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
**************