standards review committee meeting agenda september 10, 2016

Standards Review Committee Meeting Agenda September 10, 2016 Chicago, Illinois Saturday, September 10, 2016

9 a.m. Welcome & Introductions Approval of April 2016 Meeting Minutes 9:15 a.m. Discussion of Items Circulated for Notice and Comment

• Rule 35: Appeals Panel • Rule 37: Membership of the Appeals Panel for the Proceeding • Rule 38: Scheduling of Appeals Panel Hearings

9:30 a.m. Discussion of Items Circulated for Notice and Comment

• Standard 204: Self Study • Standard 303 Curriculum • Interpretation 303-1 • Standard 311: Academic Program and Academic Calendar • Standard 316: Bar Passage • Standard 501: Admissions • Use of the term “Full-Time Faculty” in the Standards

10:30 a.m. Break 10:45 a.m. Discussion of Items Circulated for Notice and Comment Continued 12 p.m. Adjourn

Times are approximate and may change.

SRC Meeting Materials September 10, 2016 Chicago, Illinois

1 of 30

American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar

Standards Review Committee

April 29, 2016

Minutes

Present Scott B. Pagel, Associate Dean, The George Washington University Jacob Burns Law Library;

Chair Craig M. Boise, Dean, Cleveland State University Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Dr. Anthony Caprio, President, Western New England University Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Esq., Nashville, Tennessee Hon. Robert J. Cordy, Associate Justice, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Peter McDonough, Vice President and General Counsel, American Council on Education Veryl V. Miles, Professor, The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law

Guests Cynthia Nance, Dean Emeritus and Professor, University of Arkansas School of Law;

Council Liaison Susan L. Kay, Associate Dean and Professor, Vanderbilt University Law School;

Accreditation Committee Liaison

Staff Barry Currier, Managing Director William Adams, Deputy Managing Director Charlotte Stretch, Assistant Consultant JR Clark, Paralegal

Observers Claudia Angelos, New York University School of Law; CLEA

I. Minutes

The Committee approved the minutes of the February 2016 meeting.

II. Chair’s Report

Chair Pagel recognized the birth of Committee member Catherine Carpenter’s grandson this morning. The Committee sent congratulations to Catherine and her family.

Chair Pagel reported that the Council approved the Committee’s proposed change to Standard 316 to be circulated for notice and comment. The Council also approved the Committee’s


2 of 30

proposal regarding Standard 501 to be circulated. The Committee had left blank the particular percentage for attrition other than transfer in the proposed Interpretation. Based on additional data provided by the Managing Director’s Office, the Council proposed 20% in the version circulated for notice and comment. The Council tabled Standards 205, 206, and 503 for further study by the Council. III. Chapter 3 The Committee approved a proposal to amend Standard 303(a)(1) regarding the two credit course in professional responsibility. The Committee suggested deleting the first “the” and adding a comma after the word “conduct” in the proposal. The Committee discussed a proposal to change the number of credit hours that must be in courses that require attendance in regularly scheduled classroom session or direct faculty instruction. The Committee felt that with the pending changes to Standards 304 and 305 it would be better to postpone any discussion of this type of change. The Committee discussed a proposal to amend Standard 312 regarding reasonably comparable opportunities. The current Standard applies only to law schools that provide more than one enrollment or scheduling option. Rather than amend the Standard, the Committee agreed to replace Standard 312 with a new Interpretation in Standard 301 that focuses on providing reasonable opportunities for all students to take advantage of the law school’s education program, co-curricular programs, and other educational benefits. IV. Chapter 1 and Definitions Chair Pagel reported that the Chapter 1 Subgroup decided not to create a definition of “part-time” for purposes of the Standards and not to change the definition of “dean.” The Subgroup will continue to discuss issues regarding Standard 105 (acquiescence) and Standard 106 (separate locations). The Committee agreed to a change in wording of Standard 105(b) to match the language in Standard 313(c), but decided not to send the recommendation forward until other issues with Standard 105 are discussed. Issues with Standard 105 include rearranging and redrafting the provisions to match the Department of Education language. Issues with Standard 106 include how far away a location must be to be “separate”, foreign v. domestic locations, and reporting for 509 purposes.


3 of 30

V. Chapter 2 The Chapter 2 Subgroup decided not to recommend any changes to Standard 203 regarding the dean. The Committee unanimously approved a proposal to amend Standard 204. Many law schools had observed that the Standard subparts were overlapping or duplicative. The proposal more closely tracks the Department of Education requirement that an accrediting body require a self-study comprising information regarding the educational quality of the program and efforts to improve the program. VI. Rules The Committee agreed to postpone a discussion of the rules on confidentiality and transparency. VII. Faculty The Committee agreed that the words “full-time” should be inserted before “faculty” in a number of places in the Standards. The instances where “full-time” is being added are largely related to governance. Standard 201(a) Standard 201(b) - twice Standard 201(c) Standard 203(b) Standard 203(c) - twice Interpretation 203-1 Interpretation 203-2 - twice Standard 315 Interpretation 405-1 Interpretation 405-3 Interpretation 405-4 - twice Interpretation 405-5 - twice Interpretation 601(a)(3) Standard 602(b) Interpretation 602-1 The Committee also agreed to delete the word “law” in Interpretations 405-1 and 405-5.


