|
|
| HOME | PUBLICATIONS | ATTORNEY PROFILE | LEGAL SERVICES | FAQ | CONTACT | |
SUMMARY This article argues that the Law School Admission
Test (LSAT) is inherently and unfairly biased against racial minorities. It further argues that the white-dominated institution
that administers the test has been tainted by a history of apparent
or actual financial conflicts of interest.
The author concludes that the LSAT should be abolished and
that law school admissions should be based on an evaluation of the
applicant’s entire background and potential. Scores
on the Law School Admission Test do not correlate to performance
in law school or law practice. In
the final analysis, the scores correlate to the race and socioeconomic
background of the test taker. The
LSAT closes the doors of the legal profession to members of groups
already disadvantaged by conditions of contemporary American society. Mandatory use of the test is as disingenuous
as legal devices that disenfranchised The
American Bar Association (ABA), founded in 1878 as a guild dedicated
to de jure racist exclusionary practices,
continued openly to pursue racist goals until the 1960s. De facto
racist practices of today’s Authors
of the LSAT traditionally have appeared to be insensitive to issues
of cultural bias. They seem
obsessed with statistics, oblivious to the qualities that make a
good lawyer. Their test makes no pretense of measuring the
vital attributes which cannot be quantified, such as interpersonal
skills, passion, perseverance, creativity and conscience. By punishing the disenfranchised and failing to reward the dedicated, the LSAT furthers the domination of the legal profession by an Anglo elite, an upperclass preoccupied with the pursuit of material riches and seemingly out of touch with the needs and values of ordinary people. These
exclusionary trends are accelerated by the anti-opportunity practices
where law school admissions offices often are misguided by an infamous
The
LSAT does not truly serve the purpose of aiding in the selection
of qualified law students. Rather,
it lines the pocketbooks of some people in the richest segment of
the $2 billion legal education industry; it is a goldmine. Ethically
questionable relationships long have existed between LSAT
officials have taken part in the enforcement of the Some
of them use for-profit bar preparatory courses to supplement their
income while responsible for enforcement of ABA rules prohibiting
law schools from offering for-credit or required bar preparatory
courses. An
antitrust suit by Massachusetts School of Law at Law
schools should stop using the LSAT.
More admissions officers should start reading the files of
their applicants, talk to those who appear qualified, and make selection
decisions based on the whole record including evidence of the intangible
qualities that a good lawyer needs. Responsible
officials should use every available tool to enable the nation’s
law schools to end the LSAT scandal. I . CORRELATIONS
Scores
on the Law School Admission Test to not correlate to ultimate success
in law school or the legal profession.
The do correlate to success on other standardized, multiple-choice
achievement tests; and to ethnicity and family income.
High LSAT scores correlate to the kind of advantages that
the affluent have been given by American society. Temple
University President Peter J. Liacoras wrote: “It
is a statistical fact that not only black, Hispanic and native Americans
but other groups whose first or family language is not standard
English – our traditional white ethnics – and who are not a product
of the ‘elite’ preparatory school system, are outscored on such
tests by native-born majority Americans who are.
This has little if anything to do with brains or ability
or merit or…who will do best in the profession.”
[2]
He
went on to say, “These ostensibly objective tests are not the easy-to-recognize
‘Minorities Keep Out’ obstacles of the 1900s and 1930s. But they are just as effective barriers, and
they should be exposed as such.”
[3]
Ralph
Nader and Allan Nairn wrote: “The
LSAT has been shown to discriminate systematically against certain
groups, and it has not been shown to be performance related – in
terms of predicting success in legal practice, or revealing those
most likely to meet society’s pressing needs for legal services.
Determining entry to legal education…with this test is a
practice hardly based on logic and social justice.”
[4]
The
Ralph Nader Report on the Educational Testing Service found that
the scores on the LSAT correlate to family income.
[5]
Other researchers have documented a direct correlation
between law schools’ median LSAT scores and average parental income.
[6]
Professor
Lani Guinier of the Guinier
explained: “Even
so, their higher scores reflect the opportunities they have had,
rather than how well they are likely to do in school.
Indeed, a recent Harvard study of graduates…found that students
with low SAT scores and blue-collar backgrounds tended to be more
successful…. This suggests that a subject’s drive to succeed
– along with the opportunity to do so – may be the better indicator
of future success than test scores.
…. Affirmative Action is neither the real problem
nor the whole solution.”
[9]
Guinier,
who had been President Clinton’s first choice for U.S. Assistant
Attorney General for Civil Rights, talked about the LSAT when she
addressed the 1997 annual meeting of the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee
for Civil Rights Under Law: “It
is a test that does not predict success in law school. It does not predict success in life. It doesn’t predict success for the bar. But it certainly doesn’t predict success in
law school, even for the first year of law school, which is the
one thing it is supposed to.”
[10]
Guinier
said the LSAT accurately predicted performance for only 9 percent
of first-year students and 15 percent of second-year students. That means respectively 91 percent and 85 percent
of these students’ law school performances “are not explained by
performance on the LSAT, and yet we have allowed the LSAT to stand
in as a proxy for merit.”
[11]
Guinier
pointed out that the LSAT does not measure skills lawyers use. She asked, “What is the LSAT measuring? Quick, strategic guessing with less than perfect
information,” which puts at a disadvantage women who like to ruminate
or research.
[12]
Professor
Gary Palm of the The
Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund has said: “Designed
to indicate a candidate’s competency to study law, the LSAT has
become, intentionally or not, an exclusionary device which has a
disproportionate impact on the disadvantaged and on racial/ethnic
minorities.”
[14]
Severe Limitations A
study by the LSAT organization itself reported, “Not surprisingly…admissions
directors at many schools have found that, for the great majority
of their students, grades and LSAT scores are not very closely related
to actual first-year performance.”
[15]
The
LSAT has been described aptly as a standardized, multiple-choice,
“purported” aptitude test.
[16]
It
is clear that LSAT scores have “a more detrimental exclusionary
effect” on minorities than undergraduate grade point averages.
[17]
The
LSAT was started by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) at the
request of Harvard, Yale and LSAT
scores reflect achievement, not aptitude.
Officials of LSAC, administering the LSAT, have conceded
that it is an achievement test, not an aptitude test.
[18]
LSAC
and Law School Admission Services (LSAS), defendants in an antitrust
suit filed by Massachusetts School of Law, conceded during discovery
that the LSAT is not an aptitude test.
[19]
Even
the LSAT’s most ardent advocates concede that it does not predict
academic success beyond the first year of legal studies, when many
law students have “caught on” to the techniques of law school exam
writing. In fact, the test
has little or no relationship to performance even in the first year
of law study. Critics say
the LSAT is so “inept” that it undergoes constant changes in the
kinds of questions as well as the scoring scale, in what has been
seen as a futile effort to cure its many shortcomings.
[20]
Peter
Winograd, the LSAT director for ETS and later for LSAC, conceded
that even the test’s putative validity as a predictor of first-year
performance is no better than the flip of a coin.
[21]
Lizabeth
A. Moody has led the LSAT organization while also serving as an
official of the Moody’s
matter-of-fact observation is, of course, small consolation to those
who would have done better than predicted but were denied admission
to law school. Perhaps a legitimate question for further inquiry
whether the goal of predicting solely first-year success might have
been invented after the data started coming in, rather than before
the test was designed. Miami
Beach City Manager Jose Ramon Garcia-Pedrosa, a member of the ABA
Council of Legal Education, said that “the correlation, from everything
I’be ever understood, is not as strong between the LSAT and performance
as it is between the grade point average and performance.”
[24]
Former
LSAC/LSAS Chief Executive Frederick M. Hart said the LSAT is useful
but has “severe limitations.” He
explained that “even the higher correlations at some of the schools
are probably not much better than .6,” with the result that “you
end up with roughly 36 percent of the variance that goes into making
a good student. …[I]t does have…fairly limited predictive power,
the same as the undergraduate grade point average. And certainly to admit people solely on the
LSAT and the undergraduate grade point average is not a decent system. There arfe a lot more things that go into a
law student.”
[25]
Bar Passage Rates For
graduates of most law schools, there is a correlation between the
LSAT and the bar exam scores. However,
this correlation is not so strong at law schools that make an effort
to help minority and other disadvantaged students through programs
such as legal writing tutorials. Massachusetts
School of Law reports that its students are drawn from “the very
groups…disadvantaged by standardized, multiple choice, objective
tests,” yet its graduates generally have done about as well on the
John
F. Kennedy University School of Law graduates, who generally pass
the bar exam at respected rates by Peter
Winograd, godfather of the LSAT, said the test is “not perfect”
and has “real limitations.”
[28]
Law schools having a “narrow range” of LSAT
scores show less correlation between scores and grades, he said;
but “lots of people with excellent LSAT scores…do not do terribly
well, and I’ve seen people with miserable LSATs who surprise you.”
[29]
‘Untenable’ Rationale The
LSAT and other standardized tests have taken control of the hopes,
dreams, self-esteem and future of many students.
And yet, according to ETS figures, a roll of the dice would
have been as good a predictor of performance as the LSAT nine out
of ten times. ETS data showed the LSAT was only 5 percent
accurate in predicting who would graduate from law school.
[30]
Lani Guinier’s study, discussed above, suggests
little progress has been made in the last 20 years. The LSAT’s reliability is considerably less
than that of the notoriously unreliable polygraph. Summarizing
the Ralph Nader Report, Allan Nairn addressed the meaning of bias
in the LSAT and other standardized tests: “The ETS claim that its tests are not biased against minorities is based on a definition that assumes a test is not biased if it predicts first-year grades of minorities about as accurately as it predicts first-year grades of whites. (This definition was developed by ETS researcher T. Anne Cleary.) This definition ignores the fact that since the validity of grade prediction is low for both whites and minorities, and minorities tend to receive lower scores, they can be excluded by a test score that has little connection to their actual ability to succeed. [31] This
flaw in the Cleary rationale was recognized by Richard. Levine,
ETS Vice President for Statistical Analysis, who called it “untenable”
in a Analogously,
a As the American Pre-Law Advisor reported, the LSAT uses long, boring passages with hard questions and close, arbitrary answers to test reading comprehension; short passages and tangled questions with mystifying answers to test logical reasoning; and analytical reasoning questions which, when they can be deciphered, allow selection of a correct answer. Most LSAT questions allow only for a “best” answer, which often is not a very good answer. [34] The
fatal flaw in the LSAT is that it does not measure qualities that
make a good lawyer. A sample
LSAT analytical reasoning question reads as follows: “A small software firm has for offices, numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4. Each of its offices has exactly one computer and exactly one printer. Each of these eight machines was bought in either 1987, 1988, or 1989. The eight machines were bought in a manner consistent with the following conditions: “The computer in each office was bought either in an earlier year than or the same year as the printer in that office. “The computer in office 2 and the printer in office 1 were bought in the same year. “The computer in office 3 and the printer in office 4 were bought in the same year. “The computer in office 2 and the computer in office 3 were bought in different were bought in different years. “The computer in office 1 and the printer in office 3 were bought in 1988. “…. “Suppose the computer in office 2 and the computer in office 3 had been bought in the same year as each other. If all the other conditions remained the same, then which one of the following machines would have been bought in 1989? “( A ) the printer in office 1 “( B ) the computer in office 2 “( C ) the printer in office 2 “( D ) the computer in office 4 “( E ) the printer in
office 4.”
[35]
That question about which
machine would have been purchased in a certain year does not test
skills having any relevance to legal scholarship or advocacy.
It is illustrative of the fact that the LSAT excludes applicants
on the basis of attributes that ought to have nothing to do with
determining admission to law school. The Other Skills The
LSAT-dominated, numbers-driven law school admissions process overlooks
factors that are critical to successful performance in the study
and practice of law. It essentially ignores such factors as: a person’s
diligence; ability to speak and write effectively; ability to get
along with people; basic intelligence; creativity, personality and
honesty. No weight is given
in the LSAT numbers to wisdom, humility, appreciation of poetry
or commitment to higher values.
The test does not address the candidate’s ability to read
people, sense of mission, listening skills, intuition or self-confidence.
It does not measure historical insight, interest in research,
negotiation skills, the ability to be a team player, coping skills,
vision, moral sense or desire to be of service to the community. The LSAT cannot quantify “integrity; it doesn’t measure perseverance,” said Temple University President Peter Liacouras. He added that the LSAT also “doesn’t measure any of the items that it takes to be a good lawyer except syntactical skills: if A or B, then C; if A and B, then D. Well, logical skills are fine but the other skills are really what separates a good lawyer from somebody else.” [36] No objective test can quantify, by any consistent standard, the intangibles that matter most in the formation of the kind oif lawyers that people need in today’s society. Dean
Colin S. Diver of the University of Pennsylvania Law School urged
the II . BIAS AND DISCRIMINATORY EFFECTS Societal Disaster Bernard Ashe, a member of the ABA Accreditation
Committee, said, “The LSAT, as far as I am concerned, only provides
an indicator of the potential for success….
I don’t know that it’s a fair indicator of how someone would
do in law school or…on the bar exam.”
[38]
Interviewed at the “There are those who are good test takers…who usually do better than those who draw blanks with those types of examinations. …. Well, standardized tests are generally prepared by ‘experts in the field.’ Most of them are usually in the mainstream of our population.” [39] Ashe, who is African American, told the author, who is Anglo: “Their experiences would not lead them to be sensitive to issues of cultural bias necessarily.” [40] Laura
S. Bennett, a testing expert, has shown the fallacy in the common
notion “that standardized tests are ‘objective.’”
