JD degree is required or preferred,

knowing full well they were false, untrue, fraudulent and deceptive. In fact, Defendants know


59

that the overwhelming majority of their graduates fail to secure gainful employment following

graduation, and are forced to take jobs incommensurate to their education level.

116. Plaintiffs were, at all relevant times, ignorant of the true facts and did not know

that in actuality few Thomas Cooley graduates secure full-time, permanent employment for

which a JD degree is required or preferred. Had Plaintiffs known of the dire financial straits

faced by the overwhelming majority of TCLS students following graduation, and that in fact

substantially fewer than 80 percent of Thomas Cooley graduates secure full-time, permanent

employment for which a JD degree is required or preferred or earned approximately $50,000,

they would never have enrolled at Thomas Cooley and incurred tens of thousands of dollars in

non-dischargeable debt.

117. In addition, Thomas Cooley occupies a fiduciary position as educators and owes a

heightened duty of care to Plaintiffs and members of the Class to act in good faith and engage in

fair dealings. Likewise, by virtue of the fact that many of Thomas Cooley’s staff and faculty are

attorneys and members of the Michigan Bar, they have certain ethical obligations and

responsibilities to Plaintiffs and members of the Class. Similarly, the existence of a Financial

Aid Office and the fact that Thomas Cooley provides advice and assistance to students on how to

procure the necessary financing to fund their education, establishes a fiduciary duty to act in

good faith and engage in fair dealings. Defendants breached these heightened duties of care by

making a series of material misstatements and omissions regarding their graduates’ employment

data and salary information.

118. The above-referenced material misstatements and omissions were knowingly,

willfully, intentionally, maliciously, oppressively, and fraudulently undertaken with the express

purpose and intention of defrauding Plaintiffs and the members of the Class, as well as to the


60

substantial benefit of the Defendants. Consequently, Plaintiffs and members of the Class are

entitled to punitive damages, the disgorgement of tuition monies, the reimbursement of

attorneys’ fees and all other monetary and equitable relief as the Court may find equitable and

just.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Against All Defendants for Negligent Misrepresentation)









including that, depending on the year, approximately 80 percent of TCLS

graduates secured employment within nine months of graduation;


the overwhelming majority of recent TCLS graduates secure full-time, permanent


c. Grossly inflating the salaries earned by recent TCLS graduates, by reporting that

they earned approximately $50,000, even though only a small subset of graduates

earned such wages;


61

d. Disseminating false post-graduate employment data and salary information to


News;


concerning the value of a TCLS law degree;




g. Causing students to pay inflated tuition based on material misleading statement,

representations and omissions, including, specifically, that, depending on the year,

approximately 80 percent of TCLS graduates secure gainful employment and

earned approximately $50,000.

121. In general, Plaintiffs and members of the Class enrolled at Thomas Cooley for the

purpose of securing full-time, permanent employment upon graduation. Defendants’ acts and

practices, therefore, were material to Plaintiffs’ decision to enroll and attend TCLS, and were

justifiably relied upon by Plaintiffs, and further proximately caused Plaintiffs and other members


122. Plaintiffs and members of the Class did in fact justifiably rely on these material

representations and omissions when deciding to enroll at Thomas Cooley. Specifically, Plaintiffs

reviewed and relied upon post-graduate employment data and salary information posted on

Thomas Cooley’s website and included in marketing brochures, as well as all such information




62

percent of its graduates were employed within nine months of graduation and earned a mean

salary of roughly $50,000.

123. The material representations and omissions were part of a common scheme,

practice and plan conceived and executed by Thomas Cooley to mislead, deceive and defraud

Plaintiffs and members of the Class. Defendants made these statements and representations

regarding their graduates’ employment data and salary information, including their graduates’

ability to secure full-time, permanent employment for which a JD degree is required or preferred,

knowing full well they were false, untrue, fraudulent and deceptive. In fact, Defendants know

that the overwhelming majority of their graduates fail to secure gainful employment following

graduation, and are forced to take jobs incommensurate to their education level.

