Law school fined for providing false admissions data

July 25, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The American Bar Association sent a strong message to the University of Illinois College of Law Tuesday, fining the school $250,000 for submitting inaccurate information to the ABA through the association’s annual questionnaires of law schools.

The Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar of the ABA voted at its June meeting to impose sanctions upon U of I. The law school intentionally reported or disseminated false LSAT and GPA statistics for the entering classes of 2005 and 2007 through 2011. False acceptance rates were reported for the entering classes of 2005, 2009, 2010 and 2011.

An assistant dean for admissions increased students’ scores. The employee was a 2003 graduate of the school whose success in recruiting highly credentialed classes led to his salary more than doubling by 2011.

“No matter what the competitive pressures, law schools must not cheat. The College of Law cheated,” the sanction says.

In addition to the fine, the ABA publicly censured the law school and required that the censure be posted prominently on the home page of the law school’s website for two years; imposed a requirement that the law school issue a correct public statement; requires the law school hire a compliance monitor to report on data for the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 academic years; and ends an agreement that allowed U of I’s law school to conduct an early-admissions program.

The fine must be paid by Sept. 15 and the proceeds of the penalty will be placed in a designated fund used by the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar for monitoring and enhancing compliance with data reporting and publication requirement standards by all ABA-approved law schools.

The ABA announced its sanctions on U of I College of Law Tuesday. The public censure wasn’t posted on the school’s website Wednesday morning.

The falsified data wasn’t discovered until a “whistleblower” brought suspicions to the attention of the University of Illinois in 2011. The law school has since implemented corrective actions, the sanction says.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT