TJSL Responses to Media Reports on Past Admin’s Admitted Fraud

Update: Added additional court filings by TJSL. See below.

Last week, we broke the news of a former employee of Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in a sworn testimony, admitting that she falsified data and alleging that she was instructed to do so by her direct supervisor. Since that time, TJSL has made a number of on-the-record responses to Karen Grant’s admission and allegations.

To the ABA Journal:

In an interview with the ABA Journal, Thomas Jefferson School of Law dean Rudy Hasl called the allegations a “crock of crap.”

To the National Law Journal:

Grant’s declaration not a smoking gun, Thomas Jefferson law dean Rudy Hasl said when asked about the statement. He reiterated the school’s position that it did nothing wrong.

“This is the action of a counsel desperate to find any hook to create embarrassment for Thomas Jefferson,” Hasl said.

To the Wall Street Journal:

Thomas Jefferson Dean Rudy Hasl said that the school presented accurate data about its graduates’ employment, and that ”no employee was every directed to falsify information.” The school also denies misleading students, saying it has always complied with reporting requirements.

On the TJSL website (but note that TJSL incorrectly indicates that 25 law schools have been sued — the correct number is 15):

Thomas Jefferson School of Law (TJSL) is one of over 25 law schools across the country that has been sued by a few former students who claim that their post-graduate employment opportunities were more limited than they were led to believe when they applied to attend law school. We believe that this litigation is meritless and will be decided in our favor.

Recent media accounts have drawn attention to a declaration filed last week in the litigation. In the declaration, an ex-employee of TJSL claims that six (6) years ago her former supervisor (who departed TJSL in 2007) instructed her to classify graduates as “employed” in reports to the National Association of Law Placement in cases where those students were employed at some point post-graduation, but were not employed on a specific reporting date. She does not specify how often this change in employment actually occurred.

Claims of false reporting are serious and we take them seriously. TJSL policy has always been to report accurate employment data, and the declaration is the first time the declarant, or anyone else, has made such an assertion.

By way of background, the declarant worked at TJSL only briefly in 2006 and 2007, without ever raising this issue to the Dean or senior staff. Moreover, we have also found no other document or witness who corroborates the declarant’s new contention.

Notably, TJSL was recently praised for the transparency of our publicly available placement data. See, e.g., http://thecareerist.typepad.com/thecareerist/2012/01/law-schools-are-still-mum-about-grads-jobs.html (Law School Transparency lists TJSL as one of only six schools earning its “good” rating for transparency); see also http://www.law.seattleu.edu/prebuilt/pdf/NJM_Transparency.pdf (National Jurist giving TJSL an “A” grade and ranking the school in the top 15 law schools for transparency).

In sum, as we have consistently stated, we do not believe that there is any legitimate basis for this lawsuit. Accordingly, we will continue to vigorously defend TJSL against these meritless claims.

Updated Court Filings from TJSL

TJSL has passed on to us three of their filings in this case.

Breaking: Ex-CSO assistant director from Thomas Jefferson admits to fraud, alleges deliberate scheme by law school

In a sworn statement, Karen Grant, a former career services assistant director at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, admits that she fabricated graduate employment outcomes for the class of 2006. Grant alleges that her fraud was part of a deliberate scheme by the law school’s administration to inflate its employment statistics. She also claims that her direct supervisor, Laura Weseley, former Director of Career Services, instructed her on multiple occasions to improperly record graduate employment outcomes and justified the scheme because “everybody does it” thus “it is no big deal.” TJSL could face sanctions from the American Bar Association as severe as losing accreditation.

Grant was Assistant Director of Career Services at TJSL from September 2006 to September 2007, during which she was tasked with tracking and recording employment outcomes of recent graduates. Grant is a licensed California attorney and made her sworn declaration on August 2, 2012 in connection to the class action lawsuit filed by Anna Alaburda, et al. against TJSL in 2011. (Complaint; Original Story.) Grant’s statement was filed in court last week in connection to Alaburda’s motion for sanctions.

Specifically, Grant admits that she “routinely recorded currently unemployed students as ‘employed’ if they had been employed at any time since graduation,” which is a violation of both ABA and NALP reporting guidelines. Graduates should only be recorded as employed if they are employed as of February Exhibit B, A handwritten note by Karen Grant from a meeting with Laura Weseley on Oct. 16, 2006. 15 following graduation.

Grant’s admitted actions likely mean that TJSL violated ABA Standard 509 and Interpretation 509-3. Possible sanctions under Rule 16 for violating Standard 509 include monetary penalty, censure, probation, and losing accreditation.

