Echo Chamber - The Charleston Law School Payoff? January 6, 2008
Posted by fitsnews in : SC Politics , trackback
LATEST CHAPTER IN SC BAR EXAM SAGA COULD GET INTERESTING
FITSNews - January 6, 2008 - We took a lot of grief two months ago when we broke the now-infamous S.C. Supreme Court bar exam scandal.
We took even more grief for our second story on the controversy, in which we suggested that the Court’s decision to throw out an entire section of the exam was all about ”propping up” the passing percentage of Charleston School of Law graduates, thus enabling the school to reach a key academic benchmark.
Of course, now we know that’s exactly what happened. Thanks to the Court’s actions, the Charleston School of Law passed 69.9% of its graduates (as opposed to 65.1% prior to the change), meaning it is now on track to receive full accreditation by the American Bar Association - which has historically used a 70% passing percentage as its benchmark.
Certainly this whole thing is scandalous enough already, but there could be a lot more to this story than just passing percentages and law school accreditation. In fact, the same sources who initially told FITSNews about this component of the bar exam flap recently provided us with some interesting new information …
Specifically, these sources tell FITSNews that the Court’s decision to throw out the Wills, Trusts & Estate section of the 2007 bar exam could end up being worth as much as $50 million to the owners of the Charleston School of Law.
That’s right, $50 million, people. Our calculator doesn’t even have that many zeroes, in case you were wondering.
These sources also told FITSNews that the same federal investigators who have been looking into the Supreme Court’s dictatorship of the legal profession here in South Carolina are now examining the bar exam fiasco as well.
Full accreditation by the American Bar Association (ABA), as it turns out, can be a financial boon to the founders of for-profit law schools like the Charleston School of Law, especially as venture capital firms look to diversify their educational holdings and in-state private institutions with money to burn (such as Furman University) look to create a statewide presence for their institutions.
Take the Florida Coastal School of Law in Jacksonville, for example, which was founded in 1996 with $1.5 million from private investors. Fully-accredited by the ABA in 2002, the school was purchased two years later for an undisclosed sum by Sterling Capital Partners, owners of the Baltimore-based Sylvan Learning Systems, Inc.
Sources say the total value of that package - which merely transferred ownership of the school for a 7-13 year period - totalled at least $15 million. A permanent sale would obviously fetch a much higher price.
The Charleston School of Law, which received its provisional accreditation last year and could receive full accreditation as early as this August, could very well be on the radar screen of venture capital firms such as Sterling, or it could just as easily be the target of private schools with mega-resources like Furman and its gargantuan Hollingsworth textile endowment.
According to documents obtained from the S.C. Higher Education Commission, the founders of the Charleston School of Law include Judge Alex Sanders (a former president of the College of Charleston and former Chief Judge of the South Carolina Court of Appeals), Ed Westbrook, Judge Robert Carr (a federal magistrate judge), Judge George Kosko (also a federal magistrate judge), and Ralph McCullough. Private investors may have also contributed to the school, which began accepting students in 2004.
In a conversation with FITSNews shortly after the bar exam scandal broke, Judge Sanders categorically dismissed the allegation that the Supreme Court changed the scores of the exam to benefit his school.
“Absolutely untrue,” Sanders said. “It might benefit our percentage of passing students, but it would also benefit the passing percentages of every other school.”
Maybe so, but the fact remains that there was obviously a tremendous financial incentive for doing so in the case of the Charleston School of Law, not to mention the fact that the change enabled the school to hit the precise benchmark it needed to hit in order to remain on track for full accreditation.
The Court has repeatedly denied that the passing percentage of Charleston School of Law graduates had anything to do with its decision, but those denials have only exacerbated public scrutiny and subjected the Court to perhaps the worst public relations crisis in its storied history.
Since we began reporting on these issues back in November of last year, legislation has been pre-filed for the 2008 session that would strip the Supreme Court of much of its authority to regulate the legal profession, including the administration of the bar exam. The proposed changes face a wall of institutional opposition, however, which will no doubt be spearheaded by Warren Tompkins, the Court’s lobbyist.
Stay tuned for more …
Comments»
Do I expect those responsibile for this sordid affair will suffer any repercussions for their shenanigans? No. But at least they’re aware that we’re onto them.
Nice job, FITS. Keep up the good work.
not so sure you “broke” the story, but you do get credit for yapping about it. Nevertheless, good commentary.
Great job FITS…
I must say this all “fits”, and makes everything so clear.
Wow, you’re really grasping at straws here. Do you really expect any rational person to believe that the SC Supreme Court would undertake such a drastic measure as to drop an entire section of the bar, incur the wrath the SC legal community, and risk their jobs/reputations that it has taken them a lifetime to build - all so that 5 OTHER people (many of whom they do not even like) can make money? Why would they possibly risk all that when there is nothing in it for them? Where is the incentive for Toal? I realize everyone loves a good old conspiracy, but come on - there are absolutely no facts supporting this theory at all.
I commend you for making the media aware of the bar exam scandal and keeping the story alive … however, I must say that this is stretching it in my opinion. I just haven’t seen any evidence that the Supreme Court purposely tried to help Charleston Law gain accreditation. Seems like pure speculation and coincidence. As a matter of fact, Jean Toal has been outwardly UNsupportive of Charleston Law’s efforts. While it’s true that the founders could profit from selling the school, that fact is circumstantial and not directly linked to the bar exam scandal, the SC Supreme Court, or anything else. Whatever happened with the Wills Trusts section is certainly shady, however it seems like people are jumping to conclusions with respect to Charleston Law.