4 of 30


MEMORANDUM TO: Interested Persons and Entities FROM: Gregory G. Murphy, Council Chairperson

Barry A. Currier, Managing Director of Accreditation and Legal Education DATE: August 15, 2016 SUBJECT: ABA Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools Matters for Notice and

Comment At its meeting held on August 5, 2016, the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar approved for Notice and Comment the following proposed revisions to the ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools: Rule 35: Appeals Panel Rule 37: Membership of the Appeals Panel for the Proceeding Rule 38: Scheduling of Appeals Panel Hearings

The proposed revisions and accompanying explanations are attached and published on the Section’s website: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/notice_and_comment.html. We solicit and encourage written comments on all of the proposed changes listed above by letter or e-mail. Written comments should be submitted no later than Monday, September 5, 2016. A hearing on the proposed changes is scheduled for Thursday, September 8, 2016, at 2 p.m. The hearing will be held at the American Bar Association (321 N. Clark St.) in the North Board Room on the 21st floor. Please address written comments on the proposals and requests to speak at the hearing to JR Clark, [email protected], by Monday, September 5, 2016.


5 of 30

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/notice_and_comment.html

mailto:[email protected]

In the U.S. Department of Education’s Final Staff Report on the Council’s Petition for Continued Recognition as the accreditor for programs in legal education that lead to the first professional degree in law, the staff concluded that the ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools did not comply with Section 602.15(a)(3) of the recognition criteria, which requires, among other things, that the Appeals Panel have both “academic” and “administrative” personnel. The staff recommended that the Council be required to amend its rules to come into compliance with that provision and to provide evidence that an academic and administrative member serves on the Appeals Panel in the one defined role. The revisions to Rule 35, Rule 37, and Rule 38 address this finding. Redlined: Rule 35: Appeals Panel (a) The Appeals Panel shall consist of at least three five persons appointed by the Chair of the

Council. Members shall serve a one-year term beginning at the end of the Annual Meeting of the Section and continuing to the end of the next Annual Meeting of the Section or until replaced. Appeals Panel members and alternates are eligible to serve consecutive terms or non-consecutive multiple terms. (1) The Chair of the Council shall designate one member of the Appeals Panel to serve as its

chair.

(2) The Chair of the Council shall also appoint, at the same time as appointing members of the Appeals Panel and for the same term, an equal number of alternates to the Appeals Panel.

(b) Every member of the Appeals Panel and alternate shall be:

(1) A former member of the Council or Accreditation Committee; or

(2) An experienced site evaluator.

(c) Members of the Appeals Panel and alternates shall be:

(1) Experienced in and knowledgeable about the Standards, Interpretations and Rules of

Procedure;

(2) Trained in the Standards, Interpretations and Rules of Procedure at a retreat or workshop or by other appropriate methods within the 3 years prior to appointment; and

(3) Subject to the Section’s Conflicts of Interest Policy, as provided in IOP 19.

(d) The Appeals Panel, and the group of alternates, shall each include legal educators,

practitioners, members of the judiciary, and representatives of the public.:


6 of 30

(1) an academic;

(2) an administrator;

(3) a legal educator;

(4) a practitioner or member of the judiciary; and

(5) a member of the public.

(e) No more than fifty percent of the members may be persons whose primary professional

employment is as a law school dean, faculty or staff member. Public members shall have qualifications and representation consistent with the regulations of the United States Department of Education applicable to the accreditation of professional schools.

Rule 37: Membership of the Appeals Panel for the Proceeding (a) Within 30 days of receipt of a written appeal within the scope of authority of the Appeals

Panel, the Managing Director shall ensure that the Appeals Panel or the Appeals Panel with alternates is authorized and available to decide the appeal designate the members of the Appeals Panel to hear the particular matter and make the decision.

(b) In the event a member of the Appeals Panel cannot participate in the appeal, the Managing

Director shall appoint one of the alternates to the panel hearing the matter and making the decision, and shall ensure that the panel includes one legal educator, one judge or practitioner, and one public member.For law schools for which the Council is the institutional accreditor, the Managing Director shall appoint an academic, an administrator, and a member of the public from the Appeals Panel to hear the particular matter. For law schools for which the Council is the programmatic accreditor, the Managing Director shall appoint a legal educator, a practitioner or member of the judiciary, and a member of the public to the Appeals panel hearing the matter.

(c) In the event an alternate a member of the Appeals Panel cannot be appointed to participate in

a decision on appeal so as to ensure that the Appeals pPanel hearing the particular matter includes one legal educator, one judge or practitioner, and one public member meets the requirements of Rules 35 and 37, the Managing Director shall appoint to the Appeals pPanel another person who meets those requirements.:

(1) Wholly or substantially meets the criteria of Rule 35(b) and (c); and

(2) Whose appointment to the panel ensures that the panel includes one legal educator, one

judge or practitioner, and one public member.


7 of 30

(d) In the event the Chair of the Appeals Panel is unable to participate in the appeal, the Managing Director shall appoint a Chair Pro Tempore, where possible from among the members of the Appeals Panel appointed by the Chair of the Council.

Rule 38: Scheduling of Appeals Panel Hearings (a) Within 30 days of receipt of a written appeal within the scope of authority of the Appeals

Panel, the Managing Director shall refer the appeal to the Appeals Panel. In referring the appeal, the Managing Director shall provide the members of the Appeals or alternates Panel hearing the appeal with copies of: (1) The written appeal;

(2) The decision of the Council; and

(3) The record before the Council, including any transcript of hearing.

(b) The Managing Director, in consultation with the Chair or Chair Pro Tempore of the Appeals

Panel, shall set the date, time, and place of the hearing. (1) The hearing shall be scheduled within forty-five days of the Managing Director’s referral

of the appeal to the Appeal Panel.

(2) The Managing Director shall inform the law school of the date, time, and place of the hearing at least 30 days in advance of the hearing, unless the law school agrees to the hearing on less than 30 days’ notice.

Clean Copy: Rule 35: Appeals Panel (a) The Appeals Panel shall consist of at least five persons appointed by the Chair of the

Council. Members shall serve a one-year term beginning at the end of the Annual Meeting of the Section and continuing to the end of the next Annual Meeting of the Section or until replaced. Appeals Panel members are eligible to serve consecutive terms or non-consecutive multiple terms.

