Thursday, December 22, 2016

Charlotte School of Law Gets Bitch-Slapped by the Department of Education: No More Federal Loans and Grant Due to Its Deceptive Practices

Happy Holidays: On December 19, 2016, the Washington Post published an article from Danielle Douglas-Gabriel, under the beautiful headline “Education Department denies federal student aid to for-profit N.C. law school.” Enjoy the following glorious excerpt:

“The Education Department on Monday said Charlotte School of Law can no longer receive federal loans and grants for misleading students about their chances of passing the bar and its shaky accreditation with the American Bar Association. 

“The ABA repeatedly found that the Charlotte School of Law does not prepare students for participation in the legal profession. Yet CSL continuously misrepresented itself to current and prospective students as hitting the mark,” Undersecretary of Education Ted Mitchell said in a statement. “CSL’s actions were misleading and dishonest. We can no longer allow them continued access to federal student aid.” 

The bar association first raised concerns about Charlotte School of Law, a for-profit college founded in 2004, after an on-site evaluation last year. Examiners concluded that the school’s curriculum failed to prepare students to take the bar and that the administration admitted people incapable of completing the program. After months of hearings and requests for more information, the bar this summer said the law school was not living up to the standards necessary for accreditation. 

Half of the 354 first-year students at the school dropped out of the program this year, compared with 45 percent last year, according to the Education Department. Of the 174 who left, more than 36 percent said it was due to academic attrition, meaning that they were not in good academic standing. The bar association said that of the 208 law schools it accredits, Charlotte School of Law has the highest number of first-year students leaving for academic reasons. 

The law school appealed the bar’s decision, but the bar rejected the request and placed the school on probation in November, which ultimately led education officials to deny Charlotte access to federal student aid. The Education Department also takes issue with the school’s advertising that it is fully accredited, that it has a rigorous curriculum and that its students have an above-average rate of passing the bar, none of which is accurate.” [Emphasis mine]

Do you have any difficulty understanding that, Lemming?!?! Perhaps, you suck at reading comprehension – and could only muster an LSAT score of 144. Here are the key takeaways: (a) this trash pit KNOWINGLY misrepresented outcomes for its students; (b) it WILLINGLY admitted applicants who had no business being enrolled; and (c) it has the highest rate of attrition for academic reasons of all 208 ABA-accredited toilets. Got it now, Bitch?!

Press Release: On December 19, 2016, United States Department of Education furnished a statement entitled “Charlotte School of Law Denied Continued Access to Federal Student Aid Dollars.” From the opening:

“The U.S. Department of Education today announced that on Dec. 31, 2016, it will end access to federal student financial aid for Charlotte School of Law (CSL), a for-profit member institution in the InfiLaw System. This action furthers the Department’s commitment to vigorously protect students, safeguard taxpayer dollars, and increase institutional accountability among postsecondary institutions.

Following a review of the relevant information, the Department concluded that CSL’s non-compliance with the fundamental standards set by its accreditor, the American Bar Association (ABA), resulted in its violation of the Higher Education Act, the Department’s regulations, and CSL’s Program Participation Agreement with the Department. Additionally, the Department concluded that CSL made substantial misrepresentations to current and prospective students regarding the nature and extent of its accreditation and the likelihood that its graduates would pass the bar exam. Both findings merit denial of the school’s request for continued participation in the federal student aid programs.” [Emphasis mine]

Did that penetrate your small gray matter, prospective law student?! To those already enrolled in this dung heap, I am certain that you are already on the phone with private lenders so that you can finance the rest of your TTTT “legal education.”

Other Coverage: On December 19, 2016, Staci Zaretski posted an ATL entry that was labeled “Law School DENIED Access to Federal Student Loan Dollars.” I have provided her conclusion below:

“What are Charlotte Law students supposed to do now? Will they be forced to turn to private lenders to finance the rest of their legal educations at a school that recently posted its worst July bar exam passage rate — 45.24 percent — in nearly a decade? 

Charlotte Law has until January 3, 2017, to submit evidence to dispute the Department of Education’s findings. Will Charlotte be the first InfiLaw institution to fold under the substantial weight of its own failures? Perhaps we’ll learn its fate in 2017.” [Emphasis mine]

Yes, that figure above is correct. Think about that for a moment – 45.24 percent of first-time bar exam takers from this festering pile of rancid waste managed to pass the July 2016 test! In a just world, this cesspit would have been shuttered imediately. Of course, the scam continues because students are mere collateral damage. After all, law school pigs have to own nice suits, live in big homes, drive expensive cars – while managing to “work” for 4-10 hours per week.

