LA's Turbulent Law School Market Could Take Another Hit
Officials at the University of La Verne, outside of Los Angeles, are contemplating the future of the law school and whether it is financially sustainable.
October 29, 2019 at 01:39 PM
4 minute read
|
Yet another law school is under threat of closure.
Trustees at the University of La Verne are scheduled to determine the fate of the Ontario, California, law school when the board meets on Nov. 18. Earlier this month, the board tasked two separate committees with evaluating the school's financial sustainability and future.
If the board votes to close the campus, it will become the sixth law school to shut down since 2017. (That figure does not include branch campus closures and mergers.) And it would also be the second law school to wind down within the Los Angeles area—where a number of lower-tier law schools have struggled amid legal education's downturn. Ontario is about 40 miles east of Los Angeles in what is known as the Inland Empire.
About 40 miles south of Los Angeles in Costa Mesa, Whittier Law School is in its final year of operation after university officials decided in 2017 to close the school due to financial shortfalls and dwindling enrollment. Thomas Jefferson School of Law, farther south in San Diego, is fighting for its survival after the American Bar Association revoked its accreditation. (The school remains accredited while it appeals that decision.) Meanwhile, Western State College of Law narrowly averted closure this summer when its owner went bankrupt and it came under a federal receivership. The Orange County law school was purchased by Westcliff University for $1 and remains open, though many students transferred out amid the uncertainty, and Western State did not accept new students this fall.
On Oct. 18, La Verne's board of trustees passed a resolution convening an administration committee and a faculty committee to each develop long-term recommendations for the law school, said university spokesman Rod Leveque on Oct. 29. It could act upon those recommendations as soon as next month.
Among the catalysts for the evaluation is the American Bar Association's decision last spring to strengthen its bar passage standard, giving law schools just two years to ensure that at least 75% of graduates pass the bar instead of the previous five years. The school's finances are another factor, he said. (He declined to specify whether the law school is currently operating at a financial loss.)
"It's really looking at both the finances and then the mission, in balance," Leveque said. "It's looking at: 'If we were to maintain the current trajectory, what sort of resources would we need to commit to the college to be successful and thrive? If we were to look at other options, what might those be?' It's really just the board doing its due diligence as steward of the university to look at the changing landscape of legal education and figuring out where we fit in."
The bar exam has been an ongoing struggle for the law school. Just 32% of its graduates who took the licensing exam in 2018 passed. La Verne's poor track record on the bar was a factor in its 17-year bid to gain full accreditation from the ABA. The law school was founded in 1970, but didn't apply for ABA approval until 1999. The school first gained provisional accreditation in 2006, but that status lapsed in 2011 after the ABA declined to extend full accreditation, citing low bar-passage rates. The ABA reinstated the school's provisional status the following year in time for graduates to be eligible to sit for the bar exam, and the school gained full accreditation in 2016.
University provost Jonathan Reed addressed La Verne law students at a town hall on Oct. 23. (Interim law dean Kevin Marshall did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday.) Leveque said that all options remain on the table, including keeping the school open.
"We just want to reassure all current students that, no matter what, we are fully committed to them," he said. "They will graduate from an ABA-accredited law program. Sometimes, when people are considering a change, everyone assumes the worst."
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 All'No Evidence'?: Big Law Firms Defend Academic Publishers in EDNY Antitrust Case
3 minute readLitigators of the Week: Jeffrey Kessler and Steve Berman Reach a Settlement With the NCAA that Reshapes College Sports
Class Action Lawsuit Targets 40 Private Colleges and Universities Over Alleged Price-Fixing
3 minute readJudge Pauses Landmark $2.75B NCAA Settlement Proposal, Parties to Hash Out More Details
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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