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

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