She wrote “the only thing objective about them is that they
are scored by machines. Everything else, from the selection of the test
format to the wording of questions and answers is subjective and
reflects the background and biases of the test developer.”
[41]
Jose Garcia-Pedrosa was literally correct when
he said, regarding The
Significant Waste The LSAT has injured those, “often from less privileged goups, whose backgrounds caused them to be unfamiliar with concepts used on the test,” as Massachusetts School of Law advised the U.S. Department of Education. The test “injured those who had the unusual witr to see that convoluted, peculiarly worded questions which the testmakers thought susceptible to only one answer – their answer – could be better answered in some other way.” Thus it has locked the law school doors to many who, if allowed in, “would have been fine lawyers.” [44] South
Carolina-born Henry Ramsey, Jr., retired LSAT
loyalist Winograd says the problem is not bias in the LSAT but the
fact that some schools treated minorities “flexibly” prior to Hopwood v. Texas,
[46]
which killed Affirmative Action at the
University of Texas School of Law.
Winograd’s home state of New Mexico, land of today’s descendants
of ancient tribes, conquistadores
and pioneers, may lay claim to some of the best race relations in
the United States. Thinking
about the Hopwood problem, he suggested a remedy
could be to treat all applicants “flexibly,” – actually to “read
the personal statements…consider the employment and the extracurricular
activities and the hurdles overcome and all of that.”
That, he said, is what Dean
Lizabeth Anne Moody of Stetson University School of Law, a prominent
official of both LSAC and
III . HERITAGE OF PREJUDICE In his last debate with Stephan A. Douglas, Abraham Lincoln said: “It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, ‘You work and toil and earn bread and I’ll eat it.’ [Loud applause.] No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.” [49] A century ago, many American-born Protestant lawyers shared more than their Anglo-Saxon legal heritage, common cultural experience and white skin. They also shared an assumption that assured them of their own supremacy – the belief that non-whites and non-Protestants were inferior. There still are many in the bar today who assume, suspect or subconsciously want to believe that those of a different color, creed or country of origin are unworthy to practice law. Many Anglos are satisfied with the simplistic, unsubstantiated theory that African Americans and Latinos do not generally score as well on the LSAT because they are not qualified to go to law school. Too many who accept this view are blind to their own bigotry, chained in the cell of closed-mindedness. They avoid their own cognitive dissonance by repressing evidence contrary to old, assumed biases. They shut out the truth that the disenfranchised in our society can compete when the playing field is made level, the crooked places straight. A lower-income African American student may not be able to afford an LSAT preparatory course to find keys to testmanship and tricky questions. However, given the spark of passion, the gift of eloquence, the drive to learn, and then a seat in a law school whose faculty would compensate for past deprivation, you will see her standing tall in court. It is blind bigotry, not deprivation, that manifests true ignorance. Historical Evidence The
When
the Walter
George Smith, who was to become one of the early presidents of the
xenophobic When
the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) was formed a century
ago, it excluded night schools – because they served hard-working
immigrants who wanted a chance to enter the profession that had
been denied them.
[57]
The bigotry of the era was heard in the voice
of Dean Harry S. Richards of the Hypocritical Standard The
The
Asked to identify the root cause of low minority scores, the LSAT’s long-time defender Peter Winograd said: “Oh, a whole lot of things. Uh, education, uh, if you look at the public schools in this country, what goes on in a lot of those places, uh, who populates for the most part the New York City schools and the Washington, D.C. schools, it’s heavily minority, and…what kind of stimuli are being provided in the home, uh, and, of course, there’s a correlation with income and all of that.” [61] Race
hate and blatant elitism are no longer so often to be seen and heard. It is the new era of subtle, slick racism.
More than a century after the birth of the In the dawn of the Third Millennium, we would like to believe what the glossy institutional brochures and the smooth-talking lawyer-politicians say, that everything is fine, that there is no more discrimination, that everybody has an equal opportunity, and tghat success goes toi the deserving. But underlying it all are some disconcerting realities – for our heritage shapoes us all. Old prejudices are woven= in the fabric of innocuous-sounding “standards” still in force. Old biases persist, are institutionalized and camouflaged, invisible barriers pressed tightly to ceilings of glass. The status quo is defended by a coalition of the blind and those who refuse to see. IV . THE CHARACTER OF THE PROFESSION The poet John Donne reminds us: “…and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.” [62] The exclusivist system of law school admissions perpetuates a profession dominated by the Anglo elite. It protects and enhances the enrichment of the few. It deepens the divide between the bar and those it is supposed to serve. The LSAT has contributed to the increasingly elitist character of law schools [63] and hence of the legal profession. Robert Stevens wrote that mounting research data showed that law students “do not mirror, in socio-economic, racial, or religious terms the society from which they are drawn and for which they are trained. [64] The current system tends to populate the legal profession with disproportionate numbers of preparatory school graduates whose passion is the pocketbook and who are quite out of touch with the aspirations and afflictions of the ordinary people who need them most. Scandals wrought by lawyers have defined the history of our era, from Watergate (White House lawlessness in the 1970s) to Stargate (prosecutorial abuses in the 1990s). And every citizen can recite some sorry anecdote about a lawyer who knew how to count but failed the test of ethical duty. A
new way is needed to select those who will enter the profession. New blood, not merely more of the same, will
be needed to redeem the honor of the bar in the future. Before the inception of the Today there is an overabundance of lawyers who proved they were good at standardized multiple-choice tests of, by and for affluent Anglo sophisticates. There is a shortage of lawyers of every race, faith and origin who have the positive human attributes such as integrity, resoluteness and caring for others – qualities unmeasured by a computer. V . THE ANTI-CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT The late U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy wrote in the context of another time, “They are protesting the failure of our legal system to be responsive to the legitimate grievances of our citizens. They are protesting because the very procedures supposed to make the law work justly have been perverted into obstructions that keep it from working at all.” [66] When the law itself is turned upside down to block equal admission to the legal profession, it is time to protest. The
destruction of Affirmative Action in the famed University of California
(UC) and University of Texas (UT) law schools triggered a backward
movement toward pre-civil rights era conditions in law classrooms. The big public law schools in The
abolition of Affirmative Action at UC had an immediate impact. Only 14 African Americans were among the 792
students accepted to UC Boalt Hall’s 1997 incoming class at Rodney
Ellis, a powerful Public
law schools such as UC and UT have a special obligation to act affirmatively
to ensure that they admit and serve people from all segments of
the multicultural community.
[75]
This is an issue of critical urgency in the
giant states of The
recent Noting that “minority groups tend to score lower
on the LSAT,” Professor Hart of the Policies That Preclude ABA Standard 211 says law schools “shall not use admissions policies that preclude a diverse student body in terms of race, color, religion, national origin or sex….” Yet the admission policies of law schools that abandon Affirmative Action policies and allow LSAT numbers to rule tend to preclude a student body diverse, at least in terms of race, color and country of origin. At
UC Boalt Hall, for example, applicants with undergraduate grade
point averages of at least 3.75 had an 89 percent admission rate
with LSAT scores of 168-173, but only 45 percent with scores of
162-167.
