BILL ANALYSIS SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Senator Joseph L. Dunn, Chair 2005-2006 Regular Session SB 1568 S Senator Dunn B As Introduced Hearing Date: April 4, 2006 1 Business and Professions Code 5 BCP 6 8 SUBJECT Unaccredited and Correspondence Law Schools: Regulation and Oversight DESCRIPTION This bill would transfer regulation and oversight of unaccredited law schools and correspondence law schools from the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE) to the State Bar's Committee of Bar Examiners (CBE). Additionally, correspondence law schools would be required to disclose their faculty-to-student ratio and their First-Year Law Students Examination ("baby bar") and the general bar exam passage rates to prospective students, in the same manner required of unaccredited schools. BACKGROUND Law schools in California fall into three categories: American Bar Association (ABA) approved, California accredited, and California unaccredited. Correspondence law schools generally fall under the unaccredited category as they lack facilities, such as a library, that are necessary to receive full accreditation. California is unique in its three tiers of law schools. Virtually all other states require their students to attend an ABA approved law school in order to qualify for admission to practice law within the state. (more) SB 1568 (Dunn) Page 2 On August 16, 2005, this committee held a hearing on "Improving the Quality of Legal Education in Unaccredited Law Schools in California." Statistics discussed at the hearing revealed that students from unaccredited law schools have fared rather poorly in their attempts to pass either the baby bar or general bar examination. Students at unaccredited and correspondence law schools must obtain a passing score on both, in addition to other criteria, to be admitted to practice law in California. Currently, the CBE is responsible for the regulation and oversight of California accredited law schools. Unaccredited and correspondence law schools are subject to the regulation and oversight of the BPPVE. In an attempt to provide more comprehensive oversight and increased consumer protection, this bill proposes to move the approval, regulation and oversight of unaccredited schools from the BPPVE to the Committee of Bar Examiners. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW 1. Existing law grants power over approval, regulation and oversight of degree granting law schools to the Committee of Bar Examiners, excluding unaccredited law schools. BPPVE has the authority to approve, regulate and oversee unaccredited law schools. [Educ. Code 94900, 94361 et. seq.] Existing Rules of Court mandate that unaccredited law schools meet minimal standards for classroom attendance, law library, and faculty composition. Out-of-state unaccredited law schools are exempted from certain requirements. Failure to meet these requirements prevents their students from qualifying for admission to practice law. [Rules of Court 957.] This bill would amend and repeal Education Code sections granting regulation to the BPPVE, thereby transferring authority over unaccredited law schools to the Committee of Bar Examiners. This bill would subject non-law school programs leading to a juris doctor (J.D.) or bachelor laws (LL.B.) degree to the regulation and oversight of the Committee of Bar SB 1568 (Dunn) Page 3 Examiners. This bill would require the Committee of Bar Examiners to adopt rules for regulation and oversight of unaccredited law schools, correspondence schools not approved by the ABA or accredited by the Committee of Bar Examiners, and non-law school programs leading to a J.D. or LL.B. The Committee of Bar Examiners is authorized to collect a fee from those schools and programs to fund their regulatory and oversight responsibilities. 2. Existing law requires numerous disclosures on behalf of law schools not approved by the ABA or accredited by the Committee of Bar Examiners. Correspondence law schools are exempted from certain disclosures. [Bus. & Prof. Code 6061.] This bill would require correspondence law schools to disclose the percentage of students who pass both the First-Year Law Student's Examination and general bar examination and faculty-to-student ratio. SB 1568 (Dunn) Page 4 COMMENT 1. Need for the bill Historically, students from unaccredited California law schools have performed poorly on both the First-Year Law Students' Examination and general bar examination. As a result, students enrolling in unaccredited California law schools face long odds of ever being admitted to practice law in California. Some California unaccredited schools in fact go many years without a first time taker passing the general bar examination. By way of comparison, the average pass rate for first-time test takers from unaccredited schools is 11.89% (42/353) over the past five years, while the pass rate for graduates of California ABA approved schools over the same period is 69.8%. For California accredited schools, the average first-time pass rate is 28.4% (609/2141). One school in southern California has not had a student pass the general bar examination since 2000, either as a first-time or repeat taker. One school has had 1 in 64 first-time takers pass while another school has gone 0 for 64. While some of the students pass on subsequent tries, the average pass rate for repeat examinees from unaccredited law schools is less than 6.87% (110/1599) over the last five years. The overall picture is even bleaker when the attrition from the baby bar is taken into account. Students at schools that are not ABA approved or California accredited must also take and pass the baby bar in order to receive credits for their legal studies after their first year courses and be eligible to sit for the general bar exam. This requirement, mandated by statute, is seen as a consumer protection for students of unaccredited and correspondence law schools by providing them an early assessment tool of their aptitude or lack of aptitude for the study of law, as well as an objective indicator of the quality of legal education being provided. Statistics from the past five years show that only 19.5% (107/546) of the unaccredited law students passed the baby bar on the first try. Repeat examinees fared worse, 12.6% (86/683), although the later figure may be bloated by repeat failures. Still, adding the total number of SB 1568 (Dunn) Page 