Conclusion: In the last analysis, if this is the best law school that you can get into, then you are a cretin. Good luck trying to get through the day, without shoving a knife into an electric socket. I’m sure that your payee or residential home manager can get your ass dressed, after they bathe and shave you. Also, I don’t expect this action to last long. The school will likely cite to “a disparate impact on minority students.” However, InfiLaw may just try to dissolve that school – and place those students into the other trash pits in its consortium. Lastly, just think how high the bar pass failure rate would be if the commode didn’t kick out so many before graduation.


  1. Quote: "“The Education Department on Monday said Charlotte School of Law can no longer receive federal loans and grants for misleading students about their chances of passing the bar and its shaky accreditation with the American Bar Association."

    While I am thrilled about this, I am also confused. Here's what I mean...

    These were the same, or substantially similar, grounds asserted in lawsuits against various law schools - lawsuits which were all dismissed. Yet, these same grounds are valid for the denial of federal funding?

    Again...I am GLAD the Dept Of Ed has made this decision, but cannot understand why these same grounds were considered insufficient to state meritorious claims against these same law schools. What am I missing??

    1. Those lawsuits sought damages; the decision by the Department of Education cuts off eligibility for a benefit. That's the difference.

    2. That's a distinction without a difference. The lawsuits turned on applicants being "sophisticated consumers." It looks like the DOE is taking a more paternalistic view.

    3. @ Old Guy
      Yes - I am aware they are seeking wholly different remedies (I read the article). But the theory to reach each remedy is the SAME.

      In fact...per another one of Nando's comments (posted below on this page): "On Friday, two students filed a class action lawsuit against Charlotte School of Law, accuses the law school of engaging in misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud."

      So, in other words, to make my point, these are the same theories - and the gravamen as used in prior lawsuits (which were all dismissed) is making a re-appearance against CSL.

  2. Boys and girls... this is proof that going to a HBCU is the way to go.

    Famu law's tuition is way cheaper and will leave you with less debt and the ability to sit for the bar.

    I also would like to make an honorable mention of: TSU, NCCU, Southern, Howard... all which would leave you in less debt.

    I promise there is an exciting career waiting for you outside of big law. Bar/bri is the key to passing the bar.

    We need more minority lawyers nation wide, just make sure you do it wiht as little debt as possible.

    And remember.... those T1 grads that look down at T4 grads are unjustified and at the end of the day:

    - took the same classes as you
    - have the same legal license as you
    - are no smarter than you
    - will be your competition

    For those that made the bad decision to get a JD with over $150k in student loans just remember in the big picture of things:

    you have your lifetime to pay off the student debt, and you will surely make more than $150k over your life. So do not loose sleep over this decision, IBR....etc.

    1. T1 grads are on averageuch smarter than T4 grads. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

    2. 6:30 is nothing but a shill for the law schools-and if you are considering ls, read his post carefully-it's riddled with inanities, and is nothing more than a creation to saddle you with debt-b/c he just doesn't care.
      Example #1-He recommends attending NCCU-if you want to be unemployed, that is. For the class of 2015, out of a graduating class of 171, only 56-less than 1/3-of the graduates had jobs requiring bar passage-and 54(!) were flat out unemployed 10 months after graduation. In other words, you have just about equal chance as being unemployed as working as a lawyer.
      And the lifetime to pay off the debt-well here's the real world:
      Garnishment for student debt leaving people below the poverty line
      Student debt eats into Social Security benefits
      A fast growing number of senior citizens are hitting retirement with student loan debt still to pay back
      6:30 and his ilk just want to keep the scam alive, and if that means saddling you with a lifetime of debt, he doesn't give a damn. His job is to defend the scam and to crush you with debt. Read the articles noted here and decide for yourself. What he's selling is despicable-don't fall for the scam.

    3. HBCU is the way to go against for profit scams like this. But 150k in debt is fine when you can make 160k to 180k starting at big firms. And 7 year associates average between 300k and 400k. Most firms with institutional clients don't hire from HBCUs or other T3 or T4 schools.

      PI, Family Law and Criminal Law is most likely all you will be doing and on average you will make a fraction of what you would have otherwise made if you were smart enough to score a 175 on the LSAT and get into a real law school like Yale or Harvard.

      Debt is a great thing if you use it to make a wise investment. Just ask your next President.

    4. Don't forget compound interest. If you ask for a loan deferment or a forebearance, it gets recapitalized. According to the IRS data, the average solo earns around 37K a year. How does 150K stack up against that? A student loan isn't the only fixed expense of practicing law.

    5. Lower-tiered law schools are a horrific scam and are best avoided except for connected kids or those few capable of landing in the top five percent of their 1L class.

      Stop encouraging these naïve kids to go to these indefensible institutions with this dangerous puffery.

      Resist The Law School Scam!

  3. the jig is up for these fuck faces


    Let me explain it to you so that even the morons on JD Blunderground - who obv. CAN'T FUCKING READ get it: These people were told that they qualified when they applied to the PSLF program. They were then told, years later, that they did not qualify and were retroactively booted.

    With all undue disrespect to the morons on the Blunderground delving into the non-issues of types of 501(c)'s - THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE MORONS.

    These people were TOLD they qualified in advisory letters and RETOACTIVELY BOOTED.

    Still banking on PSLF kids?


    We're the FUCKING GOVERNMENT and we can do WHATEVER WE WANT! Including changing and ALTERING THE DEAL (like Vader) any fucking time WE FEEL LIKE IT!!!

    AND - Don't let the Door hit you on the way out, bitches!!

    We'll do to you what we did to Charlotte. ANY TIME WE FUCKING WANT!! LOLLLLL!

  5. It's nice to see the feds are paying some attention, at least. The only reason the ABA put cHARLOTte on probation in the first place was due to Dept of Educ. threats to end its rubber stamp "accreditation" power this past summer.

    Absent that pressure, the ABA would have been happy to remain complicit in the scam.

  6. Charlotte has never been anything but a naked money grab. Per the Charlotte Observer newpaper(12/22/16)
    students are already seeking out attorneys to sue the school b/c the students were shocked, just shocked to learn what a naked money pit CSL is...
    And keep in mind, folks, it was NOT the ABA which closed the school by revoking accredidation or taking similar action; it was the Federal DOE which cut off the mother's milk of the scam-the federal loan $$$. And the DOE action can be appealed; it will be an interesting three weeks until the January semester starts, and CSL's website make no mention of its current troubles. In fact, per its website it's business as usual.
    FUN FACT, IRONY DEPT: CSL's website repeatedly refers to CSL's Corporate Compliance Center, where you can get your ever-handy Corporate Compliance Certification for a mere $7500, not including books and fees. This appears to be a case of Law School, Heal Thyself, and CSL is clearly deficient in all manner of corporate compliance.

  7. Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance KingDecember 22, 2016 at 5:07 PM

    I wonder if the Sterling Partners will divest their "investment" or just take a big hit and shut down the joint? Check out their website. A bunch of bro's sitting down discussing their money. I hope they loose their shirts.

  8. Charlotte Law's recent 45% bar passage rate, horrible though it is, understates the awfulness of Charlotte's student quality.

    Charlotte has a 1st year attrition rate of 49%, the highest of any accredited law school in the country. And a 2nd year attrition rate of 7%. The vast majority of first and second year attritions were for academic reasons.

    Does Charlotte Law have a practice of enrolling extremely marginal students, flunking them out before they graduate (in an attempt to keep bar passage rates reasonable), and pocketing a year or two year's worth of the washout's borrowed tuition dollars?

    I am not saying they do, but it is certainly arguable to a reasonable observer.

    1. "Marginal" is a charitable description of the sort of ass-eyed nincompoop that would fail out of Harlotte.

  9. Touro wins the prize!!

    1. I would actually give the prize to Appalachian Law School. According to its latest 509 report, this shit hole school only enrolled 38 students this fall with a pitiful LSAT break down of 140/143/147. Here is the amazing fucking thing, Appalachian only accepted 79 out of 280 applicants for a 28% acceptance rate. An incoming class with a median LSAT score of 143 and a 28% acceptance rate! I can only imagine how bad the qualifications must have been for the 72% of the applicants who were rejected.

    2. Appalachian cannot be long for this world. With a class size à la Indiana Tech, Appalachian brings in very little money. In addition, only 4 of the 110 students pay full fare; almost half of the others get discounts exceeding half of tuition, and in many cases exceeding all of tuition (meaning that those students are paid to attend).

  10. Someone else wins a prize.

    I know a cute little thing who gave up a dream federal job for law school. And get this. The dumb cunt then dropped out of law school...after 3rd semester.

    Yep. There really are people out there who are this fucking stupid. Like this bitch. Had an easy, dream job at Indian Affairs makign $75K a year shuffling some shitpaper work.