(b) Every member of the Appeals Panel shall be:

(1) A former member of the Council or Accreditation Committee; or

(2) An experienced site evaluator. (c) Members of the Appeals Panel shall be:


8 of 30

(1) Experienced in and knowledgeable about the Standards, Interpretations and Rules of Procedure;

(2) Trained in the Standards, Interpretations and Rules of Procedure at a retreat or workshop or by other appropriate methods within the 3 years prior to appointment; and

(3) Subject to the Section’s Conflicts of Interest Policy, as provided in IOP 19.

(d) The Appeals Panel shall include:

(1) an academic;

(2) an administrator;

(3) a legal educator;

(4) a practitioner or member of the judiciary; and

(5) a member of the public.

(e) No more than fifty percent of the members may be persons whose primary professional

employment is as a law school dean, faculty or staff member. Public members shall have qualifications and representation consistent with the regulations of the United States Department of Education applicable to the accreditation of professional schools.

Rule 37: Membership of the Appeals Panel for the Proceeding (a) Within 30 days of receipt of a written appeal within the scope of authority of the Appeals

Panel, the Managing Director shall designate the members of the Appeals Panel to hear the particular matter and make the decision.

(b) For law schools for which the Council is the institutional accreditor, the Managing Director

shall appoint a legal educator, a practitioner or member of the judiciary, and a member of the public to the Appeals panel hearing the matter. For law schools for which the Council is the programmatic accreditor, the Managing Director shall appoint a legal educator, a practitioner or member of the judiciary, and a member of the public to the Appeals panel hearing the matter.

(c) In the event a member of the Appeals Panel cannot be appointed to participate in a decision

on appeal so as to ensure that the Appeals Panel hearing the particular matter meets the requirements of Rules 35 and 37, the Managing Director shall appoint to the Appeals Panel another person who meets those requirements.


9 of 30

Rule 38: Scheduling of Appeals Panel Hearings (a) Within 30 days of receipt of a written appeal within the scope of authority of the Appeals

Panel, the Managing Director shall refer the appeal to the Appeals Panel. In referring the appeal, the Managing Director shall provide the members of the Appeals Panel hearing the appeal with copies of: (1) The written appeal;

(2) The decision of the Council; and

(3) The record before the Council, including any transcript of hearing.

(b) The Managing Director, in consultation with the Chair of the Appeals Panel, shall set the

date, time, and place of the hearing. (1) The hearing shall be scheduled within forty-five days of the Managing Director’s referral

of the appeal to the Appeal Panel.

(2) The Managing Director shall inform the law school of the date, time, and place of the hearing at least 30 days in advance of the hearing, unless the law school agrees to the hearing on less than 30 days’ notice.


10 of 30


MEMORANDUM

TO:

FROM:

DATE:

Interested Persons and Entities

The Hon. Rebecca White Berch, Council Chairperson Barry A. Currier, Managing Director of Accreditation and Legal Education

March 25, 2016

SUBJECT: ABA Standards for Approval of Law Schools Matters for Notice and Comment

At its meeting held on March 11-12, 2016, the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar approved for Notice and Comment the following proposed revisions to the ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools:

Interpretation 303-1 Standard 311 Standard 316 Standard 501

The proposed revisions and accompanying explanations are attached and published on the Section’s website: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/notice_and_comment.html.

We solicit and encourage written comments on the proposed changes by letter or e-mail. Written comments should be submitted no later than Friday, July 29, 2016.

A hearing on these proposed changes is scheduled for Saturday, August 6, 2016, at 12:30 p.m., during the ABA Annual Meeting in San Francisco, California. Additional details will be posted on the Section’s website prior to the Annual Meeting.

Please address written comments on the proposals and requests to speak at the hearing to JR Clark, [email protected], by Friday, July 29, 2016.


11 of 30



Interpretation 303-1 The proposal makes clear that, so long as the requirements for each are met, an upper division writing course can be used to meet the requirement of Standard 303(a)(2) for a writing experience after the first year, or the requirements under Standard 303(a)(3) and 304(a) as a simulation course. The proposal also makes it clear that such a course can be used to satisfy only one of the requirements of the Standard. Redlined to Existing Standard: Interpretation 303-1 A law school may not permit a student to use a course to satisfy more than one requirement under this Standard. For example, a course that includes a writing experience used to satisfy the upper-class writing requirement [see 303(a)(2)] cannot be counted as one of the experiential courses required in Standard 303(a)(3). This does not preclude a law school from offering a course that may count either as an upper-class writing requirement [see 303(a)(2)] or as a simulation course [see 303(a)(3) and 304(a)] provided the course meets all of the requirements of both types of courses and the law school permits a student to use the course to satisfy only one requirement under this Standard. Clean copy: Interpretation 303-1 A law school may not permit a student to use a course to satisfy more than one requirement under this Standard. For example, a course that includes a writing experience used to satisfy the upper-class writing requirement [see 303(a)(2)] cannot be counted as one of the experiential courses required in Standard 303(a)(3). This does not preclude a law school from offering a course that may count either as an upper-class writing requirement [see 303(a)(2)] or as a simulation course [see 303(a)(3) and 304(a)] provided the course meets all of the requirements of both types of courses and the law school permits a student to use the course to satisfy only one requirement under this Standard.


12 of 30

Standard 311(d)

This proposal explains the interaction between Standard 311(d), which states that credit can be given only for course work taken after a student has matriculated, and Standard 505, which states the circumstances under which credit can be granted to J.D. students for prior law studies. The proposal clarifies the matter by confirming that matriculation refers to a student’s entry into the J.D. program and that credit for prior law study can be granted pursuant to Standard 505. Redlined to Existing Standard: Standard 311. ACADEMIC PROGRAM AND ACADEMIC CALENDAR (d) Credit for a J.D. degree shall only be given for course work taken after the student has

matriculated in a law school’s J.D. program of study, except for credit that may be granted pursuant to Standard 505. A law school may not grant credit toward the J.D. degree for work taken in a pre-admission program.