124. Plaintiffs were, at all relevant times, ignorant of the true facts and did not know

that in actuality few Thomas Cooley graduates secure full-time, permanent employment for

which a JD degree is required or preferred. Had Plaintiffs known of the dire financial straits

faced by the overwhelming majority of TCLS students following graduation, and that in fact

substantially fewer than 80 percent of Thomas Cooley graduates secure full-time, permanent

employment for which a JD degree is required or preferred or earned approximately $50,000,

they would never have enrolled at Thomas Cooley and incurred tens of thousands of dollars in

non-dischargeable debt.

125. In addition, Thomas Cooley occupies a fiduciary position as educators and owes a

heightened duty of care to Plaintiffs and members of the Class to act in good faith and engage in

fair dealings. Likewise, by virtue of the fact that many of Thomas Cooley’s staff and faculty are

attorneys and members of the Michigan Bar, they have certain ethical obligations and

responsibilities to Plaintiffs and members of the Class. Similarly, the existence of a Financial


63

Aid Office and the fact that Thomas Cooley provides advice and assistance to students on how to

procure the necessary financing to fund their education, establishes a fiduciary duty to act in

good faith and engage in fair dealings. Defendants breached these heightened duties of care by

making a series of material misstatements and omissions regarding their graduates’ employment

data and salary information.

126. The above-referenced material misstatements and omissions were knowingly,

willfully, intentionally, maliciously, oppressively, and fraudulently undertaken with the express

purpose and intention of defrauding Plaintiffs and the members of the Class, as well as to the

substantial benefit of the Defendants. Consequently, Plaintiffs and members of the Class are

entitled to punitive damages, the disgorgement of tuition monies, the reimbursement of

attorneys’ fees and all other monetary and equitable relief as the Court may find equitable and

just.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, pray for

relief and judgment against Defendants Thomas Cooley and Does 1 though 20 as follows:

1. For preliminary and injunctive relief enjoining Defendants, their agents, servants,

employees and all persons acting in concert with them from continuing to engage in

their unlawful recruitment program and manipulation of post-graduate employment

data and salary information, and all other unfair, unlawful and /or fraudulent business

practices alleged above and that may yet be discovered in the prosecution of this

action;

2. For certification of the Class;


64

3. For restitution and disgorgement of partial tuition monies remitted to Thomas Cooley,

totaling $300 million, which is the difference between the inflated tuition paid by

Class members based on the material misrepresentations that, depending on the year,

approximately 80 percent of graduates are employed within nine months of

graduation and earn roughly $50,000, and the true value of a Thomas Cooley degree;

4. For damages;

5. For punitive damages;

6. For an accounting by Defendants for any and all profits derived by them from the

herein-alleged unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent conduct and/or business practices;

7. For injunctive relief ordering that Thomas Cooley retains unrelated, independent

third-parties to audit and verify post-graduate employment data and salary

information, and that Thomas Cooley disclose the true percentage of graduates who

secure full-time, permanent employment for which a JD degree is required or

preferred;

8. For attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to all applicable laws;;

9. For prejudgment interest; and

10. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.

DATED: November 9, 2011 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

THE HYDER LAW FIRM, P.C. By: /s/ Steven Hyder Steven Hyder (P69875) The Hyder Law Firm, P.C.


65

PO Box 2242 Monroe, MI 48161 [email protected] Phone (734) 757-4586 David Anziska Law Offices of David Anziska 305 Broadway, 9th Fl. New York, NY 10007 Phone (212) 822-1496

Facsimile (212) 822-1437 Jesse Strauss (admitted NY – 4182002) Strauss Law, PLLC


Facsimile (212) 822-1437 Counsel for Plaintiffs, individually

and for all others similarly situated



66

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all causes of action so triable.

