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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT