 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
US OPPOSITION TO MASS SCHOOL OF LAWS MOTION TO BE INTERNENOR FOR APPEAL
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES LAW APPEALS MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL REVIEW MSL PURPOSES PARTIES DECREE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION JUDGEMENT GOVERNMENT TUNNEY ACT INTERVENTION ABA INTERVENOR DISCRETION DETERMINATION CONSENT DECREE ACCREDITATION APPELLANT MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL TUNNEY ACT PROCEEDING COLUMBIA CIRCUIT LTV APPELLEE UNITED STATES CERTIFICATE DISCLOSURE SPECIAL COMMISSION |
CASE BEING CONSIDERED FOR TREATMENT PURSUANT
TO RULE 34(j) OF THE GENERAL RULES
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No.
96-5247
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION,
Appellee,
MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL OF LAW,
Appellant.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
JOEL I. KLEIN
Acting Assistant Attorney General
A. DOUGLAS MELAMED
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
CATHERINE G. O'SULLIVAN
DAVID SEIDMAN
Attorneys
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 514-4510
1
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
US EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURES
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
UNITED STATES ENTRY MOTION PROPOSED MODIFICATION MEMORANDUM JOINT MOTION ACT PARTIES SUPPORT ANTITRUST INTENDS PRIOR STIPULATION CONSENT WASHINGTON POST PARTY COURT FEDERAL REGISTER MEMBERS UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT JUSTICE ANTITRUST DIVISION NOTIFICATION COMPLAINT EXPIRATION RESPONSE WITHDRAW PARAGRAPH FILING |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))
Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 95-1211
)
v. ))
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, ))
Defendant. )
)
UNITED STATES' EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURES
The United States submits this memorandum summarizing the procedures it will follow
regarding entry of the proposed Modification Of Final Judgment. Although the United States
does not believe that the Modification Of Final Judgment is subject to the Antitrust Procedures
and Penalties Act ("Tunney Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)-(h), it intends to follow procedures similar
to those set out in the Act to allow interested parties to submit comments to the United States
prior to the Court's determination of whether the entry of the Modified Judgment is in the public
interest.
1. Today, the parties have filed a Joint Motion For Modification Of The Final Judgment
("Joint Motion") and a proposed Modification Of Final Judgment. The United States has also
filed a Stipulation pursuant to which the parties have consented to entry of the Modification Of
Final Judgment, and the United States' Memorandum In Support Of Joint Motion For
Modification Of The Final Judgment ("United States' Memorandum In Support") explaining the
proposed modifications and the reasons for them.
2. The United States intends to publish the proposed Modification Of Final Judgment,
the Joint Motion, and the United States' Memorandum In Support in the Federal Register and to
publish a notice of such modification in the Washington Post at least 60 days prior to the time
SNIPPETS:
|
|
3
.
COMPLAINT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ACCREDITATION ABA FACULTY STANDARDS EDUCATION BAR ABA-APPROVED LAW LEGAL EDUCATION STUDENT CONSPIRATORS ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE GRADUATES INSPECTION UNITED STATES MEMBERS SALARIES ACT ACCREDITATION PROCESS PROFESSIONAL STAFF FACULTY RATIOS ADMINISTRATORS COMPLAINT COMPENSATION REPORT NON-COMPLIANCE CREDITS QUALITY BAR PREPARATION WORKING CONDITIONS |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
______________________________)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Civil Action No.
)
Plaintiff, ) Filed: [6/27/95]
)
v. ) COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE
) RELIEF FOR VIOLATION
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, ) OF 15 U.S.C § 1,
750 North Lake Shore Drive ) SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT
Chicago, Illinois 60611 )
Tel: 312/988-5000 ))
Defendant. )
______________________________)
COMPLAINT
The United States of America, acting under the direction of
the Attorney General of the United States, brings this civil
action to obtain equitable and other relief against the defendant
American Bar Association ("ABA"), and complains as follows:
I.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under
Section 4 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 4) to prevent and
restrain violations by the ABA of Section 1 of the Sherman Act
(15 U.S.C. § 1).
2. The ABA transacts business and is found within the
District of Columbia.
II.
1
SNIPPETS:
|
|
4
.
BRIEF FOR US IN MASS SCHOOL OF LAW APPEAL OF COURT DENIAL OF INTERVENING-PARTY STATUS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES LAW APPEALS MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL REVIEW MSL PURPOSES PARTIES DECREE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION JUDGEMENT GOVERNMENT TUNNEY ACT INTERVENTION ABA INTERVENOR DISCRETION DETERMINATION CONSENT DECREE ACCREDITATION APPELLANT MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL TUNNEY ACT PROCEEDING COLUMBIA CIRCUIT LTV APPELLEE UNITED STATES CERTIFICATE DISCLOSURE SPECIAL COMMISSION |
CASE BEING CONSIDERED FOR TREATMENT PURSUANT
TO RULE 34(j) OF THE GENERAL RULES
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No.
96-5247
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION,
Appellee,
MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL OF LAW,
Appellant.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
JOEL I. KLEIN
Acting Assistant Attorney General
A. DOUGLAS MELAMED
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
CATHERINE G. O'SULLIVAN
DAVID SEIDMAN
Attorneys
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 514-4510
1
SNIPPETS:
|
|
5
.
REPLY TO MOTION AND BRIEF OF AMICUS MASS SCHOOL OF LAW
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
JUDGEMENT SCHOOL ACCREDITATION AMICUS LAW COURT ABA MSL INDEPENDENT REQUIREMENT MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL RESPONSE CONFORM SEPARATE DOE MOTION CURIAE CIR REGIONAL ACCREDITATION AMERICAN BAR ESQUIRE DECREE FIRST-CLASS MAIL ATTACK PROPOSED MODIFICATION ZONE AGENCY EDUCATION AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ACT |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))
Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No.
)
v. ) Judge Royce C.
)
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, ))
Defendant. )
)
UNITED STATES' REPLY TO MOTION AND BRIEF OF
AMICUS CURIAE, THE MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL OF LAW
The United States submits this short reply to the motion and brief filed by the amicus
curiae, Massachusetts School of Law ("MSL"). MSL raised almost all of the same points in its
1
lengthy comment and the United States has responded in detail to that comment, see United
States' Response To Public Comments About Proposed Modification Of Final Judgment at 11-20
(filed Nov. 20, 2000). Accordingly, we will reply briefly only to a few issues.
The Final Judgment, as the parties jointly seek to modify it, is clearly within the
settlements consonant with the public interest today," and, thus, the Court should approve the
1 The United States does not oppose MSL's motion to file this brief. Nonetheless, much
goes beyond the proper role of an amicus brief, raising irrelevant issues that are not presently
the Court. "An amicus cannot initiate, create, extend or enlarge issues." Waste Management of
Pennsylvania, Inc. v. City of New York, 162 F.R.D. 34, 36 (M.D. Pa. 1995); see also United States v.
Hinckley, 725 F. Supp. 616, 625 (D.D.C. 1989) (amici's role is limited to illuminating "the issues
before the Court, not adding positions which advocate amici's own, non-party interests").
The Government is filing this reply brief based on a fax of MSL's brief without
have not yet received the hard copy of the brief and the appendix. Nonetheless, so that this brief
timely under LCvR 5.3(d), we file it today.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
6
.
COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ACCREDITATION ABA UNITED STATES JUDGEMENT ANTITRUST ACCREDITATION PROCESS BAR ABA-APPROVED LAW SCHOOLS STANDARDS COURT COMPETITION PENALTIES ACT COMPENSATION FACULTY ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE ANTITRUST PROCEDURES INTERPRETATIONS LEGAL EDUCATION SPECIAL COMMISSION COMPETITIVE IMPACT IMPACT STATEMENT CIVIL ANTITRUST NON-ABA-APPROVED SCHOOLS LAW SCHOOL DEANS PROCEEDING CIVIL ANTITRUST SUIT SHERMAN ACT COMPLAINT ALLEGES WORKING CONDITIONS |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
______________________________
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Civil Action No. 95-1211(CR)
)
Plaintiff, ) Filed: June 27, l995
v. ))
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, )
)
Defendant. )
_____________________________ )
COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT
Pursuant to Section 2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act,
15 U.S.C. § 16 (b), the United States submits this Competitive Impact
Statement relating to the proposed Final Judgment submitted for entry with the
consent of defendant American Bar Association ("ABA") in this civil antitrust
action.
I.
NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDING
A. The Complaint
On June 27, 1995, the United States filed a civil antitrust suit
alleging that the ABA violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act in its
accreditation of law schools. The Complaint alleges that the ABA restrained
competition among professional personnel at ABA-approved law schools by fixing
their compensation levels and working conditions, and by limiting competition
from non-ABA-approved schools. The Complaint also alleges that the ABA
allowed its law school accreditation process to be captured by those with a
SNIPPETS:
|
|
7
.
PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
JUDGEMENT ABA STANDARDS OFFICERS REVIEW MEMBERS UNITED STATES ACCREDITATION FACULTY INTERPRETATIONS DEANS COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE COUNCIL REPORT ANTITRUST COMPLIANCE COURT ENTRY BAR LEGAL EDUCATION PROPOSALS EMPLOYEES CONSULTANT PURPOSE COMPENSATION PAID LIBRARIANS REASON PROVISIONS OBTAINING |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))
Plaintiff, ))
v. ) Civil Action No.
)
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, ) Filed:[6/27/95]
)
Defendant. ))
FINAL JUDGMENT
Plaintiff, United States of America, filed its Complaint on June 27,
1995. Plaintiff and defendant American Bar Association ("ABA"), by their
attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without trial or
adjudication of any issue of fact or law. This Final Judgment shall not be
evidence or admission by any party with respect to any issue of fact or law.
Therefore, before any testimony is taken, and without trial or adjudication of
any issue of fact or law, and upon consent of the parties, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
I.
JURISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of
the parties consenting to this Final Judgment. The Complaint states a claim
upon which relief may be granted against the ABA under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.
II.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
8
.
US RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 0N PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT JUDGEMENT LAW SCHOOLS UNITED STATES PROPOSED MODIFICATION ANTITRUST ACCREDITATION DOE DECREE HOUSE MSL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REVIEW SETTLEMENTS DELEGATES FACULTY COMPENSATION PROVISIONS REGULATIONS DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY COMPETITION TUNNEY ACT CONSENT DECREE HEA ACCREDITING INDEPENDENT REQUIREMENT JOHN MARSHALL EXPLANATION BAR ASSOCIATION TRADE ASSOCIATION |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))
Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 95-1211 (RCL)
)
v. ) Judge Royce C. Lamberth
)
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, ))
Defendant. )
)
UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
ABOUT PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT
The United States is filing this response to the public comments it has received about
proposed Modification Of Final Judgment, pursuant to the United States' Explanation Of
Procedures filed on April 3, 2000. The United States has carefully reviewed the public comments
and determined that entry of the proposed Modification Of Final Judgment is in the public
interest.
In 1995, after a substantial year-long investigation, the United States filed this Civil
Action, alleging that the ABA had violated the antitrust laws by fixing faculty compensation at
ABA-approved law schools and by limiting competition from non-ABA-approved schools
through particular boycott activities. The ABA and the United States agreed to a settlement, and
on June 25, 1996, the Court entered the Final Judgment, enjoining these activities. 934 F. Supp.
435 (D.D.C. 1996). The Judgment also contained several provisions designed to open up the
accreditation process to additional public review and restrict the influence of professional law
school personnel in that process. One of these provisions expanded the oversight role of the
ABA's House of Delegates to give it final decision-making authority on certain accreditation
matters. The Department of Education ("DOE") has determined that giving the House this
SNIPPETS:
|
|
9
.
STIPULATION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
STIPULATION COURT PARTIES CONSENT MOTION EXPLANATION ENTRY PARTY PLAINTIFF WITHDRAWN DEFENDANT UNDERSIGNED PARTIES ATTORNEYS JURISDICTION MATTER PARTIES HERETO JOINT MOTION AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SERVING NOTICE FILING PROVISIONS ENTERED PURSUANT EFFECT WHATSOEVER PREJUDICE BRUCE PEARSON SUITE WASHINGTON |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))
Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 95-1211
)
v. ))
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, ))
Defendant. )
)
STIPULATION
It is stipulated and agreed by and between the undersigned parties by their respective
attorneys, that:
1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over each of
parties hereto.
2. On June 25, 1996, this Court entered a Final Judgment in this action. Attached to
Stipulation are a proposed Modification Of Final Judgment, the Joint Motion Of The United
States And American Bar Association For Modification Of The Final Judgment, and the United
States' Explanation Of Procedures. The parties consent to the entry by the Court of the
Modification Of Final Judgment in the form attached, upon any party's motion, at any time after
the completion of the procedures specified in the United States' Explanation Of Procedures,
without further notice to any party or other proceedings, provided that plaintiff has not
withdrawn its consent, which it may do at any time before entry of the Modification Of Final
Judgment by serving notice on the defendant and by filing that notice with the Court.
3. Pending approval of the Modification Of Final Judgment by the Court, defendant
agrees to be bound by its provisions. If plaintiff withdraws its consent, or if the proposed
Modification Of Final Judgment is not entered pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, this
SNIPPETS:
|
|
10
.
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROPOSED MODIFIED FINAL JUDGMENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
JUDGEMENT PROPOSED MODIFICATION JOINT MOTION LAW RESPONSE ENTRY JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SCHOOL SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES COURT AMERICA EXPLANATION MEMORANDUM SUPPORT DEAN JOHN ELSON PALM GARY PALM CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL TOM LEAHY FORMER PRESIDENT ILLINOIS STATE BAR STATE BAR ASSOCIATION CAREFULLY REVIEWING REASONS SET MODIFY SUBMITTED LETTERS TREATING |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))
Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 95-1211 (RCL)
)
v. ) Judge Royce C. Lamberth
)
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, ))
Defendant. )
)
MOTION TO ENTER MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT
Pursuant to the Explanation Of Settlement Procedures filed by the United States on
April 3, 2000, the United States of America moves for entry of the proposed Modification Of
Final Judgment. The Modification may be entered at this time, without further hearing, if the
Court determines that entry is in the public interest.
1. On April 3, 2000, the parties jointly moved for modification of the Final Judgment
entered by this Court on June 25, 1996.
2. The United States has complied with the Procedures set out in the Explanation Of
Settlement Procedures:
a. The Justice Department published notice of the proposed Modification Of
Final Judgment, the Joint Motion, and the United States Memorandum In Support Of The
Joint Motion For Modification Of The Final Judgment in the Federal Register on April 25, 2000,
65 Fed. Reg. 24226, and in the Washington Post on April 19-25, 2000. The notice invited
members of the public to submit comments about the Modification Of Final Judgment to the
Department over a 60-day period.
b. The United States received comments within the 60-day period from Larry
SNIPPETS:
|
|
11
.
STIPULATION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
JUDGEMENT AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS STIPULATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT PARTIES CONSENT PARTY PLAINTIFF ASST COLUMBIA JURISDICTION HERETO MOTION ANTITRUST WITHDRAWN CHIEF COMPUTERS FINANCE ANTITRUST DIVISION JUSTICE DARRYL DEPRIEST GENERAL COUNSEL FAIRBANKS COURT CHICAGO ILLINOIS |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
______________________________)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Civil Action No.
)
Plaintiff, ) Filed: [6/27/95]
v. ))
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, ))
Defendant. )
______________________________)
STIPULATION
The undersigned parties, by their respective attorneys, stipulate that:
1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and
over each of the parties hereto, and venue of this action is proper in the
District of Columbia;
2. The parties consent that a Final Judgment in the form hereto attached
may be filed and entered by the Court, upon the motion of any party or upon the
Court's own motion, at any time after compliance with the requirements of the
Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (15 U.S.C. § 16), and without further
notice to any party or other proceedings, provided that plaintiff has not
withdrawn its consent, which it may do at any time before the entry of the
proposed Final Judgment by serving notice thereof on defendant and by filing
that notice with the Court; and
3. Pending approval of the Final Judgment by the Court, defendant agrees
to be bound by the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment and to be subject
SNIPPETS:
|
|
12
.
MODIFIED FINAL JUDGMENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
JUDGEMENT HOUSE STANDARDS REFERRING LAW INTERPRETATIONS PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES AMERICA CONSENT ENTRY VIII REVIEW DELEGATES VOTE REFER RECONSIDERATION GRANTING DENYING LAW SCHOOL WITHDRAWING SUSPENDING ADOPTION AMENDMENT STANDARDS REVIEW COMMITTEE NOTIFICATION ADOPT AMEND PERMIT APPEALS |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))
Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 95-1211
)
v. ))
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, ))
Defendant. )
)
MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT
Plaintiff, United States of America, filed its Complaint on June 27, 1995. This Court
agreed-upon Final Judgment on June 25, 1996. Plaintiff and defendant American Bar Association
("ABA"), by their attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Order modifying that Final Judgment
without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law. This Order shall not be evidence or
by any party with respect to any issue of fact or law. Entry of this Modification Of Final
the public interest. Therefore, upon consent of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED that Sections VI and VIII of the Final Judgment entered on June 25, 1996 are modified as
follows:
Section VI. (A) of the Final Judgment is VACATED and replaced with the following:
(A) require
(1) that the adoption or amendment of all Standards, Interpretations, and
Rules be subject to the same public comment process before the
Standards Review Committee and Council and the same review process,
including approval by the Council; and
(2) that following notification by the Council of the Council's action to adopt
or amend any Standard, Interpretation, or Rule, the House of Delegates
SNIPPETS:
|
|
13
.
JOINT MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COUNCIL JUDGEMENT EDUCATION UNITED STATES ACCREDITATION DELEGATES STANDARDS COURT ABA INTERPRETATIONS ACT PROVISIONS PARTIES LAW SCHOOL REVIEW REFERRING WITHDRAWING HIGHER EDUCATION LEGAL EDUCATION REMAND MOTION MODIFY ACCOMPLISHING CONSENT REGULATIONS GOVERNS DETERMINATION DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY VIII |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))
Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 95-1211 (CRR)
)
v. ))
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, ))
Defendant. )
____________________________________)
JOINT MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND AMERICAN
BAR ASSOCIATION FOR MODIFICATION OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT
The parties move this Court to modify the Final Judgment entered in this case.
1. On June 27, 1995, the United States filed its Complaint, accompanied by a proposed
Final Judgment, to which the parties had consented. On June 25, 1996, the Court entered the Final
Judgment. The parties now agree to modify that Final Judgment to reflect changes in the law school
accreditation process necessitated by regulations promulgated by the Department of Education
pursuant to the Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1099b (1998).
2. The Final Judgment entered by this Court included provisions that among other things
enhanced the involvement of the ABA's House of Delegates in certain aspects of the accreditation
process carried out by the Council that governs the ABA's Section of Legal Education and Admissions
to the Bar ("Section of Legal Education"). The Section of Legal Education has been administering
school accreditation since 1921.
3. After the decree was entered, the Department of Education determined that the House
of Delegates' role in the accreditation process did not conform to provisions of the Higher
Act, 20 U.S.C. 1099b (1998), and Department regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 602.3 (1999). The
Department of Education informed the ABA that the Higher Education Act required either that the
Council be the final decision-making authority or that the composition of the House of Delegates be
SNIPPETS:
|
|
14
.
FINAL JUDGMENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
LAW SCHOOL JUDGEMENT ABA STANDARDS UNITED STATES OFFICERS REVIEW MEMBERS COMPLIANCE ACCREDITATION FACULTY INTERPRETATIONS DEANS REPORT COMMITTEE COUNCIL ANTITRUST COMPLIANCE COURT ENTRY COMPENSATION EDUCATION LEGAL EDUCATION PROPOSALS COMPLAINT EMPLOYEES CONSULTANT PURPOSE COMPENSATION PAID LIBRARIANS |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))
Plaintiff, ))
v. ) Civil Action No. 95-1211 (CRR)
)
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, ) Filed:
)
Defendant. ))
FINAL JUDGMENT
Plaintiff, United States of America, filed its Complaint on
June 27, 1995. Plaintiff and defendant American Bar
Association ("ABA"), by their attorneys, have consented to the
entry of this Final Judgment without trial or adjudication of any
issue of fact or law. This Final Judgment shall not be evidence
or admission by any party with respect to any issue of fact or
law. Therefore, before any testimony is taken, and without trial
or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and upon consent of
the parties, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
I.
JURISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this
action and of the parties consenting to this Final Judgment. The
Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted against
the ABA under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.
II.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
15
.
MEMO FOR MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
HOUSE JUDGEMENT ABA STANDARDS DELEGATES REVIEW COUNCIL LAW SCHOOL DOE INTERPRETATIONS COURT APPROVE PROVISIONS PARTIES AGREED-UPON ACCREDITATION PROCESS UNITED STATES COMMITTEE MEMBERS MODIFY EDUCATION OVERSIGHT TRADE ASSOCIATION DETERMINATION SEPARATE CONFORM REGULATIONS ACCREDITING AGENCY REMAND |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))
Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 95-1211
)
v. )
)
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, ))
Defendant. )
)
UNITED STATES' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE
JOINT MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT
The United States files this Memorandum In Support Of The Joint Motion of the United
States and the American Bar Association ("ABA") For Modification Of The Final Judgment
entered in this case. The modifications are necessary to conform the Final Judgment with
requirements mandated by Department of Education ("DOE") rules promulgated under the
Higher Education Act ("HEA"), 20 U.S.C. §1099(b) (1998). The modifications are in the public
interest, and, therefore, the Court should enter the Order to which the parties have agreed.
In June 1995, the United States filed this Civil Action, alleging that the ABA had
Section 1 of the Sherman Act in its law school accreditation activities. The Complaint alleged
that the ABA had restrained competition among professional personnel at ABA-approved law
schools by fixing their salaries and other compensation levels and working conditions, and by
limiting competition from non-ABA-approved schools. The ABA and United States agreed to a
settlement, and on June 25, 1996, the Court entered the Final Judgment, enjoining the ABA from
fixing compensation and from enforcing a boycott of non-ABA-approved schools. Moreover,
because the Complaint alleged that the ABA had allowed the accreditation process to be misused
by law school personnel with a direct economic interest in its outcome, the Final Judgment
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