    1. dude, maybe she was chasing a dream:

      just because she lost does not make her a loser.

      Eugene Young... T.P. E.12S.4

    2. 5:01, er Mr. AAMPLE-one more time-Eugene Young is a FICTIONAL character. But then again, you'd quote Fred Flintstone if you thought it'd help you shill the law school scam.

    3. So what if she was chasing her dream? The idea that "dreams" justify entering a glutted profession is foolish. Dreams don't triumph over supply and demand.

    4. 5:01 is a cocksucker.

      Chasing dreams (of being of all things, a lawyer) is what leads to dumbshits like you ending up owing a small fortune in student loans. Get lost shitbag.

    5. Agreed.

      I feel no sympathy for this chick at all. She was making a good salary, having her hand held courtesy of Big Sis. G. and then decides it's not enough?!?

      Once she got into the Real World, on the other side of gov't largess and EoE/Aff. Action, Reality decided to hit her with a quick cross..

      Well, that's how it goes.. People don't know how good they have it when they do.

    6. 3:06, that is an insult to cocksuckers everywhere. A decent-looking hooker can make much better hourly money than a shitlawyer, and she doesn't have to pay licensing fees or take mandatory classes in Continuing Rimjob Education.

  11. The ABA is so corrupt and incompetent that the Federal Government has to do its job for it.

    Die, law school, die!

  12. This came out in March Nando and it seems that the decline in the fall tuition income for Touro Law School has to be at least a two million dollar loss for them. It is interesting that they mention the already shaky position of the law school division:

    As for PSLF, there was clear language on the Government web site saying that the program could be discontinued, though not likely. Still, I seem to recall that those already in it will be grandfathered.

  13. From the Chronicle of Higher Education:

    ***Four years ago, U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx told a radio host that she had "very little sympathy" for students with large debt loads. While she now says that large loans may make sense for those getting professional degrees, she holds that "it is absolutely possible to get a four-year degree without borrowing."

    ***In the office of U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx, the incoming chair of the House of Representatives education committee, there’s a desk plate with this simple exhortation: Trust God, Work Smarter, Work Harder.***

    If we could convince her that large loans for law degrees are just as bad, that might help. Perhaps we could start by telling her it used to be a LLB degree (i.e., a bachelor's degree), and her know you've got to be able to get this bachelor's degree, too, without a loan.

    (Apologies for double posting to OTLSS.)

  14. Guys in the end .... the historians will tell you the truth:

    Lawyers with low admissions criteria will perform as well as the lawyers with "higher" admission criteria.

    The only difference is one group may have been given opportunities that the other did not have access to.

    Cooley grads if given the same opportunities as Harvard's grads
    would perform just as well.

    Artificial barriers, over priced JD tuition..... Pay to play system????

    Team AMMPLE do you concur?

    1. 4:57

      Your spot on. Instead of taking the short term view (9 month metric) your taking the big picture perspective.

      I bet if we used a metric of 10 years time, the ROI for law grads would paint a better picture.

      The more time in your profession, the more experience gained, the more you can charge.... are you with me ???

      Also I concur that if T4 grads were to receive the same job opportunities as T1 grads (minus connections) they would perform just as well.

      People should not let student debt keep them on the sidelines, and prevent this from getting in the legal field.

      That is short sided, just try to take on as little tuition as possible.

    2. 1. How do you know you wouldn't make that money without a JD?

      2. Student Loan interest is compound interest, not simple interest. Ask for a single forebearance or deferment, the interest gets capitalized.

      3. To really amortize a 150K nut over ten years, one needs to bring in good money. A big law job covers it. Gub'mint covers too. However, just think about how many new clients one needs to sign up to cover just a student loan payment. I know guys out 30 years who have not signed up a new client in 6 weeks. Their last client was a retail theft for $350.00.

      4. Suppose you obtain 10 years of forebearance and deferments and start to make some good money. It takes time to get to good money, if it even comes. What do you think happened to your principle balance?

      Do you feel lucky? So, you think you can beat the thousands and thousands of other attorneys who thought like you did, but didn't have the benefit of the internet, posters like me and these blogs? I wish I would have had these blogs when I looking into graduate programs.

    3. 9:17

      You are just a looser and you need to try harder.

      Your bad decision making is something you have to live with,
      pertaining to your student loan debt.

      No one should be debating the anatomy of a student loan at this point in the conversation, (its clear from under grad... in all fairness, grad school and professional school follow the same fundamental principles).