Paul Campos, professor of law at the University of Colorado Law School, says that “the ABA ought to be pursuing an investigation vigorously.” He continued, “if the ABA is at all serious about transparency, they will have to crack down on this.” The ABA is preparing its public comments, which will be available shortly. (Update: see below for ABA comments.)

In addition to her own admission, Grant alleges that Weseley, her then-boss, instructed her to misrecord graduate employment outcomes and justified the actions based on a belief that such practices were widespread throughout the legal education community. From Ms. Grant’s testimony (emphasis added):

4. … I was instructed to “probe” graduates because “they may say no,” meaning that graduates may indicate they were currently unemployed and I therefore needed to ask whether they had been employed any time prior to graduation.

5. … Ms. Weseley instructed me to “update ERSS prior to Feb if [unemployed] & become [employed] but not vice-versa.” … I expressed my concern at the time that it did not seem right to update graduates’ employment data only if the graduate became employed, but not if they became unemployed.

Grant continues by explaining her data recording process and Weseley’s alleged influence on it:

6. Ms. Weseley later reiterated that, when talking to students, I was to first ask if they were currently employed. If the graduate indicated he or she was not currently employed, I would then inquire whether he or she was employed at any time after graduation. If the graduate indicated he or she was employed at any time after graduation (even though currently unemployed), I was instructed to record the graduate as “employed” in TJSL’s Excel software.

7. I again expressed my concern and told Ms. Weseley that it not seem right to report currently unemployed students as “employed” merely because they had been employed at some point after graduation. Ms. Weseley responded by saying “it is no big deal, everybody does it.”

8. I followed Ms. Weseley’s instructions. I routinely recorded currently unemployed students as “employed” if they had been employed at any time since graduation. As a result, the employment data that I entered into the Excel files included currently unemployed students who were inaccurately categorized as “employed.”

It is the nature of the process that schools do not follow up with certain graduates before submitting data to NALP by the end of February. Schools begin collecting post-graduation job outcome data shortly before graduation and continue through the February 15 reporting deadline. Once a school knows that a graduate has a job, career services staffers will often cease follow-ups because they believe their time is better spent elsewhere.

However, Grant alleges that the accepted practice in the TJSL career services office, at least during her tenure, went beyond cherry picking which students to follow up with. She alleges that she participated in a scheme that guaranteed that TJSL’s employment stats would be better than the reality by affirmatively ignoring new, true, and proper outcomes of graduates whose jobs were terminated or ran their course before the reporting deadline. Grant admits that TJSL submitted false information to NALP, U.S. News, and the American Bar Association as a result of her counting as employed at nine-months any student who was employed at any time after graduation regardless of whether they had a job at that time.

A look at the statistics TJSL reported to the ABA for the class of 2006 confirms that the numbers from Grant’s spreadsheet, Exhibit D of her declaration, were submitted to the ABA. These numbers were not submitted to the ABA until after her termination in September 2007.

In an email to LST, Rudy Hasl, dean of Thomas Jefferson School of Law, questioned Grant’s reliability, disputing the accuracy of her sworn testimony and her motivations. “The law school stands behind the accuracy of the data that we submitted to the American Bar Association.” Sources report that Grant was terminated in 2007, though when asked for clarification, Dean Hasl would not comment on internal personnel matters beyond suggesting that LST “do a due diligence analysis … including the reasons for her departure from the School of Law.”

Grant’s admission marks the first on-the-record account of a law school administrator falsifying employment data. It remains to be seen whether she was a rogue employee, or whether there was a deliberate scheme by the law school to inflate the appearance of its employment outcomes. Nevertheless, her allegations of a culture within American legal education where fraudulent reporting is a legitimate strategy are sure to reignite concerns about the quality of data that schools report, how schools present data to the public, and whether the current level of public investment in legal education is appropriate in light of this culture.

UPDATE: Comment from ABA

The ABA Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar is fully committed to ensuring that law schools comply with the letter and spirit of the Standards for Approval of Law Schools and all reporting requirements. We take seriously our responsibilities for collecting and disseminating law school data, including employment data.

The actions of a few schools have called into question the integrity of all. As a consequence, the Section has been called upon to play a greater role in investigating possible non-compliance with our rules and in sanctioning non-complying schools. We regularly follow up on reports and other communications regarding possible non-compliance with the Standards that come to our attention.

Under our rules, all matters concerning the accreditation of an individual school must be confidential. Thus, we cannot comment on the matter that is now being reported. Given the confidentiality requirement, no one should assume that a matter has not been, or is not being, addressed.

