Defunct Charlotte Law School, With Kirkland & Ellis' Help, Sues ABA
It's the second time in as many weeks that the American Bar Association has been sued for allegedly violating the due process of a law school it sanctioned for lax admissions practices.
May 15, 2018 at 03:23 PM
4 minute read
Charlotte School of Law, now closed. |
Represented by three Kirkland & Ellis partners, defunct Charlotte School of Law and its parent company on Tuesday filed suit against the American Bar Association and its various entities involved in law school accreditation, alleging that the ABA violated the school's due process when it placed Charlotte on probation in 2016.
That sanction prompted the U.S. Department of Education to cut the North Carolina school off from federal loan eligibility in December 2016—a financially crippling blow from which it never recovered. The school officially shut down the following August, but the suit hinted that owner InfiLaw Corp. wants to resurrect it.
Paul Clement. Photo Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi
The school, represented by Kirkland partners Paul Clement, Viet Dinh and H. Christopher Bartolomucci, asked the court to issue a declaratory judgment that, “would make it possible for Charlotte to begin the process of attempting to obtain the approvals necessary to resume operating as a law school.”
The new suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, claimed that the ABA's accreditation standards are vague and that it has been inconsistent in its application of the standards. It also claimed that officials within the U.S. Department of Education, which tasks the ABA with law school oversight, pressured the body to take action against for-profit law schools like Charlotte, and that the ABA didn't follow its own procedures in sanctioning Charlotte.
“This court should hold the ABA accountable for abusing its accreditation authority and causing Charlotte to close its doors,” reads Charlotte's complaint.
➤➤ Want more reporting on trends in legal education? Sign up here for Ahead of the Curve by Karen Sloan, a new email briefing from Law.com. Each week, Karen examines the transformation of legal education, spotlights innovative programs and breaks down the latest law school news.
Representatives for the ABA's section of legal education and admissions to the bar did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday.
Charlotte's allegations are very similar to those contained in a suit filed against the ABA in federal court last week by Florida Coastal School of Law, also represented by the three Kirkland partners. The ABA notified Florida Coastal in October that it is out of compliance with its admission standards, and in late April reaffirmed that the school remains out of compliance. Florida Coastal, however, remains open. Both schools are owned by InfiLaw, which also runs the for-profit Arizona Summit Law School in Phoenix. Arizona Summit has also run afoul of the ABA's accreditation standards. It was put on probation by the ABA in March 2017. The Charlotte suit claimed that a court finding that the ABA violated Charlotte's due process would benefit InfiLaw as well as Florida Coastal and Arizona Summit.
“The complaint filed today in federal court alleges that the ABA's actions against [Charlotte] violated the due process required of those wielding accreditation power and caused [the school] to be excluded from the Title IV federal loan program, making it impossible for [it] to continue to operate as a law school,” Clement said in a written statement.
The suit alleged that the ABA let lower-performing law schools off the hook while seeking out Charlotte for punishment.
The ABA has stepped up its efforts to police law schools in the past two years, partly in response to criticism from the Education Department that it had been too lax on underperforming law schools with high graduate debt and poor bar pass rates.
Charlotte has asked the court to grant an injunction restoring Charlotte's ABA accreditation as well as an injunction barring it for enforcing its admissions standards with any law school. Those standards require law schools to admit only students who “appear capable” of graduating and passing the bar. It also seeks unspecified damages.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPlaintiffs Seek Redo of First Trial Over Medical Device Plant's Emissions
4 minute readIn Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
6 minute readPaul Weiss’ Shanmugam Joins 11th Circuit Fight Over False Claims Act’s Constitutionality
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250