[80]
In Hopwood
v. According to the law of the land as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was violated when a standardized test, not significantly related to job performance, was required as a condition of employment or job transfer and effectively disqualified African Americans at a higher rate than whites. [83] The LSAT, not significantly related to performance in law school or law practice, violates the civil rights of disadvantaged minorities. The
University of California Board of Regents on The UC Board of Regents
on The anti-Affirmative Action measures should have been awarded the same fate as California Proposition 14, a 1964 anti-Equal Housing initiative that was held to violate equal protection. Proposition amounted to “a new policy of governmental neutrality” in housing, “replacing a former policy of nondiscrimination,” Justice Byron R. White wrote for the U.S. Supreme Court in Reitman v. Mulkey. [86] The new state policy had the unconstitutional “effect of lending encouragement to those who wish to discriminate.” [87] This
author believes that VI . VESTED INTERESTS Mike Royko, an insightful observer of institutional
scandals, once wrote: “The
other scandal was more interesting because it was something new,
and that in itself was unusual. In Legal education in the
Among
the Big Three in legal education, LSAC/LSAS is the one that has
more discretionary funds than the The commercial bar review courses were estimated to be a $60 million industry in 1994. [98] Law school administration itself can be an enriching enterprise. The highest paid law school dean, was earning $225,000, plus $56,000 in fringe benefits, according to a 1995 report. [99] The
U.S. Department of Justice, defending the antitrust judgment and
consent entered in United States v. American Bar Association (US v. ABA),
[100]
stated that Defendants
in Massachusetts School of
Law v. American Bar Association (MSL
v. ABA), which was filed in 1993, included Law School Admission
Services, Inc. (LSAS), a According
to records obtained form the Delaware Secretary of State, LSAS was
incorporated Another
defendant in MSL v. ABA was
the American Association of Law Schools (AALS), a corporation having
its offices in The
Because
the Wild Attempt to Take Over The
Education Department’s National Advisory Committee was told in November
1996 that “special interests…have gotten on the Council” of the
ABA Section of Legal Education.
[114]
The majority of the attorneys on the ABA Council
apparently believe they have more important interests to address
than the needs of ordinary clients and the rights of the deprived. Proposals to add “serving the client, instrfuction
in lawyering skills, and knowledge about the legal rights and needs
of the poor” to legal education standards have been rejected repeatedly
by the Council.
[115]
The LSAC/LSAS officials who have been responsible
for running the Law School Admission Test perform a quasi-governmental
function. They are the border
patrol of the legal profession.
After all, most states refuse to allow candidates to sit
for the bar examination unless they have graduated from a law school
approved by There may be reason to suspect that some LSAC/LSAS officials have seemed more interested in making money than in devotion to their quasi-governmental duties. When Adam Robinson and John Katzman went to LSAC/LSAS headquarters to get data they could use in their book, the Princeton Review on the LSAT, they were surprised at the entrepreneurial environment they stepped into. While seeking information about LSAT tests, they were approached by a high official of LSAC/LSAS who started talking to them about prospective business ventures. Robinson and Katzman wrote that “one of the principal executives of LSAC/LSAS introduced himself. …. Far from maintaining a bureaucratic reserve, he embraced us enthusiastically. Not only did he promise the support of LSAC/LSAS, he even proposed the possibility of various joint ventures.” [116] The two Princeton Review writers did not respond to a request for an interview on the subject. [117] A
bizarre attempt by an ambitious pair to take over the LSAT organization
was turned back in the mid-1980s, at the height of the Reagan Revolution
when the capitalist marketplace was touted as the ideal medium to
address all types of societal needs.
John R. Kramer, VII . CONFLICT OF INTEREST QUESTIONS “Everybody
sees what you appear to be, few feel what you are, and those few
will not dare to oppose themselves to the many, who have the majesty
of the state to defend them; and in the actions of men, and especially
of princes, from which there is no appeal, the end justifies the
means.” Niccolo Machiavelli
(1469-1527), The Prince. Objection as to Form The
ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar controls
LSAT
fees paid by law school applicants have been used to benefit “The American Association of Law Schools never paid the way of the LSAC people…. They had money and we [AALS] didn’t have money. They took pity on us, and so to some of their meetings they maybe even paid transportation. “Now, with AALS we get so many free rooms for every 50 people…and we housed Jim White free…. “We got an immense amount of work out of people without paying them a nickel. We fed them reasonably well and housed them well.” [124] In an interview for the 1997-98 LSAC fiftieth anniversary oral history, Rudd had recalled that LSAT executives saw a silver lining in the intense competition for admission to law schools in the 1970s: “There was interest overall in the law school world in the creation of additional schools. How much encouragement should there be in that? The LSAC had an interest in the question, the bigger the admission crunch, the more stress or weight there was on the process of making admissions decisions…and criteria and so on.” [125] During the deposition, Rudd was asked to elaborate on what he told the oral historian: Question: “Was that something that was discussed at the time?” Rudd: “Yes, I think so, er – it must have been. ….” Question: “Well, the bigger the admission crunch, the more stress or weight gthere was on LSAT?” Rudd: “Sure.” Question: “And the more revenue to LSAT?” Mr. Stewart: “Objection as to form.” So apparently LSAC/LSAS, which had some of its
officials serving simultaneously as Quasi-Judicial Function Forty-two
jurisdictions in the ABA
Standard 503 says: “All applicants,
except those physically incapable of taking it, should be required
to take an acceptable test for the purpose of determining apparent
aptitude for law study. A The
report of the 1989 ABA Conference on Validity and Reliability provided
this very succinct so-called “analysis” of Standard 503:
“This is a standard for quality-determination, and is derived
from Objective C27.”
[133]
Objective C27 says: “To determine that the law
school has admissions policies and procedures designed to admit
students who have demonstrated the potential for the successful
study of the law.”
[134]
The stated purpose of the conference was to
determine whether each Long-time ABA Standard 501 requires a law school to maintain an educational program to prepare graduates for admission to the bar. But the official interpretation of ABA Standard 301 prohibits a law school from offering a bar review course for credit. Standard 302 also prohibits a bar review course for credit, and adds that such a course may not be required for graduation. The effect of these prohibitions is to force practically all who want to take the bar exam to pay for expensive, for-profit bar review courses [138] typically costing about $2,500. The ABA accreditation standards that forbid law schools to require or offer credit for a bar review course are a boon to the for-profit bar review courses that virtually all law school graduates consequently enroll in. Massachusetts School of Law charged that members of the ABA Section of Legal Education intentionally have gotten personal benefits economically, in their work lives and in terms of prestige from their anticompetitive standards of accreditation. These benefits allegedly have included increased law school salaries, high-paying jobs as consultants to law schools seeking accreditation, and deanships, as well as opportunities to profit from bar exam preparatory courses. [139] Sometimes the visibility and prestige of a high-level committee chairmanship may lead to job offers or business opportunities. The
ABA prohibits law schools from offering bar exam preparatory courses,
either for credit or as a condition for graduation – even for students
whom the school has identified as being at risk of not passing the
bar exam.