Clean copy: Standard 311. ACADEMIC PROGRAM AND ACADEMIC CALENDAR (d) Credit for a J.D. degree shall only be given for course work taken after the student has

matriculated in a law school’s J.D. program of study, except for credit that may be granted pursuant to Standard 505. A law school may not grant credit toward the J.D. degree for work taken in a pre-admission program.


13 of 30

Standard 316 The proposal moves to a clear and straightforward statement of the bar passage rate required of a law school for the purposes of accreditation. It looks to an ultimate pass rate for each graduating class of a law school after a period of two years following that class’ graduation. While first-time pass rate is important for consumers and is (and will continue to be) disclosed under Standard 509 (Required Disclosures), the proposal provides that, for the purposes of accreditation, an ultimate pass rate within the two-year period is the more appropriate measure of whether a school is operating a sound program of legal education. Further, this ultimate pass rate measure is not subject to the idiosyncrasies that can exist if the Standard allows compliance on the basis of a first-time pass rate in relation to the overall bar exam outcomes of ABA-approved law school graduates. It should be understood that the proposal makes no attempt to place a limit on the number of times that an individual may sit for a bar exam. That is a matter for each state to determine as part of its lawyer licensing process. The Standard speaks only to the ultimate bar passage rate expected of a law school for accreditation purposes. The features of the proposal are: 1. The requirement of an ultimate passage rate of 75% remains unchanged from the requirement

of current Standard 316(a)(1), at least for the present time. Further work would need to be done to gather and analyze data and to gather the views of various constituencies before it would be appropriate to recommend a change to what the current Standard requires in this regard.

2. The period of time within which a school must show that it has achieved a 75% passage rate is reduced from 5 calendar years to 2 years from the date of graduation, and the option of a school to show that the classes in 3 out of 5 of those years achieved a 75% passage rate is eliminated. The data available to the Council and the Standards Review Committee shows that the number of non-passers who persist in taking the MBE drops dramatically after the second attempt, with only about 5% taking it more than twice and a negligible number attempting the exam after four attempts. The data the Council and Committee had showed that the fall-off in persistence in re-taking the bar examination does not vary substantially on the basis of gender, race, or ethnicity. For the purposes of a notice and comment period, therefore, the Council and the Committee believe that two years is an appropriate period of time within which to require that 75% of graduates of each law school taking a bar exam should have passed it for purposes of accreditation. That time frame provides a period during which almost all of a school’s bar outcomes for a graduating class will be determined; the ultimate pass rate for a class will not be significantly improved by allowing a longer period. The two-year period to achieve compliance with the Standard has the advantage of providing a shorter timeline for the Council and the Accreditation Committee to initiate action against a school based on concerns that the law school may be admitting students who are not capable


14 of 30

of passing a bar exam or is offering a program that is not sufficiently rigorous to prepare its students for the exam.

3. The ability of a law school to report its ultimate pass rate based on only 70% of its graduates

is eliminated. The proposal does not require a law school to account for 100% of its graduates. It does, however, require them to account for as many as possible and, for accreditation purposes, to demonstrate that 75% of the members of the class who sat for a bar exam passed it within the two-year period. In situations where law schools are not able to obtain information on graduates, they will be asked to explain the circumstances to the Accreditation Committee. A goal of this effort is that statistics for all schools, including those who are able to meet the Standard after just one year, will be maintained so that uniform information regarding ultimate passage rate is available for all schools.

4. The opportunity for a school to satisfy its obligations under Standard 316 on the basis of its

bar pass rate for first-time takers is eliminated for a number of reasons. The reliance on the results in these instances for accreditation purposes, based as it is on a comparison with state-wide results, has many flaws. As a starting point, the question of accreditation should be based on the performance of the graduates of a law school without comparison to the graduates of any other law school. The Standards have moved away from comparisons between law schools in all others areas of evaluation (expenditures, volume count, etc.) and it should do so in this area as well. The value of using a state-wide average as a baseline also has been questioned since it includes the pass rate of the school being evaluated. The use of this information also is of questionable value when there is only one law school in a jurisdiction.

5. The recitation of reasons in 316(b) for which a law school may request an extension of the

period within which it may come into compliance beyond the two years set out in Rule of Procedure14(b) is felt to be unnecessary, and the proposal recommends that it be removed from the Standards. Rule 14(b) adequately describes the process for seeking an extension and, indeed, reasons that show good cause for an extension are not set out for any other Standard. If additional guidelines are believed to be warranted, it is recommended that they be provided through a Guidance Memo instead of the Standard.

The Council acknowledges that some law schools will see the requirement that information be maintained and reported for a period of two years as an unnecessary burden if they regularly achieve a bar pass rate exceeding 75% for first-time takers. The Council believes, however, that this type of information has been kept regularly by the schools who have had to rely on ultimate bar pass rate to meet the Standard and that it is not overly burdensome. The Council also acknowledges that some law schools will report that it is impossible to achieve a goal of locating all graduates and determining their status. However, as noted above, the Standard does not require the reporting of 100% of graduates to demonstrate compliance. The proposal merely requires that a school provide enough information to demonstrate that 75% of its graduates who sat for a bar exam passed one within two years following graduation. A chart is attached to the end of this report illustrating one possible method through which information


15 of 30

might be relayed to the Accreditation Committee. It is a separate question whether requiring schools to maintain ultimate bar pass information, even if they satisfy Standard 316 after one administration of the bar exam, is an appropriate requirement under Standard 509. The Council believes that the goal of having uniform information available for all schools justifies the effort. Finally, the Council understands that there are some who might believe that it would take seven years, the length of time between sabbatical visits, for the Accreditation Committee to become aware of the failure by a school to meet this Standard. However, the interim monitoring system currently being used by the Accreditation Committee has proven to be very successful in tracking schools that might be experiencing difficulty meeting the Standards and should be equally successful with this requirement. Redlined to Existing Standard: Standard 316. BAR PASSAGE At least 75 percent of a law school’s graduates in a calendar year who sat for a bar examination must have passed a bar examination administered within two years of their date of graduation. (a) A law school’s bar passage rate shall be sufficient, for purposes of Standard 301(a), if the

school demonstrates that it meets any one of the following tests:

(1) That for students who graduated from the law school within the five most recently completed calendar years: (i) 75 percent or more of these graduates who sat for the bar passed a bar examination; or (ii) In at least three of these calendar years, 75 percent of the students graduating in those

years and sitting for the bar have passed a bar examination. In demonstrating compliance under sections (1)(i) and (ii), the school must report bar passage results from as many jurisdictions as necessary to account for at least 70 percent of its graduates each year, starting with the jurisdiction in which the highest number of graduates took the bar exam and proceeding in descending order of frequency. (2) That in three or more of the five most recently completed calendar years, the school’s annual

first-time bar passage rate in the jurisdictions reported by the school is no more than 15 points below the average first-time bar passage rates for graduates of ABA-approved law schools taking the bar examination in these same jurisdictions.

In demonstrating compliance under section (2), the school must report first-time bar passage data from as many jurisdictions as necessary to account for at least 70 percent of its graduates each year, starting with the jurisdiction in which the highest number of graduates took the bar exam and proceeding in descending order of frequency. When more than one jurisdiction is reported, the weighted average of the results in each of the reported jurisdictions shall be used to determine compliance.


16 of 30

(b) A school shall be out of compliance with this Standard if it is unable to demonstrate that it meets the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) or (2).

(c) A school found out of compliance under paragraph (b) and that has not been able to come

into compliance within the two year period specified in Rule 13(b) of the Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools, may seek to demonstrate good cause for extending the period the law school has to demonstrate compliance by submitting evidence of:

(1) The law school’s trend in bar passage rates for both first-time and subsequent takers: a

clear trend of improvement will be considered in the school’s favor, a declining or flat trend against it.

(2) The length of time the law school’s bar passage rates have been below the first-time and

ultimate rates established in paragraph A: a shorter time period will be considered in the school’s favor, a longer period against it.

(3) Actions by the law school to address bar passage, particularly the law school’s academic rigor and the demonstrated value and effectiveness of its academic support and bar preparation programs; value-added, effective, sustained and pervasive actions to address bar passage problems will be considered in the law school’s favor; ineffective or only marginally effective programs or limited action by the law school against it.

(4) Efforts by the law school to facilitate bar passage for its graduates who did not pass the bar on prior attempts: effective and sustained efforts by the law school will be considered in the school’s favor; ineffective or limited efforts by the law school against it.

(5) Efforts by the law school to provide broader access to legal education while maintaining

academic rigor; sustained meaningful efforts will be viewed in the law school’s favor intermittent or limited efforts by the law school against it.

(6) The demonstrated likelihood that the law school’s students who transfer to other ABA-approved schools will pass the bar examination: transfers by students with a strong likelihood of passing the bar will be considered in the school’s favor, providing the law school has undertaken counseling and other appropriate efforts to retain its well-performing students.

(7) Temporary circumstances beyond the control of the law school, but which the law school

is addressing: for example, a natural disaster that disrupts operations or a significant increase in the standard for passing the relevant bar examination(s).

(8) Other factors, consistent with a law school’s demonstrated and sustained mission, which the school considers relevant in explaining its deficient bar passage results and in explaining the school’s efforts to improve them.


17 of 30

Clean copy:

Standard 316. BAR PASSAGE At least 75 percent of a law school’s graduates in a calendar year who sat for a bar examination must have passed a bar examination administered within two years of their date of graduation.


18 of 30

Standard 501 The proposal includes the following changes: 1. Changing 501(a), from “maintain,” to the language found in other Standards of “adopt,

publish, and adhere to.”

2. Making 501(b) a positive statement – from “a law school shall not admit…” to “a law school shall admit only….”

3. Adding the following sentence to Interpretation 501-1: Compliance with Standard 316 is not

alone sufficient to comply with the Standard. These changes clarify that a law school must make available, to a site team and to the Accreditation Committee, its admission policies and practices and that they be consistent with the Standards, including the Standard regarding the admission of qualified applicants. The changes also clarify that the assessment of compliance involves all of the factors listed in Interpretation 501-1 and that compliance with the Standard on bar passage is not alone sufficient to demonstrate compliance, and that the Council and Accreditation Committee need not wait for bar passage outcomes required by Standard 316 to inquire about a school’s admissions practices and policies in appropriate cases. The proposal also offers the Council a method of enforcing the Standard through an examination of the non-transfer attrition rate of a law school as a means of assessing whether the school has admitted only applicants who appear capable of satisfactorily completing its program of legal education. A law school having non-transfer attrition above 20 percent bears the burden of demonstrating that it is in compliance with this Standard. Redlined to Existing Standard: Standard 501. ADMISSIONS (a) A law school shall maintain adopt, publish, and adhere to sound admission policies and

practices consistent with the Standards, its mission, and the objectives of its program of legal education.