Last year, in an effort to increase clarity, accuracy and accountability in the reporting of employment data, the Section began requiring law schools to report employment data directly to the Section; in the past, schools reported this information to NALP. We have established detailed definitions and instructions for the reporting of employment data. The Section is fully committed to the clarity and accuracy of law school placement data. By vigorously enforcing the Standard that requires fair and accurate reporting of consumer information, and by having law schools report more comprehensive, specific consumer information, as a result, those students who choose to enter law school will be better informed about the prospects for employment than ever before.

UPDATE: Context of Court Filing

LST received a copy of the evidence as it was filed last Thursday by Anna Alaburda’s attorneys. It was filed in connection to her latest motion, a motion for sanctions.

Breaking: 12 more law schools facing class actions

The Law Offices of David Anziska, together with Strauss Law PLLC and six other law firms, publicly announced moments ago that they have filed complaints against 12 more law schools. To date, 15 of the country’s 197 ABA-approved law schools are facing class action suits. (Thomas Jefferson, New York Law School, and Thomas Cooley have already been sued, with the first lawsuit already in discovery.)

These lawsuits should be of grave concern to the ABA, both as the only federally-recognized accrediting body and as the legal profession’s largest and most powerful trade organization. Nearly 8% of its member schools have been formally accused of fraud by 74 former students. While positive results for the plaintiffs would further confirm what LST has drawn attention to over the past two years, the underlying problem of poor ABA governance will remain unchanged by the results. Recent efforts to reform the accreditation standards are a start, but the ABA has yet to show that they will take any significant corrective action against schools. While these lawsuits will attempt to hold schools accountable for past misleading actions, it will be up to the ABA to ensure its member schools do not continue the fraud that is widespread throughout American legal education.

The new batch includes 11 schools from Anziska and Strauss’s October 2011 announcement. The twelfth is Golden Gate University School of Law, as Above the Law announced late last year.

All 12 Schools:

  • Albany Law School
  • Brooklyn Law School
  • California Western School of Law
  • Chicago-Kent College of Law
  • DePaul University College of Law
  • Florida Coastal School of Law
  • Golden Gate University School of Law
  • Hofstra Law School
  • John Marshall School of Law (Chicago)
  • Southwestern Law School
  • University of San Francisco School of Law
  • Widener University School of Law

As momentum for holding law schools accountable grows and people start to realize the courts are their only remedy, LST expects more class actions will be filed this year. These allegations concern a long history of consumer-disoriented behavior, which unfortunately continues today at a great number of schools. LST’s Winter 2012 Transparency Index shows just how poor the newly-sued schools are doing when it comes to being honest about what their graduates found for work. Just one of the twelve schools currently discloses the number of graduates who found full-time, permanent jobs for which bar passage was required.

Transparency Index Performance of Newly-Sued Schools

School State Transparency Index Performance
Albany Law School NY Does not indicate # in FT/PT jobs or LT/ST jobs. Provides Legal Employment Rate.
Brooklyn Law School NY Does not indicate # in school-funded jobs, FT/PT jobs, or LT/ST jobs. Provides misleading salary figures.
California Western School of Law CA Struggled with its graduate survey response rate more than most schools. Does not indicate # in school-funded jobs, FT/PT jobs, or LT/ST jobs. Provides misleading salary figures.
Chicago-Kent College of Law IL Does not indicate # in school-funded jobs, FT/PT jobs, or LT/ST jobs. Provides misleading salary figures.
DePaul University College of Law IL Does not indicate graduate survey response rate. Does not indicate # in school-funded jobs, FT/PT jobs, or LT/ST jobs. Provides misleading salary figures.
Florida Coastal School of Law FL Struggled with its graduate survey response rate more than most schools. Does not indicate # in school-funded jobs, FT/PT jobs, or LT/ST jobs. However, it does provide the Legal Employment Rate. Provides misleading salary figures.
Golden Gate University School of Law CA Struggled with its graduate survey response rate more than most schools. Does not indicate # in school-funded jobs or LT/ST jobs. However, it does provide the FT Legal Employment Rate.
Hofstra Law School NY Does not indicate # in school-funded jobs, FT/PT jobs, or LT/ST jobs. Provides misleading salary figures and employer list.
John Marshall School of Law (Chicago) IL Does not indicate # in school-funded jobs or LT/ST jobs. Provides the FT Legal Employment Rate. Provides many misleading salary figures.
Southwestern Law School CA One of the best performing schools with 12 met criteria. One of two schools that currently provide the Full-time, Long-term Legal Employment Rate. Does not indicate # in school-funded jobs.
University of San Francisco School of Law CA Does not provide employment statistics on its website.
Widener University School of Law DE/PA Struggled with its graduate survey response rate more than most schools. Does not indicate # in school-funded jobs, FT/PT jobs, or LT/ST jobs. However, it does provide the FT Legal Employment Rate.