[140]
The A Bundle of Money Dean Peter A. Winograd
(J.D., Winograd was reached by
telephone at his office on the campus on the banks of the When Massachusetts School
of Law sued the Professor Frederick M.
Hart of the University of New Mexico Law School (J.D., When Massachusetts School
of Law, paving the way for the Department of Justice antitrust action,
filed suit against the Hart, in an interview, has acknowledged not only the limitations of the LSAT but also the limited value of bar preparatory courses such as the one in which he held an interest. He said, “Well, frankly, I’ve been involved in bar review for years…. I’ve always thought that, if somebody had the ability to sit down and organize their time for six weeks, they could do it without a bar review course…. The major part of a bar review course is putting somebody on a schedule and keeping to it. If you’re paying a lot of money, you tend to go and keep up with it.” [158] In recent years Winograd
and Hart have devoted themselves to their students, at UNM, a school
proud of its programs in American Indian law, environmental, wildlife
and health law and ethics – in the dry, thin air of spectacular
horizons, where indigenous people 25,000 years ago fashioned stone
spearheads. Temple University
President Peter Liacouras recalled Hart as “:always an enterprising
person,” and “a big mover and shaker” in At a U.S. Department of
Education advisory committee meeting in Millard Raud, another two-hat man, was LSAC Chairman from 1966 to 1969 and became the powerful ABA Consultant on Legal Education in 1968. He served on the ABA Standards Review Committee from 1990 to 1996. [166]
John Kramer, dean of Tulane Law School, chaired an ABA accreditation site team almost every year from 1980 on, was named to the ABA Council of the Section of Legal Education in 1994, and served on the LSAC Board and on a half dozen LSAC committees. [167] Frank Kurt Walwer, dean of Texas Wesleyan University Law School, was president of LSAC in 1983-84, during two of his many years of service as a member of the ABA Accreditation Committee (1976-94); he also served on the ABA Standards Review Committee (1986-94), and chaired the ABA Section of Legal Education (1986-87) and the AALS Section on Economics of Legal Education (1974-76). [168] Dean Jeffrey E. Lewis,
of the University of Florida College of Law, served on the AALS
Accreditation Committee (1984-86) and Rennard Strickland for
more than 25 years has been regarded as one of the major leaders
of Professor Gordon Duane
Schaber of McGeorge School of Law,
Claude Sowle, professor
and former dean at University of Miami School of Law, and chairman
of the ABA Accreditation Committee in 1966, died of a heart attack
in March 1997. He did more
When Lizabeth A. Moody,
chairperson of an LSAS Board of Trustees committee, was asked in
1997 to comment on alleged conflicts of interest of those who work
simultaneously as Beyond Intrusion An The group of 14 who signed
the extraordinary letter has grown to perhaps 100 deans concerned
about the
Dean Howard Glickman of
When U.S. Secretary of
Education William J. Bennett in 1998 renewed the ABA Council’s status
as a federally recognized accrediting agency, he asked the Council
to submit within nine months a report on its “compliance with criterion
(b)(4) (ethical practices).” At
the same time, he requested that the Council submit a report in
1989 on “compliance with criteria (a)(1)(ii) (definition of scope)
and (b)(5) (program of assessment of validity and reliability of
accreditation standards).”
[192]
When Secretary Alexander Lamar, citing 20 U.S.C.
s 1145, renewed in 1992 the ABA Council’s status as a recognizer
accrediting agency, he instructed the Council to submit within a
year a report showing “strengthened compliance” with 34 C.F.R. s
602.16(i). That provision calls for “a systematic program
of review…to assess the validity and reliability of the agency’s
criteria, procedures, and standards.”
[193]
Secretaries Bennett and Alexander did not explicitly
confront the problem, the conflict of interest where The Code of Federal Regulations
calls for an accrediting agency to utilize “any criteria established
by the agency with respect to nationally recognized, standardized…tests
designed to measure the aptitude of prospective students to compete
successfully in the program to which they have applied.”
[194]
The U.S. Department of Education staff analysis
in 1992 made the conclusory assertion that this requirement was
met by the Federal regulation requires
an accrediting agency to maintain “effective controls against conflicts
of interest.”
[196]
The 1992 U.S. Department of Education staff
analysis of VII . ANTITRUST ISSUES “Through tatter’d clothes small vices do appear; Robes and furr’d gowns hide all. Plate sin with gold, And gthe strong lance of justice hurtles breaks; Arm it in rags, a pigmy’s straw does pierce it.” William Shakespeare, King Lear IV, vi, 69 (1606)
Combination and Conspiracy The U.S. Department of
Justice on Some observers lament
that the consent decree signed in Although not addressed in the consent decree a…conflict of interest exists between the although use of a standardized admission test, in and of itself, does not violate the Sherman Act, the placement of some directors of the LSAC on the inspection teams may raise an antitrust problem. Given that the LSAC collects over forty million dollars from administering the LSAT and has posted profits as high as fourteen million dollars [about a 35 percent rate of profit], the LSAC clearly has an interest in maintaining the LSAT monopoly and preventing an alternative test from being used. …. In order to prevent the
misuse of enterprises, the financial stake in either the LSAC or a commercial bar review course from participating in the creation or enforcement of accreditation standards. [199] In the Public Interest The Department of Justice answered public critics by arguing that a consent decree does not have to provide the best remedies possible, provided that it is at least within the scope of the public interest. The Departrment pointed out that the court must determine if the proposed consent decree would be “in the public interest” according to the Tunney Act. [200] “:Under this standard, ‘the court’s function is not to determine whether the resulting array…is one that will best serve society, but only to confirm gthat the resulting settlement is within the reaches of the public interest.” [201] The non-profit Cloak and Dagger The James Patrick White, born
in 1931 in the depths of the Depression, was a native son at the
University of Iowa where he received B.A. and J.D. degrees in the
1950s, going on to earn an LL.M. at the George Washington University.