(b) A law school shall not admit an only applicants who does not appear capable of satisfactorily

completing its program of legal education and being admitted to the bar. (c) A law school shall not admit or readmit a student who has been disqualified previously for

academic reasons without an affirmative showing that the prior disqualification does not indicate a lack of capacity to complete its program of legal education and be admitted to the


19 of 30

bar. For every admission or readmission of a previously disqualified individual, a statement of the considerations that led to the decision shall be placed in the admittee’s file.

Interpretation 501-1 Among the factors to consider in assessing compliance with this Standard are the academic and admission test credentials of the law school’s entering students, the academic attrition rate of the law school’s students, the bar passage rate of its graduates, and the effectiveness of the law school’s academic support program. Compliance with Standard 316 is not alone sufficient to comply with the Standard. Interpretation 501-2 Sound admissions policies and practices may include consideration of admission test scores, undergraduate course of study and grade point average, extracurricular activities, work experience, performance in other graduate or professional programs, relevant demonstrated skills, and obstacles overcome. Interpretation 501-3 A law school having a non-transfer attrition rate above 20% percent bears the burden of demonstrating that it is in compliance with the Standard. Clean copy: Standard 501. ADMISSIONS (a) A law school shall adopt, publish, and adhere to sound admission policies and practices

consistent with the Standards, its mission, and the objectives of its program of legal education.

(b) A law school shall admit only applicants who appear capable of satisfactorily completing its

program of legal education and being admitted to the bar. (c) A law school shall not admit or readmit a student who has been disqualified previously for

academic reasons without an affirmative showing that the prior disqualification does not indicate a lack of capacity to complete its program of legal education and be admitted to the bar. For every admission or readmission of a previously disqualified individual, a statement of the considerations that led to the decision shall be placed in the admittee’s file.

Interpretation 501-1 Among the factors to consider in assessing compliance with this Standard are the academic and admission test credentials of the law school’s entering students, the academic attrition rate of the law school’s students, the bar passage rate of its graduates, and the effectiveness of the law school’s academic support program. Compliance with Standard 316 is not alone sufficient to comply with the Standard.


20 of 30

Interpretation 501-2 Sound admissions policies and practices may include consideration of admission test scores, undergraduate course of study and grade point average, extracurricular activities, work experience, performance in other graduate or professional programs, relevant demonstrated skills, and obstacles overcome. Interpretation 501-3 A law school having a non-transfer attrition rate above 20% percent bears the burden of demonstrating that it is in compliance with the Standard.


21 of 30

Ultimate Bar Passage – School A

Calendar year of

graduation

Number of graduates in calendar

year

Number of graduates

with no information

Number of graduates who

did not take a bar examination

within two years of their date of

graduation

Graduates who sat for a bar examination within two years of

their date of graduation

Total # of

takers

Total # who

passed Percentage that passed

2016 (Jan & May)

100 (20 in Jan, 80 in May)

2 3 95 82 86%*

2017 (Jan & May)

100 (15 in Jan, 85 in May)

3 1 96 85 88%**

* Jan 2016 grads could take exam in winter 2016, summer 2016, winter 2017, and summer 2017. May 2016 grads could take exam in summer 2016, winter 2017, summer 2017, and winter 2018. Percent would be calculated following results of winter 2018 exam. ** Jan 2017 grads could take exam in winter 2017, summer 2017, winter 2018, and summer 2018. May 2017 grads could take exam in summer 2017, winter 2018, summer 2018, and winter 2019. Percent would be calculated following results of winter 2019 exam. Ultimate Bar Passage – School B

Calendar year of

graduation

Number of graduates in calendar

year

Number of graduates

with no information

Number of graduates who

did not take a bar examination

within two years of their date of

graduation

Graduates who sat for a bar examination within two years of

their date of graduation

Total # of

takers

Total # who

passed Percentage that passed

2016 (May & Dec)

100 (80 in May, 20 in Dec)

2 3 95 82 86%*

2017 (May & Dec)

100 (85 in May, 15 in Dec)

3 1 96 85 88%**

* May 2016 grads could take exam in summer 2016, winter 2017, summer 2017, and winter 2018. Dec 2016 grads could take exam in winter 2017, summer 2017, winter 2018, and summer 2018. Percent would be calculated following results of summer 2018 exam. ** May 2017 grads could take exam in summer 2017, winter 2018, summer 2018, and winter 2019. Dec 2017 grads could take exam in winter 2018, summer 2018, winter 2019, and summer 2019. Percent would be calculated following results of summer 2019 exam.


22 of 30


MEMORANDUM TO: Interested Persons and Entities FROM: The Hon. Rebecca White Berch, Council Chairperson

Barry A. Currier, Managing Director of Accreditation and Legal Education DATE: June 14, 2016 SUBJECT: ABA Standards for Approval of Law Schools Matters for Notice and Comment At its meeting held on June 3-4, 2016, the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar approved for Notice and Comment the following proposed revisions to the ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools: Standard 204 Standard 303 Use of the term “Full-Time Faculty” in the Standards

The proposed revisions and accompanying explanations are attached and published on the Section’s website: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/notice_and_comment.html. The Council previously circulated and continues to solicit written comments on the following proposed revisions, which are also posted on the above-mentioned website: Interpretation 303-1 Standard 311 Standard 316 Standard 501

We solicit and encourage written comments on all of the proposed changes listed above by letter or e-mail. Written comments should be submitted no later than Friday, July 29, 2016. A hearing on all of the proposed changes is scheduled for Saturday, August 6, 2016, at 12:30 p.m., during the ABA Annual Meeting in San Francisco, California. Additional details will be posted on the Section’s website prior to the Annual Meeting. Please address written comments on the proposals and requests to speak at the hearing to JR Clark, [email protected], by Friday, July 29, 2016.


