The ABA Finds Thomas Cooley In Compliance. But Why?

The ABA Finds Thomas Cooley In Compliance. But Why?

So how does the ABA explain its about- face on Cooley?  The Council doesn’t provide much of an explanation. Here is what the ABA’s letter announcing the decision says:

Following consideration of the record in the matter, the Committee concluded that the further report and concrete steps taken by the Law School with respect to its admissions policy and practices demonstrated the Law School’s compliance with Standard 501(b) and Interpretation 501-1.

The “further report” refers to the February 1, 2018 submission to the Council.  But it is hard to believe that report could have caused the Council to change its mind, given that Cooley provided very extensive data to the Council just a few months ago, which the Council found singularly unpersuasive. 

So here is my theory of what is really going on:  the Council’s decision must be part of a settlement between the ABA and Cooley to resolve the lawsuit that Cooley has filed against the ABA.  Cooley must have agreed to make significant changes to their admission practices (the key words in the ABA Letter are “concrete steps taken by the Law School with respect to its admissions policy and practices”) and drop their lawsuit in exchange for the ABA finding that the school is now in compliance.   Maybe Cooley agreed to pay for the ABA’s legal fees as well. I expect to see an announcement in the near future that the suit has been voluntarily dismissed.    Anything else just doesn’t make sense.   Presumably, the terms of the settlement are confidential so we may not get independent confirmation of this from either party, nor are we likely to find out the details of the promises Cooley made to the ABA.  Our first indications of how much the ABA forced Cooley to raise its standards may not be until the next 509 reports come out in December 2018.   But if the ABA gave Cooley a couple of admissions cycles to meet certain admissions targets we may not know until December 2019 or later exactly what was required of Cooley.  Meanwhile, Cooley gets to claim that they are in full compliance with ABA Standards right now, which is a complete joke.

While settling the lawsuit with Cooley may have made sense for the ABA (if that is indeed what happened), such a decision may have unintended consequences.  By finding Cooley to be in compliance with 501(b), when several other schools with less egregious admission practices have recently been found out of compliance, the ABA has opened itself up to more accusations of arbitrary and capricious decision-making (exactly the accusations that Cooley has made) and potentially additional litigation.  After all, if the least selective law school in the country is in compliance with Standard 501(b), then how can any other law school be found out of compliance?