December 30, 2012
Law School Transparency Files Complaint Against Rutgers-Camden Over Student Recruiting
Law School Transparency has filed a complaint with the ABA Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar against Rutgers-Camden Law School over a recruiting email sent to a prospective student:
Law School Transparency alleges that Rutgers School of Law – Camden violated Standard 509 and Interpretation 509-4 [in effect in 2011-12]. A law school administrator made misleading statements about the successes of the school’s graduates. The same administrator also made a false statement about graduate salary outcomes when she asserted that many top graduates accepted jobs at firms making in excess of $130,000, when in fact zero graduates reported earning more than $130,000.
Prior TaxProf Blog coverage:
- LST Calls for Resignation of Rutgers Dean and ABA Investigation of Improper Recruiting of Law Students (May 21, 2012)
- Rutgers-Camden Dean Doubles Down on Questionable Marketing Pitch to Prospective Law Students (May 23, 2012)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Law School Transparency Files Complaint Against Rutgers-Camden Over Student Recruiting:
I am amazed that people quote above the law as if it were an authoritative source. I can understand the beef with the statistics in the original marketing campaign, but LST acts as if it is a government agency with a right to demand answers and then to use any answer with which it is not satisfied in complaints or lawsuits or to put on Campos' blog. The best answer for a school when LST comes a calling is "no comment." There is no upside to working with them.
Posted by: Junior | Dec 30, 2012 4:24:24 PM
Hi Dean Solomon!
Posted by: Senior | Dec 30, 2012 8:31:33 PM
I am not sure I understand the complaint's reference to the targets of the email campaign -- that it was people who took the GMATs. It seems that LST is suggesting that --regardless of the content of the communication -- it violates ABA standards to market to such people, because they have not been given time to weigh the cost/benefit of a legal education because they would enroll a few months later. That is a bit of a stretch. Many people make all kind of expensive and important decisions in a few months. It is not inherently inappropriate to market any product to someone who is not already in the market for it. Can you try to sell a house to someone who did not previously expressed an interest in buying a house? Sure you can. Is a couple of months enough time for them to weigh that expensive and weighty decision? Sure it is.
Posted by: PacMan | Dec 31, 2012 12:35:08 PM
It is a very poorly written complaint. The introduction to the complaint gives no inkling of the purported wrongs. I had to flip through the document to figure out what they were really complaining about. And most of it is minor too.
Posted by: Anon | Jan 4, 2013 2:18:49 AM