View the press release after the jump »»

Class Action Suit Against Thomas Jefferson School of Law Now in Discovery

We’ve been keeping tabs on the three pending lawsuits against ABA-approved law schools over fraudulent presentation of employment statistics. These cases set the stage for additional class actions against the other 194 ABA-approved law schools, given that the allegedly misleading actions have been the industry norm for quite some time.

The first of the three class actions, Alaburda v. TJSL, was filed last May in California Superior Court. In addition to alleging that Thomas Jefferson School of Law committed fraud, the plaintiff’s claims of unfair competition and false advertising have been allowed to move forward. While the plaintiff has yet to file for class certification (her attorney expects to do so in six to twelve months), the case has entered into the discovery phase. In the meantime, the lawyers have set up a class action registry for graduates of TJSL. (Link here.)

We inquired for a status update with the lead attorney on the case, Brian Procel of Miller Barondess LLP. Below is his full response.

Good to hear from you. I am very pleased with the progress of our case and recent developments with respect to the disclosure of employment data among law schools.

Thomas Jefferson answered Plaintiff’s complaint on September 23, 2011. We have now stated class action claims for fraud, unfair competition and false advertising. The parties are currently engaged in discovery, including the exchange of documents and other information. We intend to start taking the depositions of the administrators at Thomas Jefferson who were involved in compiling the employment data that was ultimately reported by U.S News & World Report. Thomas Jefferson will send out notice of the class action to all graduates in the near future.

We set up a website, thomasjeffersonclassaction.com. We invite all graduates to register on the website. This will allow us to communicate with the class members and to answer any question they may have directly. By signing up on the website, graduates can also input information that will help us to evaluate whether Thomas Jefferson has been reporting their employment data accurately.

I would like to thank you and your team at lawschooltransparency.com. You are doing great work and we are now starting to see some positive results.

Note to TJSL graduates: Please contact the firm directly using the instructions on the registry if you wish to join the class. LST is not affiliated with this or any lawsuit.

ABA Files Brief in Opposition to Duncan School of Law Complaint

The ABA filed a brief today in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Tennessee in response to a complaint filed by Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law.

The lawsuit claims that the ABA violated antitrust laws. “What it says is that in a nutshell, we were denied due process because we met the standards promulgated by the ABA and we didn’t receive accreditation, so what we’re seeking is fair hearing,” said Sydney A. Beckman, vice president and dean of LMU’s law school. “It also alleges antitrust violations because it appears when you deny a school that met accreditation standards, that you’re try to limit the number of law schools.”

The response states that Duncan School of Law was not in “substantial compliance” with all of the section’s Standards for Approval of Law Schools, including Standard 203 (Strategic Planning and Assessment), Standards 303(a) and (c) and Interpretation 303-3 (Academic Standards and Achievements), and Standard 501(b) and Interpretation 501-3 (Admissions and Student Services). The response also suggests that Duncan School of Law has not exhausted its right to appeal the decision by the Council of the Section of Legal Education to deny provisional accreditation.

Class Action Updates: Plaintiffs’ Reply to Cooley’s Motion to Dismiss

In response to Thomas M. Cooley Law School’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs, represented by David Anziska and Jesse Strauss, have filed a reply brief.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to allow their case to proceed. They allege that Cooley “has been systematically defrauding thousands of prospective and enrolled students by reporting deceptive and misleading job placement data and salary information in a misguided attempt to inflate the value of a Cooley degree and thereby draw millions of undeserved tuition dollars.”

Cooley previously raised a number of defenses as to why it should not be subject to consumer protection claims. The reply addresses each defense in turn. Of note is the response to Cooley’s unreasonable reliance claim:

Cooley next alleges that to the extent that Plaintiffs relied upon the deceptive and misleading employment data, that reliance was unreasonable because Plaintiffs should have known that far fewer than the reported amount of Cooley graduates actually obtained full-time, permanent employment that required a Cooley degree. Def.’s Memorandum of Law, p. 39. In other words, Cooley has the audacity to argue that its own graduates unreasonably relied on Cooley’s marketing materials because they should have realized that Cooley’s reported employment statistics were inaccurate and that most Cooley graduates do not obtain full-time, permanent employment for which a JD degree is required or preferred. Aside from making a cynical and unprincipled argument, Cooley misstates the law.

The reply is attached.