Law School Pulls Plug on Fall Classes Amid Accreditation Crisis
Arizona Summit Law School has called off next semester's classes, but Arizona State University is allowing the school's current students who are within one semester of graduating to take fall courses at its nearby campus.
August 14, 2018 at 03:14 PM
4 minute read
The embattled Arizona Summit Law School won't hold classes this fall as it fights for survival.
The American Bar Association revoked the school's accreditation in June—a decision Arizona Summit has appealed—and it informed its dwindling student body in an email late last week that it will not open as scheduled later this month. The school did not say it was closing outright, however, and maintained that it was working toward a formal “teach-out” plan that would allow existing students to complete their studies.
Asked for comment Tuesday, the school issued a statement saying that its appeal to hold onto ABA accreditation is pending.
“Arizona Summit has announced to its students that there will not be classes this fall, and that Summit is negotiating with another law school for a teach out,” the statement reads.
But the school's email to students paints a dire picture of its prospects.
“As [Arizona Summit] will not be offering classes in the fall, [Arizona Summit] will not offer any scholarships going forward to any [Arizona Summit] students,” the email reads. “The [Arizona Summit] Library is not available; however, the ASU law library is open and available to the public.”
If Arizona Summit never reopens, it will be the second of InfiLaw Corp.'s three for-profit law schools to close in the span of a year. The Charlotte School of Law closed last August after losing its federal student loan eligibility and its license to operate within North Carolina. InfiLaw's third school, Florida Coastal School of Law, remains open.
Meanwhile, the nearby Arizona State University Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law has agreed to accept Arizona Summit students who are within one semester of graduating as visitors this semester, said ASU assistant dean Thomas Williams. That arrangement will allow visiting students the ability to complete their legal studies and graduate with an Arizona Summit law degree, he said.
But ASU opted against admitting Arizona Summit students with fewer credits out of fear that they would be left high and dry if Arizona Summit closes shop. (Arizona Summit remains ABA accredited during the appeals process, and because a decision is not expected until October, it will be able to confer degrees in December even if its appeal is unsuccessful, according to Williams.)
It's unclear how many current Arizona Summit students are within a semester of graduating, but those who go to ASU as visitors will pay ASU tuition, which at $27,584 annually is significantly lower than Arizona Summit's $45,354 annual cost.
ASU was scheduled to hold an informational session for Arizona Summit students on Tuesday afternoon, as eligible visitors need to make decisions quickly. Classes start at ASU on Wednesday.
Arizona Summit approached ASU in July to discuss a teach-out plan in which current Arizona Summit students could finish their classes at ASU but get an Arizona Summit law degree. But the two schools have yet to reach an agreement, and such a plan would require the blessing of the American Bar Association, the U.S. Department of Education and the university, Williams said. There was not enough time to put such a plan in place by the start of the fall semester, he said. Should a formal teach-out agreement be reached, it wouldn't start until January, he added.
Arizona Summit had about 100 students when those teach-out talks began, but withdrawals and transfers have brought that figure down to about 80, Williams said.
“Their students are clearly unhappy,” Williams said. “They are unhappy with Summit, and some of them are unhappy with us because they think we should be solving this problem for them. We'll see what happens.”
Established in 2005, Arizona Summit has struggled with falling enrollment and low bar pass rates for years, but its situation worsened in March 2017 when the ABA put the school on probation for violating the standards intended to prevent schools from admitting students who are unlikely to graduate and pass the bar, among other shortcomings.
And then in June, the ABA revoked Arizona Summit's accreditation, apparently the first time it has yanked its seal of approval from a fully accredited law school.
Arizona Summit sued the ABA in May, along with Florida Coastal and Charlotte School of Law, alleging that the ABA standards are unlawfully vague and applied unevenly across schools. A federal judge on Monday stayed the Arizona Summit litigation while the ABA considers the school's appeal.
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 AllUChicago Law Professors Release Desk Reference Breaking Down Crypto, Web 3 for Attorneys
4 minute readDean Developments: 2 Law Schools Appoint New Leadership, ABF Elects New Fellow
4 minute readTrending Stories
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