He was on the faculty of the University of North Dakota Law
School for eight years. He
taught at Indiana University School of Law in A professional accreditation
organization such as Slingshot-Armed Warrior
The Department of Justice
complaint, like the earlier complaint b y the Massachusetts law
school, alleged undue secrecy, misuse of process, improper prohibition
of law school bar review courses, and other activities aimed at
stifling competition. Although the charges were scaled back in the
federal complaint compared to the earlier litigation, A disheartened Judge Joseph
W. Bellacosa of the New York Court of Appeals resigned as Chairman
of the Council of the Section of Legal Education and quit the Professor John S. Elton
of Northwestern University School of Law criticized gthe judgment
as too weak. He said he based
his assessment on his graduate training in education, 23 years experience
teaching law, and service on the ABA Accreditation Committee and
15 Trying to Burn Down a School Gary Pal, Clinical Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, and a dissident but popular member of the ABA Section of Legal Education, said the consent decree in the federal case failed to provide for “dramatically different and better legal education so the lawyers of the future can redeem the reputation of the profession by providing better representation to their clients and improving our system of justice.” [230] Palm asked the Justice Department to strengthen the consent decree by asserting true outside regulation of accreditation apart from academic faculty and deans. [231]
Dean Velvel of Massachusetts
School of Law has been a driving force who has inspired the investigations
of Even LSAT officials no longer can deny that law schools have erred in allowing test scores to drive admissions. “Essentially, what some law schools do is place too much emphasis on the LSAT score and numbers alone, rather than looking at the whole student,” conceded Ed Haggerty, an LSAT spokesperson. [234] X . REMEDIES Lani Guinier said of the LSAT, “Perhaps we need
to change the test, or maybe not use the test, because it is not
telling us what it takes to be a good lawyer, a good law student,
and most important, a good citizen of one’s community.”
[236]
As Anthony Lewis has written, “Our county is
going to become more diverse, not less.
Unless universities are allowed to look at the reality of
students from bad ghetto schools and consider their capacity for
growth – consider them as individuals – it is going to be an Massachusetts School of Law uses a “holistic” admissions process. [238] The school administers its own essay aptitude test. The school interviews each applicant, reviews the academic performance record, and takes into account pertinent life experiences. [239] The school is said to place emphasis on the applicant’s overall academic and non-academic record and personal interview. The essay aptitude test, designed to reveal ability to give articulate expression to relevant facts in support of a position, thus is one of several factors the school considers in the admission process. It does not consider LSAT scores. [240] A typical Massachusetts School of Law Admission Test (MSLAT) consists of roughly a 700-word autobiography of a hypotghetical law school applicant, John Jones, followed by these instructions: Question 1 “Based on the above facts, write an essay giving all the reasons which militate in favor of admitting Jones to the Massachusetts School of Law.” Question 2 “Based on the above facts, write an essay giving all the reasons which militate in favor of denying Jones’ application for admission to the Massachusetts School of Law.” The school’s typical essay exam comes with these instructions: “In answering the foregoing two questions, please be aware that every fact in the above fact pattern bears on whether John should be admitted to MSL or denied admission. In ogther words, no fact is extraneous. “The test is untimed. We would advise you to take pains with it rather than to hurry through it. We are not interested in your speed. We are interested in your thoughtfulness, your ability to understand and develop sound reasons pro and con, and your ability to write.” [241] Gary Palm, the populist on the ABA Council, when asked whether the LSAT requirement should be re-thought or made optional in light of the forced retreat of civil rights and the new spectre of lily-white law school classrooms, answered that “maybe we should try to have some experimental work done on a new…test…to analyze what makes a good lawyer…or try to get minority contractors…minority professionals to come up with their own test….” Such an undertaking, he suggested, could be funded by the cash-rich LSAC. [242] In
December 2000, LSAC pledged $10 million toward development of alternative
ways of measuring law school applicants.
[243]
The purpose of law school admissions reform
should be to achieve fair and equal treatment for candidates, to
enhance the quality of legal education and thereby to help restore
the reputation of the legal profession.
Valuing diversity is sine qua non, if the profession is to be
able to serve the Lawyers,
more than anyone else, ought to be sensitive to actual, apparent
or potential conflicts of interest.
The Even when they are honest servants with good intentions, the consequences of their conflicted conduct becomes an important public concern. Such conduct that gives rise to questions of integrity should be scrutinized from the viewpoint of the public interest. The lawyer’s conduct, and the profitable relationships it facilitates, must be analyzed so that society may undertake appropriate legal reforms. The
point of conflict-of-interest reform analysis here is not to pass
judgment on those who have conducted themselves in accord with contemporary
norms, but rather to suggest the need for new standards that will
represent a step on the path of progress toward a more enlightened
and just society. New rules
of legal ethics should be promulgated to bring an end to the conflicts
of interest that appear to have characterized the relationship between
Law schools should pursue Affirmative Action or similar policies to ensure equal opportunity in practice for students from all segments of society. Law school admissions officers should evaluate the whole candidate. They should read the application file, talk to the applicant, evaluate demonstrated abilities and aptitudes, and consider all the qualities that make a good lawyer. The LSAT should be abolished.
[1]
Professor of law, John F. Kennedy University
School of Law, The
author gratefully acknowledges Dean Michael M. Guarino, John F.
Kennedy University School of Law, who supervised the author’s
original research on which this paper is based; Dean Lawrence
R. Velvel of Massachusetts School of Law, who generously shared
many primary source materials relied on herein; and Professor
Lani Guinier of the [2] Peter J. Liacouras, Toward a Fair and Sensible Policy for Professional School Admission (1978), quoted in Sarah Hooke Lee, Report to the Court on the Initial Phase of the Conspiracy Charged Here: 1978 to 1993, II MSL L. Rev. 1, 122 (1995).
[3]
[4] Ralph Nader & Allan Nairn, Startling Admissions: Why the LSAT Doesn’t Make the Grade, Student Lawyer (Mar. 1980), 54. [5] Allan Nairn & Associates, The Rein of ETS: A Brief Summary of the Ralph Nader Report on the Educational Testing Service, Today’s Education (Apr.-May 1980), 58G-59G; see also Nader & Nairn, id. at 59, 52.
[6]
Robert Stevens,
[7]
Lani Guinier, The
Real Bias in Higher Education, The
New York Times,
[8]
[9]
[10]
Lani Guinier quoted in M.A. Stapleton,
[11]
[12]
[13] Interview with Gary Palm, San Francisco (Aug. 3, 1997). Interview notes on file with author. [14] Susan E. Brown & Eduardo Marenco, Jr., MALDEF Law School Admission Study, 15 (1980), quoted in Marvin C. Puguese et al., New Directions in Diversity: Charting Law School Admissions Policy in a Post-Affirmative Action Era 31 (May 19, 1997), report distributed at news conference, University of California, Berkeley, on file with author. [15] Allan R. Turnbull, William S. McKee & L. Thomas Galloway, Law School Admissions Council study, quoted in Nader & Nairn, supra note 4 at 31.