      No matter what you say, we both know that "ALL" law grads will make and surpass their principle "law school" student loan balance over their life time.

      So.... if YOU graduate with $150k or over in student debt ... STOP WORRYING and loosing sleep!

      Life is a long journey and you will pay it all back, and with a handsome ROI of money in the bank.

      Here is a hint .... look for the ROI on the back half ..... (not fresh out with your JD, unless you have connects... and trust me ...... this makes a big difference!!!

      Forget what Nando says, at the end of the day, when you wake up and go to work..... look in the mirror and ask your self if your happy, and being "all you can be".

      If not, do not let a student loan or bad advise stand in your way of jumping into the legal game !!!

    4. I am a looser. I guess I lost against 1.8 million other attorneys. I somehow ended up at the bottom. My colleagues are all losers. One attorney works retail on the weekends to make ends meet. She is a looser. My other buddy from a T-5 law school just retired because of dementia. He is nearly broke. He is a looser too. We are all losers except you. Yes, most people, including the lady at the Dollar General will make more than 150K over a life time. However, there are more bills than student loans to pay. If your goal to pay it off is 10 years, your nut will be huge. Spread it out through IBR and interest will go through the roof. It begs the question: Why are you posting here?

    5. I am not sure what you mean when you say "try harder?" Most jurisdictions follow the MPC or ETHICS. There is only so much one can do. You can't go to the hospital or funeral home to solicit. Can't show up at an air crash....What are you suggesting besides networking, advertising and more networking?

    6. > No matter what you say, we both know that "ALL" law grads will make and surpass their principle "law school" student loan balance over their life time.

      In a pointless and crude sense, yes, most people will make at least $150,000 during their working lifetimes. That does not mean that they will have saved anywhere near that much money after paying for things like basic living expenses.

      > Life is a long journey and you will pay it all back, and with a handsome ROI of money in the bank.

      Actually determining whether there is positive ROI requires far more math than you've ever shown yourself capable of. Considering that you enjoy touting AA and "second chance" admissions programs at schools that already have less intellectual requirements than Death Row, I'm not sure if that's likely. You'd have to calculate the opportunity cost of leaving an existing career for law school and the time spent in school, you'd have to factor out any earnings that you'd have made regardless of whether you went to law school (in my case, 100%), you might want to consider whether you would have made more money in a different career, etc.

      > You are just a looser and you need to try harder.

      What does "Trying harder" have to do with competing in a market economy? The supply-demand ratio either favors suppliers or it does not. If you're in favorable market (high demand for services, low supply of services), you can work moderately and make good money. If you're in a bad market, you can work your tail off for a pittance.

      Also, what is your practice area and income?

    7. 5:10 PM: First, learn to spell before advising others.

      Next, recognize the fact that the best advice anyone can give a kid is to get some experience in a law firm BEFORE going to law school.

      See what really goes on in an average sh!tlaw shoppe (since that is the most likely destination coming from the schools you are shilling). Experience what the average client is like. See what the attorneys are like.

      Then, and only then, can an unconnected kid truly consider a TTT in an informed and enlightened manner; knowing what it means to be an attorney, and, particularly, what the practice of law in the trenches is all about!

      You know nothing of actual law practice and it shows.


    On December 19, 2016, the Charlotte Business Journal published a piece from staff writer Jennifer Thomas, under the header "Education Department: Charlotte Law ‘misleading and dishonest,’ loses federal financial aid." Enjoy this opening:

    "The U.S. Education Department cut federal financial aid for Charlotte School of Law effective Dec. 31, saying the for-profit institution was misleading and dishonest.

    In a news release, the education department says the Charlotte for-profit institution made “substantial” misrepresentations to current and prospective students tied to its accreditation status and the likelihood graduates would pass the bar exam.

    The education department’s decision comes roughly a month after the law school was placed on probation by the American Bar Association.

    “The ABA repeatedly found that the Charlotte School of Law does not prepare students for participation in the legal profession. Yet CSL continuously misrepresented itself to current and prospective students as hitting the mark,” says U.S. Under Secretary of Education Ted Mitchell.

    The education department will end access to federal financial aid funding for Charlotte Law students on Dec. 31. That means students can no longer use federal financial aid as of Jan. 1.

    Charlotte Law said in a press release Monday afternoon that it had "no warning" of the change in eligibility status or opportunity to communicate with the education department prior to its announcement.

    It notes that the decision ignores the fact that the school remains ABA accredited while on probation and is taking steps to address the probation action."

    It's funny to see the pigs cite to being ABA-accredited as a sign that it is a good school. Hell, skid row prostitutes are more selective. By the way, I like how the accompanying photo of CharloTTTTe Sewer of Law "president" Chidi Ogene bears a strong resemblance to former Ugandan dictator Idi Amin.


    On December 20, 2016, the Daily Caller featured a Blake Neff article labeled “Obama Admin Cuts Off Taxpayer Cash For Terrible Law School.” Take a look at the following portion:

    “One of the country’s lowest-performing law schools had its supply of federal student loans cut off Monday, likely meaning the school will have to shut down in the near future.

    Federal regulators say Charlotte School of Law engaged in various “dishonest” practices to lure in students, and have punished the school by denying it any further access to federal loan money.

    “The [American Bar Association] repeatedly found that the Charlotte School of Law does not prepare students for participation in the legal profession,” said U.S. Under Secretary of Education Ted Mitchell in a statement. “Yet CSL continuously misrepresented itself to current and prospective students as hitting the mark. CSL’s actions were misleading and dishonest. We can no longer allow them continued access to federal student aid.”

    The ruling means that, starting in January, students must pay out-of-pocket or take out private loans to attend the school. Charlotte and similar schools are extremely dependent on federal student loans, though, meaning it is unlikely to survive without them. The school is also vulnerable because it is an independent law school unattached to a larger university, so it must sink or swim on its own with no larger school that can subsidize it. In the 2015-16 school year, Charlotte received more than $48 million in federal funds.

    Even before the announcement, Charlotte was experiencing tough times. The for-profit school, which costs $44,000 per year to attend plus living expenses, has had its enrollment drop from more about 1,400 students to about half that today. In November it was placed on probation by the ABA, which accused the school of admitting students who did not have a meaningful hope of successfully passing the bar exam. Only 45 percent of graduates passed the most recent North Carolina bar exam, 20 points below the state average.”

    Merry Christmas, pigs! Student loans are the lifeblood of the law school scam. How many young people can shell out $40K+ out of their bank accounts, annually for three years, in order to pay for law school? What percentage of recent college grads have the credit – and collateral – to get a bank loan at a low rate, for the purpose of obtaining “higher education”?! Wallow in your own TTTT waste, cockroaches!


    On December 19, 2016, the ABA Journal published a Stephanie Francis Ward piece that was entitled “Federal student financial aid yanked at Charlotte School of Law.” Check out this spectacular opening:

    “Updated: After reportedly making “substantial misrepresentations” to current and prospective students regarding its compliance with ABA accreditation standards, Infilaw System’s Charlotte School of Law will lose its federal student financial aid, the Department of Education announced Monday.

    “The ABA repeatedly found that the Charlotte School of Law does not prepare students for participation in the legal profession. Yet CSL continuously misrepresented itself to current and prospective students as hitting the mark,” U.S. Under Secretary of Education Ted Mitchell said in a press release. “CSL’s actions were misleading and dishonest. We can no longer allow them continued access to federal student aid.”

    Between 2015 and 2016, 946 students at the North Carolina school received $48.5 million in federal student loans, according to the department. The school is one of three for-profit law schools in the Infilaw consortium.

    The financial aid cutoff begins Dec. 31, and Charlotte School of Law has until Jan. 3, 2017 to submit evidence disputing the department’s findings.

    On Friday, two students filed a class action lawsuit against Charlotte School of Law, accuses the law school of engaging in misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud.

    The ABA first informed the law school that it was out of compliance with various standards in February 2016, and again in July 2016. At neither time was the information shared with current or prospective students, according to the education department. The standards in question include 301(a), which states that law schools must maintain a legal education program that prepares students to be lawyers, and 501(a) and (b), which address admissions policies and practices.

    The Charlotte law school appealed the ABA finding, and it was upheld (PDF) in October. At that time, the council of the ABA’s Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar placed law school on probation.

    The Charlotte Observer reported today that Jay Conison, the school’s dean, said his school had a plan to meet ABA standards and be back in compliance with in two years.

    In statement about the Department of Education’s finding, the law school described it as “unexpected.”

    I suppose the commode did not get enough notice that it was in violation of ABA standards. Then again, the trash pits recognize that they can stink up the surrounding area code and the ABA won’t do a damn thing. Chalk this up as the racketeer influenced and corrupt organiztion known as the American Bar Association realizing that they need to do something, in order to show that they enforce their own rules. It is mere window dressing.


Web Analytics