United States v. American Bar Ass'n

934 F. Supp. 435, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18529, 1996 WL 466435
CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedJune 25, 1996
DocketCivil Action No. 95-1211 (CRR)
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 934 F. Supp. 435 (United States v. American Bar Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. American Bar Ass'n, 934 F. Supp. 435, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18529, 1996 WL 466435 (D.D.C. 1996).

Opinion

ORDER

CHARLES R. RICHEY, District Judge.

On June 20, 1996, the Court entered a Final Judgment in the above-captioned case. The Final Judgment entered by the Court was the original version. The parties subsequently modified the proposed Final Judgment to reflect a number of changes in the defendant’s accreditation process; these changes were reflected in the parties’ pleadings and constituted part of the basis for the Court’s determination that the relief to be afforded under the new accreditation process brought the proposed Final Judgment within the reaches of the public interest. While the modified proposed Final Judgment was apparently filed in the Clerk’s Office (the parties have tendered a date-stamped copy thereof), it was not placed in the file jacket. And no copy was provided to chambers. Thus, at the time it entered the Final Judgment, the Court was unaware that a modified version had been filed. At the Court’s request, counsel for the Department of Justice has since provided a copy of the modified proposed Final Judgment to chambers. • Accordingly, it is, by the Court, this 25th day of June 1996

ORDERED that the Final Judgment entered in this case on June 20, 1996 shall be, and hereby is, VACATED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Final Judgment attached hereto shall be, and hereby is, entered in its stead.

FINAL JUDGMENT

Plaintiff, United States of America, filed its Complaint on June 27, 1995. Plaintiff and defendant American Bar Association (“ABA”), by their attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law. This Final Judgment shall not be evidence or admission by any party with respect to any issue of fact or law. Therefore, before any testimony is taken, and without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and upon consent of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:

I.

JURISDICTION

• This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of the parties consenting to this Final Judgment. The Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted against the ABA -under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.

II.

DEFINITIONS

As used in this Final Judgment:

(A) “ABA” means the American Bar Association and all of its components.

(B) “Accreditation Committee” means the Accreditation Committee of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar of the ABA.

[436]*436(C) “Board” means the ABA Board of Governors.

(D) “Council” means the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar of the ABA

(E) “Faculty” means all persons who teach classes (except adjunct professors), including administrators who teach, emeritus or senior faculty, visiting professors, joint-appointed faculty, clinical instructors, and instructors holding short-term appointments.

(F) “Section” means the ABA’s Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar.

(G) “Standards,” “Interpretations” and “Rules” mean the Standards for Approval of Law Schools and Interpretations and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools and Policies of the Council of the Section and its Accreditation Committee.

III.

APPLICABILITY

This Final Judgment shall apply to the ABA and its governors, officers, employees, and full-time consultants involved in law school accreditation.

IV.

PROHIBITED CONDUCT

The ABA is enjoined and restrained from:

(A) adopting or enforcing any Standard, Interpretation or Rule, or taking any action that has the purpose or effect of imposing requirements as to the base salary, stipends, fringe benefits, or other compensation paid law school deans, associate deans, assistant deans, faculty, library directors, librarians, or other law school employees, or in any way conditioning the accreditation of any law school on the compensation paid law school deans, associate deans, assistant deans, faculty, library directors, librarians, or other law school employees;

(B) collecting from or disseminating to any law school data concerning compensation paid or to be paid to deans, administrators, faculty, librarians, or other employees;

(C) using law school compensation data in connection with the accreditation or review of any law school; and

(D) adopting or enforcing any Standard, Interpretation or Rule, or taking any action that has the purpose or effect of prohibiting a law school from:

(1) enrolling a member of the bar or graduate of a state-accredited law school in an LL.M. program or other post-J.D. program;
(2) offering transfer credits for any course successfully completed at a state-accredited law school, except that the ABA may require that two-thirds of the credits required for graduation must be successfully completed at an ABA-approved law school; or
(3) being an institution organized as a for-profit entity.

V.

PERMITTED CONDUCT

Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the ABA from: (1) adopting or applying such other reasonable Standards, Interpretations or Rules, consistent with all other provisions of this Final Judgment, as are necessary to attract and retain a competent faculty; (2) investigating or reporting on whether a law school is in compliance with such Standards, Interpretations or Rules, or the cause of non-compliance; or (3) requiring that a law school take remedial action to comply with such Standards, Interpretations or Rules as a condition of obtaining or maintaining ABA approval. Nor shall anything herein be construed to prohibit the ABA, upon receipt of a complaint concerning discrimination, from collecting and considering compensation information that is relevant to the allegations of discrimination in order to determine whether the school that is the subject of the complaint complies with Standards 211-213 or Interpretations thereunder that prohibit discrimination. Compensation information collected or considered in connection with such an inquiry will not include information concerning the levels of compensation paid by schools other than the school that is the subject of the complaint.

[437]*437VI.

ADDITIONAL RELIEF

The ABA shall:

(A) require that all Interpretations and Rules be subjected to the same public comment and review process and approval procedures that apply to proposed Standards;

(B) permit appeals from Accreditation Committee Action Letters to the Council;

(C) revise the Council’s membership as follows:

(1) for a period of five years, all elections shall be reported to the Board;
(2) members shall serve staggered three-year terms, with a two-term limit; however, officers may serve as officers for an additional term beyond the six-year limit; and
(3) no more than 50% of the members ■ shall be law school deans or faculty;

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Doering
751 N.W.2d 123 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2008)
In re Lewis
86 S.W.3d 419 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2002)
United States v. American Bar Ass'n
135 F. Supp. 2d 28 (District of Columbia, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
934 F. Supp. 435, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18529, 1996 WL 466435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-american-bar-assn-dcd-1996.