[16]
Complaint, [17] Dannye Holley & Thomas Klevin, Minorities and the Legal Profession: Current Platitudes, Current Barriers, 12 T.Marshall L. Rev. 299, 309-310 (1987), cited by Puguese et al., supra note 14 at 31. [18] Resp. No. 30 by LSAS and LSAC, defendants, to plaintiff’s first Rule 34 motion for prod. of docs., MSL v. ABA, supra note 16, reproduced in II MSL L. Rev. 1, 137 (1994). [19] Mem. of Facts Demonstrating That for Decades the Council of the Section of Legal Education Has Failed to Meet the Regulations Governing Accrediting Agencies 88 (1997), submitted to U.S. Dept. of Education, copy on file with author. [20] Mass. School of Law, letter to U.S. Dept. of Education, published in I MSL L. Rev. 2, 81 (1994). [21] Peter Winograd (comment while conducting a site visit at Mass. School of Law), cited in Response to MSL Report of ABA Inspection Team, III MSL L. Rev. I, 118-119 (1996). [22] Telephone interview with Lizabeth A. Moody, Trustee, LSAS, Inc. (Aug. 13, 1997), notes on file with author.
[23]
[24] Telephone interview with Jose Ramon Garcia-Pedrosa (Jul. 28, 1997), notes on file with author. (Garcia-Pedrosa, the Miami Beach City Manager, returned the author’s phone call between world press interviews on his police department’s recovery of the body of alleged spree killer Andrew Cunanan). [25] Telephone interview with Frederick M. Hart (Jul. 21, 1997), notes on file with author. [26] Mem. of Facts, supra note 19 at 66.
[27]
Interview with Michael M. Guarino, Dean, John
F. Kennedy Univ. School of Law ( [28] Telephone interview with Peter Winograd, Dean, Univ. of New Mexico School of Law (Aug. 13, 1997), notes on file with author.
[29]
[30] Allan Nairn & Associates, supra note 5 at 58-G, 60-G. [31] Id, at 61-G.
[32]
[33]
[34] II Am. Pre-Law Advisor 3, 5 (1990). [35] LSAT Registration & Information Book 69 (1997). [36] Deposition, Peter Liacouras, 29-32, quoted in Mem. of Facts, supra note 19 at 89.
[37]
Letter from Colin S. Diver to Rosalie E. Wahl,
J.,
[38]
Interview with Bernard Ashe,
[39]
[40]
[41]
Laura S. Bennett, Executive Director, Fairtest,
[42] Jose Ramon Garcia-Pedrosa, supra note 24.
[43]
Mem. of Facts, supra
note 19, at 39; see also
[44]
[45]
[46] 78 F.3d 932 (1996). [47] Telephone interview with Peter Winograd, supra note 28. [48] Telephone interview with Lizabeth Anne Moody, supra note 22.
[49]
[50] Mem. of Facts, supra note 19 at 60. [51] Mem. In Support of Plaintiff’s Rule 37 Motion, MSL v. ABA, supra note 16 at 102.
[52]
Jerold S. Auerbach, Unequal
Justice: Lawyers and Social Change in Modern [53] Peter Liacouras, Toward a Fair and Sensible Policy for Professional School Admission, 165-166 (1978). [54] Susan K. Boyd, The ABA’s First Section: Assuring a Qualified Bar 16 (1993).
[55]
Robert Stevens,
[56] Jerold S. Auerbach, supra note 52 at 125. [57] Peter Liacouras, in Mem. of Facts, supra note 19 at 61. [58] Susan K. Boyd, supra note 54 at 17. [59] Peter Liacouras, deposition, supra note 36 at 112-113.
[60]
[61] Telephone interview with Peter Winograd, supra note 28. [62] John Donne, Devotions XVII (1623). [63] Mem. of Facts, supra note 19 at 90.
[64]
[65] Sarah Hooke Lee, Report to the Court on the Initial Phase of the Conspiracy Charged Here: 1978 to 1993, II MSL L. Rev. 1, 112 (1995). [66] Robert F. Kennedy, The Pursuit of Justice (1963). [67] UC Law Schools’ New Rules Cost Minorities Seats, Los Angeles Times (May 15, 1997) at 1.
[68]
Blacks Opt Out of UC’s Boalt Hall This Year,
Valley Times (
[69]
In [70] Lani Guinier, The Real Bias, supra note 7. [71] Anthony Lewis, Abroad at Home: Whiter Than White, The New York Times (May 23, 1997) at A19.
[72]
Jess Bravin, Law
School Admission Council Aims to Quash Overreliance on LSAT, The
Wall Street Journal ( [73] Anthony Lewis, supra note 71. [74] Ellis quoted in Peter Applebome, Affirmatiuve Action Ban Changes a Law School, The New York Times (Jul. 2, 1997) at A10.
[75]
See Albert Y. Muratsuchi, Race,
Class and
[76]
Linda F. Wightman, The
Threat to Diversity in Legal Education: An Empirical Analysis
of the Consequences of Abandoning Race as a Factor in [77] Telephone interview with Frederick M. Hart, supra note 25.
[78]
[79] Mem. of Facts, supra note 19.
[80]
Jerome Karabel, The
Effect of Color-Blind Admissions: The Case of California and Implications
for the Nation, in Civil Rights Conference proceedings, [81] Hopwood, supra note 46. [82] Anthony Lewis, supra note 71.
[83]
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401
[84]
UC Regents Rescind Affirmative Action Ban,
ACLU News (
[85]
Noah Grand, Demonstration
Forces UC Regents Discussion of Race Preferences, Daily
Bruin (UCLA) < www.studentadvantage.lycos.com
> visited
[86]
387
[87]
[88]
392
[89]
[90]
[91] Interview with Bernard Ashe, supra note 38.
[92]
Mike Royko, Boss:
Richard K. Dailey of
[93]
[94]
Andy Portinga, [95] Mem. in Support of Plaintiff’s Rule 37 Motion, supra note 51. [96] Telephone interview with Lizabeth Anne Moody, supra note 22. [97] Interview with Gary Palm, supra note 13.
[98]
[99]
Rick I. Morgan, ABA Data Specialist, memorandum
to deans of
[100]
[101]
Plaintiff’s Resp. to Supplemental Public Comments,
US v. [102] Law School Admission Council, Inc., Certificate of Incorporation, and Amendment to Certificate of Incorporation, copy on file with author. [103] New York Secretary of State letter to author (Jul. 28, 1997).
[104]
Complaint, MSL
v.
[105]
[106]
US v.
[107]
ABA Section of Legal Education, Report
of the Commission to Review the Substance and Process of the American
Bar Association Accreditation of American Law Schools 20,
54 (Aug. 3, 1995).
[108]
Dep., Robert Reinstein, in MSL
v.
[109]
Dep., Kathlene Grove, in MSL
v.
[110]
Aff., James P. White, in MSL
v. [111] George A. Pruitt, President, Thomas A. Edison State College, testimony before the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity 174-175, 177 (Washington, D.C., Nov. 22, 1996), on file with author.
[112]
[113]
[114] Scott Bice, vol. III Testimony Before the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity 194 (Washington, D.C., Nov. 22, 1996). [115] Gary H. Palm, member, Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education, letter to U.S. Dept. of Justice (Oct. 2, 1995), copy on file with author.