23 of 30



Standard 204 Following the changes made to Standard 204 during the comprehensive review, several law schools commented that the Standard was confusing in that some of the requests for information to be included in the self study were duplicative. The proposed change more closely tracks the Department of Education requirement that an accrediting body require a self study comprising information regarding the educational quality of the program and efforts to improve the program. In addition to the site evaluation questionnaire, the self study would include the following: a statement of the law school’s mission and of its educational objectives in support of that mission, an evaluation of the educational quality of the law school’s program, and a description of the school’s continuing efforts to improve the educational quality of its program. The Interpretation referring to the availability of funds is deleted as being duplicative of the information requested in Standard 202. Redlined: Standard 204. SELF STUDY Before each site evaluation visit the law school shall prepare a self-study self study comprising ed of (a) a completed site evaluation questionnaire, and (b) a law school self assessment that includes (1) a statement of the law school’s mission and of its educational objectives in support of that mission, (c2) an assessment evaluation of the educational quality of the law school’s program, and (d3) an assessment description of the school’s continuing efforts to improve the educational quality of its program, (e) an evaluation of the school’s effectiveness in achieving its stated educational objectives, and (f) a description of the strengths and weaknesses of the law school’s program of legal education. Interpretation 204-1 The evaluation of the school’s effectiveness and description of its strengths and weaknesses should include a statement of the availability of sufficient resources to achieve the school’s mission and its educational objectives. Clean: Standard 204. SELF STUDY Before each site evaluation visit the law school shall prepare a self study comprising (a) a completed site evaluation questionnaire, and (b) a law school self assessment that includes (1) a statement of the law school’s mission and of its educational objectives in support of that mission, (2) an evaluation of the educational quality of the law school’s program, and (3) a description of the school’s continuing efforts to improve the educational quality of its program.


24 of 30

Standard 303

Standard 301 requires that a law school maintain a rigorous program of legal education that prepares its students, upon graduation, for admission to the bar and for effective, ethical, and responsible participation as members of the legal profession. The Standards provide each law school with a great deal of discretion concerning which courses to include in its curriculum to meet these goals, and the Standards do not dictate the specific content of those courses. One exception to this approach is Standard 303(a)(1) and the required course in professional responsibility. This proposal reflects the fact that professional responsibility instruction in law schools has evolved to focus on the rules of professional conduct and the values and responsibilities of the legal profession. Understanding rules of professional conduct and the values and responsibilities of the legal profession and its members are essential to meet the objectives of Standard 301. On the other hand, requiring instruction in the history, goals, and structure of the legal profession is not as directly related to preparing students for admission to the bar and for them to be effective, ethical members of the legal profession. The change would provide guidance to site teams, some of which have asked law schools to explain how their courses in professional responsibility provide information on the history of the legal profession. Redlined: Standard 303. CURRICULUM (a) A law school shall offer a curriculum that requires each student to satisfactorily complete at least the following:

(1) one course of at least two credit hours in professional responsibility that includes substantial instruction in the history, goals, structure, rules of professional conduct, and the values, and responsibilities of the legal profession and its members;

Clean Copy: Standard 303. CURRICULUM (a) A law school shall offer a curriculum that requires each student to satisfactorily complete at least the following:

(1) one course of at least two credit hours in professional responsibility that includes substantial instruction in rules of professional conduct, and the values and responsibilities of the legal profession and its members;


25 of 30

Use of the Term “Full-Time Faculty” The Standards provide a definition for “full-time faculty member.” However, the term is used inconsistently throughout the Standards and very often the term “faculty” is used when “full-time faculty” is more appropriate. It is proposed that, in the 15 Standards and Interpretations noted below where the word “faculty” appears, the phrase “full-time” be added. These instances deal largely with governance issues. So, for example, it is added in Standard 201(a) to make clear that the dean and full-time faculty have the primary responsibility for governance of the law school. On the other hand, in Standard 606(c)(4), which deals with the role of the library in meeting the needs of students and faculty and does not deal with governance, “full-time” is not added because the Standard applies to meeting the needs of all faculty, including adjunct faculty members.

• Standard 201(a)

• Standard 201(b) - twice

• Standard 201(c)

• Standard 203(b)

• Standard 203(c) - twice

• Interpretation 203-1

• Interpretation 203-2 - twice

• Standard 315

• Interpretation 405-1 (also delete the word “law”)


• Interpretation 405-4 - twice

• Interpretation 405-5 - twice (also delete the word “law”)

• Interpretation 601(a)(3)

• Standard 602(b)



26 of 30

Standard 201. LAW SCHOOL GOVERNANCE (a) The dean and the full-time faculty shall have the primary responsibility and authority for planning, implementing, and administering the program of legal education of the law school, including curriculum, methods of instruction and evaluation, admissions policies and procedures, and academic standards. (b) The dean and the full-time faculty shall recommend the selection, retention, promotion, and tenure (or granting of security of position) of members of the full-time faculty. (c) The dean and the full-time faculty shall each have a significant role in determining educational policy. Standard 203. DEAN (b) Except in extraordinary circumstances, a dean shall also hold appointment as a member of the full-time faculty with tenure. (c) The dean shall be selected by the university or the governing board of the law school, as appropriate, which shall have and follow a procedure for decanal appointment or reappointment that assures meaningful involvement by the full-time faculty or a representative body of the full-time faculty in the selection of a dean. Interpretation 203-1 Except for good cause, a dean should not be appointed or reappointed to a new term over the stated objection of a substantial majority of the full-time faculty. Interpretation 203-2 In the appointment of an interim or acting dean, the university or the governing board of the law school, as appropriate, should follow a procedure that assures meaningful consultation with the full-time faculty or a representative body of the full-time faculty. Standard 315. EVALUATION OF PROGRAM OF LEGAL EDUCATION, LEARNING OUTCOMES, AND ASSESSMENT METHODS The dean and the full-time faculty of a law school shall conduct ongoing evaluation of the law school’s program of legal education, learning outcomes, and assessment methods; and shall use the results of this evaluation to determine the degree of student attainment of competency in the learning outcomes and to make appropriate changes to improve the curriculum. Standard 405. PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT Interpretation 405-1 A fixed limit on the percent of a law full-time faculty that may hold tenure under any circumstances violates the Standards.