5 passing candidates for that period (107+86) shows that perhaps only 30% to 35% of an entering class will be qualified to sit for the general bar exam. The author asserts that the dismally low pass rates suggest that unaccredited law school students are not being adequately prepared in their legal education to take and pass the bar in order to become practicing attorneys, He also contends that shifting the oversight and regulatory authority from BPPVE to the State Bar Committee of Bar Examiners should help improve the situation. Currently, unaccredited law schools and correspondence law schools receive minimal oversight by the BPPVE. According to the author, the Committee of Bar Examiners, already responsible for regulation and oversight of non-ABA approved law schools, is better equipped to assess and regulate these law schools. SB 1568's goal is to increase the quality of legal education provided to consumers at California's unaccredited law schools and correspondence schools. These consumers are paying anywhere from $10,000 to over $58,000 for their legal education from unaccredited law schools (the median in 2005 was $23,385), more than at some California accredited schools. However, only a very small percentage of the entering students will ever pass the required examinations and, thus, will ever practice law. The author's office asserts that shifting oversight of unaccredited law schools will increase the quality of legal education at these law schools and protect consumers' investment in their legal education. Better prepared and educated students should, in turn, have greater success in passing the bar exams and be more able and qualified to serve their clients. 2. Hearing opinions on oversight and transfer Statements in the August 16, 2005 hearing demonstrate the minimal level of interaction between unaccredited law schools and the BPPVE and Committee of Bar Examiners. Speakers from both the State Bar of California, BPPVE and unaccredited law schools detailed the current low level of interaction, along with their opinions on transfer of SB 1568 (Dunn) Page 6 authority. Gayle Murphy from the Office of Admissions for the California State Bar testified as to the current standards imposed upon unaccredited law schools by the Committee of Bar Examiners. Ms. Murphy testified that although schools must register with the Committee, "[t]he primary requirement for these schools is the [BPPVE] approval . . . once we have that, again the requirements are fairly minimal with regard to what else they need to have." Additionally, the Committee "provide[s] no oversight of the of the educational programs or quality of instruction provided . . ." Representatives from the BPPVE detailed the interaction from their agency. According to those witnesses, interaction between the BPPVE and the unaccredited schools after initial approval is "probably none" unless a specific application is filed or complaints are submitted. Annual reports are to be filed that contain student performance data such as bar passage rates and number of graduates. Even if the student performance statistics are extremely poor, the BPPVE takes no action as long as that information is disclosed to prospective students. Representatives from several unaccredited law schools testified as to their current oversight and level of detail required by reports. Representatives from Pacific Coast University (PCU) testified that the annual reports do contain a lot of information and "keep[] us on our toes . . . " Additionally, Representatives of PCU and University of Northern California, Lorenzo Patino School of Law commented on the transfer of oversight to the CBE. Mr. Hicks, attorney, PCU faculty member and graduate stated "we wouldn't see a problem with [transfer]. The whole purpose of everything that we're doing and we would hope the [CBE] would be to ensure that the quality of education that is received by students is of the highest caliber and . . . not compromised." Mr. Miller, graduate of University of Northern California, remarked that he "[saw] no problem in adjusting the oversight nature to unaccredited law schools." He did express reservations as to increased costs to students, and that this could be SB 1568 (Dunn) Page 7 "a step down the road to only ABA schools." 3. Proposed oversight by the CBE SB 1568 would provide that the Committee of Bar Examiners shall be responsible for the approval, regulation, and oversight of degree-granting law schools and legal programs leading to a J.D. or LL.B. degree. The CBE is empowered to adopt rules and regulations and to assess and collect a fee from the schools and programs to fund their regulatory and oversight responsibilities. Absent provisions allowing a fee to be charged, the CBE could lack the resources to implement their oversight responsibilities. This bill does not dictate the content of the CBE's rules and regulations for those schools and programs. As the quasi-governmental body delegated the responsibility by the Supreme Court and the Legislature for establishing criteria for admission into the state bar, the CBE has the experience and expertise necessary to formulate appropriate rules and regulations that would improve the quality of legal education in unaccredited law schools. Further, any person, including unaccredited law schools and programs that may be affected, would have the opportunity for input during the CBE's process of adopting the rule. 4. Oversight of correspondence law schools also shifted to CBE Under this bill, regulation and oversight of correspondence law schools is shifted to the Committee of Bar Examiners from the BPPVE. Although students from correspondence schools generally fare better than those from unaccredited law schools on both the baby bar and general bar examinations, their numbers could also stand improvement, particularly in the baby bar attrition rate. (See also next comment). Further, maintaining a fragmented system of regulation and oversight does not make sense. This bill proposes a consolidated system of regulation and oversight by the CBE. No reasons have been advanced to justify leaving correspondence schools alone under the BPPVE. SB 1568 (Dunn) Page 8 5. Removal of disclosure exceptions for correspondence schools The Business and Professions Code currently contains numerous disclosures that unaccredited law schools are required to make to prospective students. The goal of these disclosures