[116]
Adam Robinson and John Katzman, The
[117] The author’s request for interview was sent to Robinson and Katzman in a letter (June 16, 1997) care of their publisher, Random House.
[118]
Dep., John R. Kramer 11, 174-175 (Metaire,
La., Aug. 10, 1994), in MSL v. [119] Interview with Bernard Ashe, supra note 38.
[120]
Complaint, MSL
v.
[121]
[122] Mem. of Facts, supra note 19 at 36-37. [123] Gary H. Palm, letter to John F. Greaney, U.S. Dept. of Justice (Oct. 2, 1995), copy on file with author.
[124]
Dep., Millard Rudd 178, in MSL
v.
[125]
Millard Rudd, interview for LSAS/LSAC Oral
History Project Committee, quoted by questioner during Rudd’s
deposition, id.
[126]
[127]
Complaint, MSL
v.
[128]
[129]
[130]
Weil, Gotshal & Manges of
[131]
[132]
[133]
Report of the Conferenc on Validity and Reliability
38 (
[134]
[135]
[136]
II Hearings
of the National Advisory Committee on Accreditation and Institutional
Eligibility 134 (
[137]
[138] Weil, Gotshal, supra note 130.
[139]
Complaint, MSL
v. [140] Complaint, note 37 at 54.
[141]
[142] Weil, Gotshal, supra note 130.
[143]
[144] Mem. of Facts, supra note 19. [145] Telephone interview with Peter Winograd, supra note 47.
[146]
[147]
Complaint, MSL
v. [148] Walter McLaughlin, letter to Lawrence R. Velvel (Apr. 27, 1992), copy on file with author. [149] Aff., Peter Winograd (Feb. 21, 1994), in MSL v. ABA, supra note 16, copy on file with author. [150] Mem. of Facts, supra note 19 at 37. [151] Lawrence R. Velvel, letter to Frederick M. Hart (May 25, 1993), copy on file with author. [152] Complaint, supra note 16 at 6. [153] Law School Admission Services, Inc., Annual Report, (1955). [154] Telephone interview with Hart, supra note 25. [155] Telephone interview with Lawrence R. Velvel (June 18, 1997), notes on file with author.
[156]
[157]
[158] Telephone interview with Hart, supra note 25. [159] Dep., Liacouras, supra note 36.
[160]
[161]
II Who’s
Who in
[162]
American Bar Association, Directory:
Section of Legal Education (1996-97).
[163]
Answering machine messages were left for Ramsey
at his East Bay, Calif. number on Jul. 17 and 21 and
[164]
II Hearings,
[165]
[166] Mem. of Facts, supra note 19 at 42.
[167]
[168] Id.at 45.
[169]
[170]
[171]
[172] Dep., Liacouras, supra note 36. [173] Telephone call to the author from McGeorge School of Law (Aug. 15, 1997), notes on file. [174] I Dep., Claude Sowle 23-24 (Miami, Sept. 14, 1994). See also Mem. of Facts, supra note 19 at 14. [175] Telephone interview with Moody, supra note 22.
[176]
[177]
II Who’s
Who in
[178]
Standards Review Committee, ABA Section of
Legal Education, Report to the [179] The letter by the 14 law school deans reproduced in II MSL L. Rev. 2 at 48 ff.
[180]
[181]
III Hearings,
National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity
131 (
[182]
[183]
Alfredo G. de los Santos Jr., Vic Chancellor
for Educational development,
[184]
David W. Adamany, President, [185] Scott Bice, National Advisory Committee, supra note 181 at 188, 195-197. [186] Russell Osgood, National Advisory Committee, id.
[187]
Scott Bice, National Advisory Committee, id. [188] Howard A. Glickman, letter to Hon. Rosalie E. Wahl (Sept. 27, 1994), coopy on file with author. [189] Gary H. Palm, letter to U.S. Dept. of Justice, supra note 115. [190] Howard B. Eisenberg, letter to Hon. Rosalie E. Wahl (Sept. 27, 1994), copy on file with author.
[191]
[192] Secretary William J. Bennett, letter to James P. White (Jan. 11, 1988), copy on file with author. [193] Secretary Alexander Lamar, letter to James P. White (Aug. 18, 1992), copy on file with author. [194] 34 C.F.R. s 602.13(k).
[195]
[196] 34 C.F.R. s 602.16(g).
[197]
[198] Complaint, Unitd States v. American Bar Association, D.D.C. (1996), supra note 37 at 55-56. [199] Andy Portinga, supra note 94 at 664-665. [200] 197 U.S.C. s 16(c).
[201]
[202] See Antitrust Opinion Letter of Weil, Gotshal, supra note at 37.
[203]
Peter James Kolovos, Antitrust
Law and Nonprofit Organizations: The [204] Mem. in Support of Plaintiff’s Rule 37 Motion, supra note 51 at 98.
[205]
Expert Opinion Letter by Richard M. Calkins,
of Zarley, McKee, Thomte, Voorhees & Sease, of DesMoines and
[206]
[207]
Complaint, MSL
v.
[208]
[209]
II Who’s
Who in [210] Complaint, supra note 37 at 53.
[211]
Thomas E. Brennan, The
ABA Stifles Law Schools, Benchmark (published by
[212]
[213]
[214] Aff., James P. White, supra note 110. [215] Weil, Gotshal, supra note 130 at 45.
[216]
[217] Complaint, supra note 16 at 10. [218] Calkins, supra note 205 at 67. [219] See Mem. of Facts, supra note 19 at 38.
[220]
[221]
[222]
MSL v.
[223]
[224]
The text of the Final Judgment is reproduced
at III MSL L. Rev. 1, 58 ff.
[225]
[226]
[227] Joseph W. Bellacosa, From the Chair, Syllabus 5 (Summer 1995). [228] Syllabus 1, 19 (Fall 1996). [229] John S. Elton, letter to U.S. Dept. of Justice (Oct. 2, 1995), copy on file with author. [230] Gary H. Palm, letter to U.S. Dept. of Justice, supra note 115.
[231]
[232] When the present author asked Dean Velvel for numerous specific documents among the tens of thousands of pages related to MSL v. ABA, fifteen pounds of documents soon arrived via express delivery. [233] Lawrence Velvel, National Advisory Committee, supra note111 at 99-100.
[234]
John Polly, Law
Schools to Reassess Use of LSAT Scores, Michigan
Daily ( [235] Colin Diver, National Advisory Committee, supra note 111 at 5. [236] Lani Guinier, quoted by M.A. Stapleton, supra note 10. [237] Anthony Lewis, Abroad at Home, supra note 71. [238] Mem. of Facts, supra note 19 at 23.
[239]
Complaint, MSL
v.
[240]
Report of the Visiting Committee to the Massachusetts
School of Law (a letter,
[241]
[242] Interview with Gary Palm, supra note 13. [243] Jess Bravin, supra note 72.
|