DATED: November 9, 2011 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

THE HYDER LAW FIRM, P.C. By: /s/ Steven Hyder Steven Hyder (P69875) The Hyder Law Firm, P.C. PO Box 2242 Monroe, MI 48161 [email protected] Phone (734) 757-4586 David Anziska Law Offices of David Anziska 305 Broadway, 9th Fl. New York, NY 10007 Phone (212) 822-1496

Facsimile (212) 822-1437 Jesse Strauss (admitted NY – 4182002) Strauss Law, PLLC


Facsimile (212) 822-1437 Counsel for Plaintiffs, individually

and for all others similarly situated



EXHIBIT D THE NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL

(FEB. 1, 2012)


ALM Properties, Inc. Page printed from: http://www.nlj.com Back to Article

Fresh round of litigation targets 12 law schools over jobs data The team of lawyers behind proposed class actions against the Thomas M. Cooley School of Law and New York Law School have followed through with their threat to sue even more schools. Karen Sloan February 01, 2012 Note: This report has been updated to include comments by plaintiffs, their attorneys and two of the targeted law schools. The team of lawyers behind proposed class actions against the Thomas M. Cooley School of Law and New York Law School have followed through with their threat to sue even more schools. New York attorneys David Anziska and Jesse Strauss — along with consumer-protection lawyers in Chicago, Miami, San Francisco, Sacramento and New Jersey — on Wednesday filed suits against 12 law schools in state and federal courts around the country, claiming that they inflated their graduate employment data. The complaints seek class action status, monetary damages and changes in the way the law schools report and audit employment data. The targeted schools were Albany Law School of Union University; Brooklyn Law School; California Western School of Law; Chicago-Kent College of Law; DePaul University College of Law; Florida Coastal School of Law; Golden Gate University School of Law; Hofstra University Maurice A. Deane School of Law; The John Marshall Law School; University of San Francisco School of Law; Southwestern Law School; and Widener University School of Law. Additional lawsuits will be forthcoming, according to Anziska. "Our goal is that every few months we will file between 20 and 25 lawsuits. The key, right now, is to bring as many law schools as possible into the fray," he said. "Law schools are banking on the fact that their graduates will not sue them," he added. "I think today dispels that notion." Anziska and Strauss unveiled plans to sue the schools — with the exception of Golden Gate — in early October. At the time, they said they also planned to sue the University of Baltimore School of Law, Pace Law School and St. John's University School of Law. Those three schools were not targeted in the subsequent lawsuits, however. Strauss said that a suit against Baltimore is coming but requires filing of a notice of claims with the Maryland treasurer. The other two schools had at least one plaintiff signed on, but the attorneys were waiting for at least three named plaintiffs before filing suit, Strauss said. Altogether, 51 plaintiffs have signed on to the 12 suits, in addition to the 22 plaintiffs in pending litigation against Cooley, New York Law School and the Thomas Jefferson School of Law. The suit against Thomas Jefferson was the first filed, in May, and is in discovery. The suit against DePaul has the largest number of plaintiffs, eight. Florida Coastal has the next largest, six. Officials at most of the targeted schools had not yet seen the complaints as of late Wednesday. Connie Mayer, interim president and dean of Albany Law School, said that institution follows the reporting protocols set out by the American Bar Association — a defense also offered by the three law schools that have already been sued. "We have documentation that supports the accuracy of our data," she said. "We are surprised that we are being sued over this issue without ever having been asked to see our documentation. Albany Law School has always reported above the

Page 1 of 2National Law Journal: Fresh round of litigation targets 12 law schools over jobs data

2/22/2012http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticlePrinterFriendlyNLJ.jsp?id=1202540950653&slretur...


Copyright 2012. ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.

industry standard requirements: We collect and report on data for at least 98% of our graduates." Kristen McMahon, director of public relations at Hofstra, declined to address the complaint's merits, but insisted the schools has followed reporting standards set by the ABA and the National Association for Law Placement, NALP. Southwestern Law School stands by the employment data it has reported to the ABA and U.S. News & World Report and has published on its Web site, said Leslie Steinberg, the associate dean for public affairs. "We've always provided accurate data," she said. "We gather as much information as comprehensively as possible. We update our Web site when more information becomes available." Three of the 51 named plaintiffs spoke during a telephone news conference, recounting the role rosy employment statistics played in their decisions to attend law school. All three struggled to find gainful employment in the law after graduation; one joined the Army to help pay off $150,000 in law school debt. That plaintiff, Audra Awai, graduated from Florida Coastal in 2008 and abandoned a law career after seeing former classmates flounder in the job market. "I hope this lawsuit will encourage law schools to be more truthful in the future," she said. Adam Bevelacqua, a 2011 graduate of Brooklyn Law School, praised the education he received there but said the school misled him about his job prospects. "The school advertised very high employment numbers, which stated that only between 5 and 10 percent of graduates did not find legal employment within nine months," he said. "It turns out that I can't get any work in the legal field at all — not even document review work." Like the three previously filed suits against law schools, the new complaints charge that the schools deceived prospective students by hiring recent graduates so they could be counted as employed; counting graduates in non-legal jobs as employed; counting students in temporary jobs as employed; and reporting salary averages based upon a small number of high earners. All of the suits were filed in state court, with the exception of the suit against Widener, which was filed in the U.S. district court in New Jersey. Their language differs slightly, according to the differences in each state's consumer protection laws. Strauss, Anziska and attorney Frank Raimond are handling the cases against Albany, Hofstra and Brooklyn Law School. Strauss graduated from Brooklyn in 2003. The Clinton Law Firm in Chicago is handling the cases against John Marshall, DePaul and Chicago-Kent. Attorney Ed Clinton Sr. represents plaintiffs against his own alma mater, John Marshall, from which he graduated in 1953. New Jersey firm Stone & Magnanini represents plaintiffs in the case against Widener. Miami firm Concepcion Martinez & Bellido is handling the case against Florida Coastal. California firms Finkelstein Thompson and Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff represent the plaintiffs against Golden Gate, the University of San Francisco, Southwestern Law School and California Western. "We strongly believe these cases have merit," said Finkelstein Thompson attorney Rosemary Rivas. Contact Karen Sloan at [email protected].

Page 2 of 2National Law Journal: Fresh round of litigation targets 12 law schools over jobs data

2/22/2012http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticlePrinterFriendlyNLJ.jsp?id=1202540950653&slretur...


EXHIBIT E PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP

BIOGRAPHY OF BRIAN LOKER


of 2Patterson & Sheridan, LLP | Attorneys at Law

3/7/2012http://pattersonsheridan.com/index.php/attorneys/detail/brian_loker


BRIAN LOKER Associate

Intellectual Property Law

250 Cambridge Avenue

Suite 300

Palo Alto, CA 94306

Phone: 650.330.2310

Fax: 650.330.2314

Direct Line: 650.384.4430

Email: [email protected]

PROFILE Brian’s practice focuses on patent preparation, patent prosecution, and

opinion preparation.¬ Brian graduated from the University of California,

Berkeley in 2002 with a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering and an

emphasis on dynamic control systems.¬ His technical expertise in mechanical

engineering, electrical engineering and computer science enables him to serve

a wide variety of clients.¬ His past technical experience includes five years in

the defense and semiconductor industries working with Meggit Defense Systems

and Orthodyne Electronics.¬ At DePaul University College of Law, Brian spent

two summers studying abroad in Beijing, China, as well as participating in a

Chinese Intellectual Property¬Legal clinic in conjunction with a foreign law

firm.¬ Brian graduated with a Juris Doctor in 2009.

EDUCATION J.D., DePaul University of Law, 2009 with a minor in With a certificate in

Intellectual Property Law: Patents

B.S., Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 2002

PRACTICE AREAS Electronics & Electrical Engineering

Mechanical Devices

Computer Science

ADMISSIONS & MEMBERSHIPS American Intellectual Property Law Association

State Bar of California

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Page 2 of 2Patterson & Sheridan, LLP | Attorneys at Law

3/7/2012http://pattersonsheridan.com/index.php/attorneys/detail/brian_loker


depaul university notice of removal

Documents