is to allow the consumer to make an informed decision regarding their education. Sample disclosures include the school's lack of accreditation, number and percentage of students passing the First-Year Law Students' Examination and general bar examination, legal volumes in library, educational background of faculty and faculty-to-student ratio. Correspondence schools are exempted from disclosing three specific criteria: number and percentage of students passing either bar examination, number of legal volumes in library, and faculty-to-student ratio. This bill would remove the exemption for correspondence schools from two of those criteria, student passage rates and faculty-to-student ratio. Due to the low pass rates found in unaccredited law schools, prospective students should be made aware of the success or lack-of-success of their peers from a consumer protection standpoint. Absent disclosure of the pass rates, prospective consumers may not realize their long odds of passing both bar examinations to be able to practice law in California. While correspondence law school students generally perform better on the baby bar and general bar examinations than unaccredited law school students, the significant attrition rate between the first year class and the graduating class suggest that the disclosure about baby bar exam and general bar exam pass rates might be useful information to a prospective correspondence law school student. For example, one large - the largest - correspondence law school enrolled 734 students in its first year class in 2002. By 2005, only 104 students remained in the 4th year of that four-year program. Similarly, of 580 students starting in 2003, only 173 registered for the third year in 2005. Some of the attrition may be due to financial problems or loss in interest, but most is likely related to the student's inability to pass the SB 1568 (Dunn) Page 9 baby bar, which is required if the person wishes to sit for the general bar exam. Overall, of 807 students entering a first year correspondence law school class in 2000, only 176 were enrolled in 2002 in third year studies - an attrition rate of almost 78%. Over the past five years, the first-time pass rate for the baby bar among correspondence law schools is 37.2% (689/1851). Their pass rate for the general bar exam is 34.08% (167/490) for first timers and 14.89% (105/705) for repeaters. While these numbers are higher than the numbers for the unaccredited law schools, and in fact also surpass the first-time pass rate average for California accredited law schools, they still show that there is a substantial rate of attrition from the baby bar and of failure on the general bar exam. Thus, disclosure of baby bar and general bar exam pass rates to a prospective correspondence law school students seems very relevant, as well as important from a consumer protection standpoint. The other criteria, faculty-to-student ratio, serves as an indicator of the quality of legal education. Absent disclosure, prospective students may believe that they are getting one-on-one instruction as opposed to sharing each faculty member with 50 or more students. Although the ratio is of more importance for non-correspondence schools, this still may serve as an indicator to the prospective student as to what they may expect in terms of faculty interaction. 6. Regulation of law study degrees at non-law schools This bill would expand oversight by the Committee of Bar Examiners to include law study programs leading to J.D., LL.B. or other law study degree. By including those programs, the bill ensures that any school offering a legal degree receives oversight from the CBE. The goal of this provision is to include non-bar J.D., LL.B., or other law study degree programs in the regulations to be promulgated by the CBE. Currently, some schools are offering bar track and non-bar track legal programs. Bar track programs follow the criteria set forth by the CBE in order for their SB 1568 (Dunn) Page 10 students' to qualify for admission to the State Bar. Non-bar track programs offer legal degrees in a manner that does not comply with criteria set forth by the CBE. Essentially, students spend years in a program not subject to minimum CBE standards and receive a degree that does not give them the ability to take and pass the bar and practice law. For example, Bob's liberal arts college could start a non-bar track legal program leading to a J.D. degree. Since the school is not subject to CBE standards, they do not need to establish standards for academic achievement, law faculty, or classroom attendance. Students do receive a J.D. degree, but that degree does not confer any right upon them to take the bar, let alone practice law. Some may assert that the value of the degree is its educational value. In fact, some correspondence law school students have stated to committee staff that they did not intend to use their J.D. degrees to practice law, but only to help them in their current employment. Having a J.D. degrees opens doors, they said, even if the person is not eligible to practice law. The author's office asserts that all J.D. programs, bar-track or non-bar track, should be subject to appropriate oversight and educational standards. Without oversight, J.D.s from accredited or regulated schools could be devalued by J.D.s offered by non-law schools seeking to expand its business opportunities. By the same token, unaccredited law schools or correspondence law schools could seek to entice students who fail the baby bar and therefore are not eligible to take the general bar, to instead continue their legal studies at the school and obtain a J.D. in a non-bar track program. In both instances, the author's office asserts that those programs should also be subject to oversight and regulation by the Committee on Bar Examiners, and that standards for a J.D. degree would protect the consumer as well as the general public. 7. Nonlaw programs to remain under BPPVE jurisdiction SB 1568 would shift regulation and oversight of SB 1568 (Dunn) Page 11 unaccredited law schools and educational programs leading to a law study degree at nonlaw schools from the BPPVE to the CBE. Nonlaw programs at these schools would remain under the regulation and oversight of the BPPVE. Support: None Known Opposition:None Known HISTORY Source: Author Related Pending Legislation: None Known Prior Legislation: None Known **************