Florida Coastal Case Provides Rare Glimpse into ABA's Accreditation Process

ALM Media

Updated Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 11:59 PM

Florida Coastal School of Law.

Officials at Florida Coastal School of Law argue they have improved the quality of students admitted and boosted bar pass rates since coming under scrutiny from the American Bar Association, but the accrediting body says it needs to see more proof that those changes are real and sustained before the school is back in its good graces.

New court filings offer a rare glimpse into the ABA’s law school accreditation process, where decisions are made behind closed doors and the details of deliberations are typically held secret.

A raft of litigation against the ABA by law schools who have been threatened with losing their accreditation is offering new insight to how the ABA is cracking down on schools it deems to have fallen short of its standards. Western Michigan University Cooley Law School; Arizona Summit Law School; Florida Coastal and the now closed Charlotte School of Law all have pending lawsuits against the ABA that argue the organization has been inconsistent in applying it accreditation standards to law schools.

The latest court filings center on Florida Coastal, which initially sued the ABA in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in May after being deemed out of compliance with several standards, including the rule that schools admit only students who appear capable of graduating and passing the bar. In a motion for summary judgment filed by the ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar on Thursday, the accreditor argues that Florida Coastal’s promised improvements are too new to produce meaningful results, and that the school cherry-picked data from other law schools during the past decade to make the case that it’s being treated unfairly. Officials from the ABA and Florida Coastal did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

The motion for summary judgment, as well as Florida Coastal’s earlier amended complaint, reveal that during an August appeal hearing before the council, Florida Coastal officials highlighted several changes intended to address the ABA’s concerns, including:

A 62 percent first-time bar pass rate on the February 2018 Florida exam, which was up from 25 percent the previous year and was the fourth-highest among Florida’s eleven law schools and four points higher than the statewide average. The school predicted that its first-time pass rate on the July 2018 exam would be 67 percent, up from 42 percent in July 2017.
Increasing its 25^th percentile LSAT from 145 in 2017 from 141 in 2016, and enrolling a Spring 2018 class with a median LSAT score of 150.
Lowering its attrition rate from 30 percent in 2017 to 21 percent for those admitted in the spring of 2018.
Improving its mandatory bar preparation course and bolstering its academic support and student monitoring process.

But those changes were not enough to sway the council, which decided they were too recent to offer proof of improved long-term outcomes. For example, the school’s much-touted 62 percent bar pass rate in February 2018 was based on results from only 29 students. The school did not provide results for 124 other Florida Coastal graduates who took the bar elsewhere or who were repeat takers, hence the council gave only “limited weight” to the improved pass rate in Florida, according to its motion for summary judgment.

And while the results of the July 2018 bar exam were not yet available when the council met in August to hear Florida Coastal’s appeal, the school’s 67 percent projected pass rate proved optimistic. The Florida Board of Bar Examiners announced last month that 62.5 percent of Florida Coastal’s first-time takers passed the July exam.

The council acknowledged that the 150 median LSAT for the spring 2018 matriculants was an improvement, but that cohort was just 19 students, and their 21 percent attrition rate “remains of concern,” the council found. Moreover, the improved academic support and bar prep, “has not been in place for sufficient time for students who received the full benefit of that curriculum to graduate and to determine whether it is effective in improving student outcomes.”

Finally, the ABA argues in its motion for summary judgment that Florida Coastal’s focus on data from other law schools is misplaced, and that only the school’s history, circumstances and data are at issue when it determines compliance with the standards. Florida Coastal selected various data from different schools in different years and on different topics to make the case that the accreditor is applying its standards unevenly, the ABA argues, but such cherry-picked data does not offer a “meaningful basis” on which to weigh Florida Coastal’s specific situation.

But Florida Coastal argues in its amended complaint that the ABA’s handling of other law schools is relevant to the case. “The Council’s decision also violates due process because the Council refused even to consider its own past precedents,” it reads.

The ABA is asking a federal judge to boot the case from court.

“The ABA’s Accreditation Committee and Council reasonably concluded that further monitoring of Coastal was necessary, that students are entitled to accurate information, and that Coastal should receive more time to demonstrate compliance,” reads the ABA’s motion for summary judgement. “In other words, the accreditation process is working. The Court should not permit Coastal to use this lawsuit to stop the ABA from seeking quality and transparency for students.”

Terms and Privacy Policy

Your Privacy Choices

Utah Privacy Notice

More Info

News

Life

Entertainment

Finance

Sports

New on Yahoo

Yahoo Finance

Recommended Stories