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.


Post a comment to this story

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
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.