FedSoc Blog

Cooley Law School Defeats Fraud Suit by Graduates


by Publius
Posted July 25, 2012, 9:15 AM

According to the National Law Journal:

The attorneys behind a spate of class actions accusing law schools across the country of fraud are 0 for 2.

A federal judge in Michigan on July 20 dismissed a suit against the Thomas M. Cooley Law School the attorneys brought on behalf of 12 graduates who claimed that the school misrepresented its employment statistics to lure students.

In March, a New York trial judge tossed a similar lawsuit against New York Law School. That ruling is under appeal, and fraud class action against 12 additional law schools are pending.

"Obviously, we're disappointed, but we're very proud of the work we've done," said Jesse Strauss, who along with attorneys David Anziska and Frank Raimond are coordinating the law school lawsuits around the country. "There's been a sea change in the quality of employment information. I don't think we're the only reason that happened, but I think we've been a factor. Still, I hope we're going to be able to move some money to the people who have mortgaged their future on these degrees."

Cooley president and dean Don LeDuc said in a prepared statement that the school was pleased with U.S. District Judge Gordon Quist's decision.

"We are committed to graduating law students who are ready to practice law, and their success in a tough job market is our success too," he said. "We have always been in compliance with American Bar Association and National Association for Law Placement employment reporting standards."

The plaintiffs in the Cooley litigation alleged that the school violated the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) and committed fraud by offering incomplete and misleading job and salary figures. In its motion to dismiss, Cooley's lawyers argued that the school complied with ABA and NALP guidelines, and that the MCPA does not apply to educational purchases. Cooley defeated a charge of violating the MCPA in 2009 by arguing that educational activities were exempt.

But the plaintiffs had reason for hope after a June 5 hearing in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan on Cooley's motion to dismiss. Quist said in a partial ruling that the ABA and NALP's reporting requirements "are a floor, not a ceiling," and that Cooley could go beyond those requirements, although he later struck that comment from the ruling.

In his final ruling, Quist found that the MCPA does not protect education purchases because they are not "goods, property, or service primarily for personal, family, or household purposes." A law degree is used to establish a career in law, which falls under the definition of a purchase made for business or commercial purposes, said Cooley general counsel James Thelen.

Categories: External Articles




Originally Speaking Debate Archive

Blog Roll