27 of 30

Interpretation 405-3 A law school shall have a comprehensive system for evaluating candidates for promotion and tenure or other forms of security of position, including written criteria and procedures that are made available to the full-time faculty. Interpretation 405-4 A law school not a part of a university in considering and deciding on appointment, termination, promotion, and tenure of full-time faculty members should have procedures that contain the same principles of fairness and due process that should be employed by a law school that is part of a university. If the dean and full-time faculty have made a recommendation that is unfavorable to a candidate, the candidate should be given an opportunity to appeal to the president, chairman, or governing board. Interpretation 405-5 If the dean and full-time faculty have determined the question of responsibility for examination schedules and the schedule has been announced by the authority responsible for it, it is not a violation of academic freedom for a member of the law full-time faculty to be required to adhere to the schedule. Standard 601. GENERAL PROVISIONS (a) A law school shall maintain a law library that:

…

(3) working with the dean and full-time faculty, engages in a regular planning and assessment process, including written assessment of the effectiveness of the library in achieving its mission and realizing its established goals; and

Standard 602. ADMINISTRATION (b) The director of the law library and the dean, in consultation with the full-time faculty, shall determine library policy. Interpretation 602-1 This Standard envisions law library participation in university library decisions that may affect the law library. While it is preferred that the law school administer the law library, a law library may be administered as part of a university library system if the dean, the director of the law library, and the full-time faculty of the law school are responsible for the determination of basic law library policies, priorities, and funding requests.


28 of 30

ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar Standards Review Committee September 10, 2016 – Chicago, Illinois

Comments Received on Items Circulated for Notice and Comment

• August 6, 2016, Hearing Transcript

• Standard 316 - ABA Council for Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Educational Pipeline

• Standard 316 - CLEA

• Standard 316 - Concerned Law Schools, NBA, SALT, and Cruz Reynoso

• Standards 316 and 501 - Deborah Merritt

• Standard 316 - Don LeDuc

• Standard 501 - Don LeDuc

• Standard 316 - HBCU Law Deans

• Standard 316 - Jendayi Saada

• Standards 316 and 501 - Law School Transparency

• Standards 204, 303, and 316 - M. Isabel Medina

• Standard 316 - Michael Lewyn

• Standard 316 - National Black Law Students Association

• Standard 316 - New York State Bar Association

• Standard 316 - SALT

• Standard 316 - Southern University Board of Supervisors

• Standard 316 - William Patton









29 of 30

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/comments/20160806_hearing_transcript.pdf

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/comments/201607_comment_s316_aba_council_racial_ethnic_diversity_educational_pipeline.pdf

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/comments/201607_comment_s316_clea.pdf

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/comments/201607_comment_s316_concerned_law_schools_nba_salt_cruz_reynoso.pdf

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/comments/201607_comment_s316_s501_deborah_merritt.pdf

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/comments/201607_comment_s316_don_leduc.pdf

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/comments/201607_comment_s501_don_leduc.pdf

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/comments/201607_comment_s316_hbcu_law_deans.pdf

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/comments/201607_comment_s316_jendayi_saada.pdf

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/comments/201607_comment_s316_s501_law_school_transparency.pdf

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/comments/201607_comment_s204_s303_s316_m_isabel_medina.pdf

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/comments/201607_comment_s316_michael_lewyn.pdf

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/comments/201607_comment_s316_national_black_law_students_association.pdf

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/comments/201607_comment_s316_new_york_state_bar_association.pdf

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/comments/201607_comment_s316_salt.pdf

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/comments/201608_comment_s316_southern_university_board_supervisors.pdf

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/comments/201607_comment_s316_william_patton_1.pdf








MEMORANDUM TO: Standards Review Committee FROM: William Adams, Deputy Managing Director Becky Stretch, Assistant Consultant DATE: August 19, 2016 RE: Suggested Revision to Standard 204 During the Notice and Comment period, it was brought to the attention of the Office that “a description of the strengths and weaknesses of the law school’s program of legal education” was perhaps mistakenly removed from Standard 204. The revised draft below retains that requirement. Redlined to Draft Circulated for Notice and Comment Standard 204. SELF STUDY Before each site evaluation visit the law school shall prepare a self study comprising (a) a completed site evaluation questionnaire, and (b) a law school self assessment that includes (1) a statement of the law school’s mission and of its educational objectives in support of that mission, (2) an evaluation of the educational quality of the law school’s program of legal education, including a description of the program’s strengths and weaknesses, and (3) a description of the school’s continuing efforts to improve the educational quality of its program. Redlined to Existing Standards Standard 204. SELF STUDY Before each site evaluation visit the law school shall prepare a self-study self study comprising ed of (a) a completed site evaluation questionnaire, and (b) a law school self assessment that includes (1) a statement of the law school’s mission and of its educational objectives in support of that mission, (c2) an assessment evaluation of the educational quality of the law school’s program of legal education, including a description of the program’s strengths and weaknesses, and (d3) an assessment description of the school’s continuing efforts to improve the educational quality of its program, (e) an evaluation of the school’s effectiveness in achieving its stated educational objectives, and (f) a description of the strengths and weaknesses of the law school’s program of legal education. Interpretation 204-1 The evaluation of the school’s effectiveness and description of its strengths and weaknesses should include a statement of the availability of sufficient resources to achieve the school’s mission and its educational objectives.


30 of 30

standards review committee meeting agenda september 10, 2016

Documents