Observer,
The fact that this story was broken by FITSNews on November 7, 2007 is a historical fact, and is easily established by the fact that no other blog or media outlet had it before we did.
#4 and #5, your points are certainly valid and welcome. Of course we’re right and you’re wrong, but keep the opinions coming anyway!
-FITSNews
I would not totally discredit this story as to much of a stretch as some responders have. Initially, I believe that the topic of throwing out the wills trust section may have been broached to the supreme court by catherine harrison’s dad and others seeking to have their child/clerk pass. However, I would not be surprised if the higher ups at CSOL also ‘mentioned’ they would like to see the wills trust section thrown out, once the rumor started floating around that the supreme court was considering it.
Regardless of who was pressuring the supreme court I firmly believe that something happened that was not supposed to-21 people who did not pass the bar got sworn in. As a result I have lost a lot of respect for the supreme court of this state. I appreciate you following this story.
What a surprise, another secret “source provided” CSOL connection. This is getting absurd. Someone with an agenda is clearly trying to pin this on CSOL for some reason. In the past month it’s gone from the WTE section was dropped b/c of Burch’s dad, then it was so that 8 CSOL students could pass, then it was to prop up the bar passage rate by 4 whole whopping percentage points, and now the claim is that it was dropped so that the CSOL founders can get the school accredited so that maybe one day they can sell it for a big profit. YEAH. Somehow I have a hard time believing that the Supreme Court justices went to all that trouble in crafting a plan of fraud and lies so that 5 people the couldn’t give a rats arse about can potentially one day make even more milllions then they already have.
The staff at Believe It Not is used to sic(k) willie claiming to break a “big story.” So far, all he’s broken is “wind.”
sic(k) willie, show proof of wrong doing! Or, shut up!
So far, all you’ve done is make noise, make a bad smell and point your finger at others. Like a 5 year old who f@rted in church.
No one denies the stink. We just question the source.
#8 - you’re right, this “theory” is rather ridiculous. Not only are their no facts at all to support this, but it just flat out doesn’t make any sense. While this is merely a blog open for discussion by those college, law students, and attorneys who are interested in reading fitsnews for these types of things the real problem is that I guarantee some idiot from The State newspaper will be all over this and report it as another front page exclusive in the Sunday paper, once again giving the general population of SC the idea that CSOL is some dirty, corrupt institution. It just blows my mind. Instead of supporting and encouraging the growth and success of a new institution of higher education in our State, we do what SC does best - take every opportunity tear down and stand in the way of any and all progress.
Don’t you people remember when Queen Jean and Alex Sanders were young yellow dog Democrat “Young Turks” together in the legislature? #4 and #5, they are so arrogant, they didn’t think they would ever get caught. Matter of fact, due to the absolute power of the Supreme Court, they don’t think they are caught yet. The Supreme Court did it, because they can….
You can’t - you think they wouldn’t do something so trivial that would be so damaging to the public’s opinion of lawyers and the courts?
If this so, how come Jean Toal has become a politicos’ joke around the state - but if she is fit to judge herself, then I wouldfigure that anything else goes.
Then again, is it possible to further reduce the level of trust and respect the public has for attorneys?
#10 “While this is merely a blog open for discussion by those college, law students, and attorneys who are interested in reading fitsnews for these types of things the real problem is that I guarantee some idiot from The State newspaper will be all over this and report it as another front page exclusive in the Sunday paper, once again giving the general population of SC the idea that CSOL is some dirty, corrupt institution.”
I only see one period in that train wreck. Therefore, no - I will not support a third tier, for-profit “learning institution.” Ok, you want some encouragement #10? Here goes: “Awe, cookie wookie. I’m sorry you’re not as smart as the other kids in class. Here’s a law degree anyway. And here’s you license.”
Now that’s just downright funny - “And here’s you license.” - way to criticize bad grammer with more bad grammer of your own SC Lawyer. Very classy post too by the way.
UNC Law–
SC Lawyer (who I disagree with often in his posts here) made a typo. That’s a lot different than bad grammar. People who nit-pick are annoying.
I seriously doubt this conspiracy theory, but I nonetheless worry about CSOL students who pay so much for an education while most will not be able to get commensurate employment. This is not a problem just for CSOL students, although I believe they are even more disadvantaged than grads of more established but still lower-tier law schools. See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119040786780835602-search.html)
I’m not trying to be a CSOL hater at all, so please don’t rattle off hyper posts defending the school. There are lots of good folks and good stuff going on there. (And Although I know a few grads have gotten good jobs, there are probably fifteen times as many who struggle just to get basic jobs that might pay the student loan bills).
[...] Never mind that the court’s action boosted the Charleston School of Law’s bar exam passing average to right at 70% — right at the level it needed to achieve accreditation. [...]
[...] ago, but to reiterate, the altered results gave the Charleston School of Law the passing average it needed for accreditation, and one of the beneficiaries of the change (and daughter of respected lawmaker and House Judiciary [...]
The Charleston School of Law is second class and perhaps will not become accredited by the ABA. They hire professors to teach that are guilty of breach of trust. They need to do a better job. How do you teach a laywer to be honest when those that teach are not. Shame on you.