IN RE : RICHARD O . LEWIS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TO BE PUBLISHED
#uprr
urt of J
.Kenturkg
2002-SC-0236-OA
IN RE : RICHARD O. LEWIS
IFU H
D°
~O"~lrd-L~l ~.I I~J C,s~cw ;
ORIGINAL ACTION IN SUPREME COURT
OPINION AND ORDER
REVERSING AND REMANDING
Once again, we are called upon to interpret the meaning of SCR 2 .014(2)(a) and
its application to an applicant for admission to the Kentucky Bar Association who did
not graduate from a nationally accredited law school . The rule provides as follows :
(2) An attorney who received a legal education in the United States but
is not eligible for admission by virtue of not having attended a law school
approved by the American Bar Association or the Association of American
Law Schools may nevertheless be considered for admission by
examination provided the attorney satisfies the following requirements :
(a) The attorney holds a J .D. Degree, which is not based on study by
correspondence, from a law school accredited in the jurisdiction where it
exists and which requires the equivalent of a three-year course of study
that is the substantial equivalent of the legal education provided by
approved law schools located in Kentucky. The applicant shall bear the
cost of evaluation of his/her legal education, as determined by the Board,
and the application shall not be processed until the applicant's legal
education is approved by the Board of Bar Examiners . [Emphasis added .]
The applicant, Richard O . Lewis, is a 1987 graduate of Western State University
College of Law ("WSU") in Fullerton, Orange County, California . In 1987, WSU had law
school campuses in both Orange County and San Diego, but all of Lewis's education
l
l7.
G,
was obtained at the Orange County campus . Lewis subsequently was admitted to the
practice of law in California in 1993 and in Indiana in 2000 . He is presently employed
as a law clerk in the Jefferson Family Court and desires admission to the Kentucky Bar
Association . To that end, he has filed an application to sit for the Kentucky bar
examination . The Board of Bar Examiners ("Board") concluded that the legal education
Lewis obtained at WSU does not satisfy the requirements of SCR 2.014(2)(a) ; thus, the
Character and Fitness Committee recommends that his application be denied . Lewis
appeals from that denial . Because we disagree with the Board's conclusion, we reverse
and remand .
WSU was founded in 1966 and has long been accredited by the state of
California . However, as of 1987, it was accredited by neither the ABA nor the AALS. In
fact, WSU's application for accreditation was denied following a 1987 in-depth, on-site
inspection by an ABA accreditation team . Later, in 1998, the ABA granted WSU
provisional accreditation . The only issue before us is whether, in 1987, WSU required a
three-year course of study substantially equivalent to the legal education then being
provided by approved law schools in Kentucky . Though the rule is written in the
present tense, it logically requires an examination and comparison of the legal
educations being provided at the time the applicant obtained his education . It would be
of little value to examine the quality of education being provided by WSU now, fifteen
years after Lewis's graduation . For that reason, the Board did not attempt a present,
on-site inspection at WSU . Instead, it retained the services of W. Jack Grosse, former
Dean of the Salmon P. Chase School of Law at Northern Kentucky University, to review
the 1987 ABA report and render an opinion as to whether WSU was then providing the
quality of legal education required by SCR 2 .014(2)(a). We have previously recognized
Dean Grosse as "a nationally recognized expert in regard to law school accreditation ."
In re Brooks, Ky., 11 S.W.3d 25, 26 (2000) . After reviewing the ABA's 1987 report,
Dean Grosse concluded that WSU was then providing a three-year course of study that
was the substantial equivalent to the legal education then being provided by law
schools in Kentucky. After reviewing the same report, the Board concluded otherwise .
The differences of opinion between Dean Grosse and the Board reflects a
fundamental difference in emphasis . Dean Grosse emphasized the quality of WSU's
faculty and curriculum . The Board emphasized WSU's deficiencies in faculty-incentives
and library facilities .- To better explain these differences, it is necessary to review the
positive and negative aspects of the 1987 ABA report. We note at the outset that the
report and accreditation decision pertained not only to WSU's Orange County campus,
but also to its smaller San Diego campus, and that some of the cited deficiencies
existed only at San Diego.
On the positive side, the owners and operators of WSU were found to be highly
qualified . For example, the President, William B . Lawless, was the former Dean of the
Notre Dame Law School . The ABA also found that despite the for-profit corporate
structure of the school, it was "organized much as any free-standing law school ."
WSU's administration was handled with "great efficiency" and "state of the art
equipment ." Generally, the credentials of the faculty were impressive, with more than a
third coming from so-called top-rated law schools, including four each from Berkeley
and Harvard, and a "number who attended other law schools graduated with honors
and/or served on Law Review." While some of the senior faculty members lacked a
systematic record of legal scholarship, the newer members of the faculty in 1987 had
"already achieved a fine record of publications ." The ABA reported that "overall the
teaching was good and, indeed, some of the best classes were of a quality that each
member of the team would be more than happy to have in his/her own school ." The
teaching loads were typical of ABA-approved law schools.
WSU's Orange County campus had thirty-three full-time faculty members who
taught seventy percent of the courses and all of the first year courses . The
faculty/student ratio was 27 .6 to 1, which the ABA deemed adequate . Grades were
based on "typical law school examinations" and the grading was "consistent with normal
grading practices," with "extensive helpful comments" written on many of the students'
bluebooks . The three-year curriculum was typical of most law schools and included
thirty-six elective courses offered at the Orange County campus . The legal writing and
analysis program was developed by Professor William Statsky, whom the ABA noted
was "a prolific author in the legal analysis/legal writing fields ."
In 1987, WSU's Orange County campus offered a clinical program and a wide
variety of extracurricular activities . The top fifty students academically at the Orange
County campus were invited to participate in WSU's Law Review . Additionally, students
could choose to participate in the Moot Court Board, the student newspaper, the
student bar association, the Women's Law Association, the Black Law Students
Association, La Raza (providing support for Latino students), the Disabled Law
Students Association, the Democratic Law Students Association, the Republican Law
Students Association, the Christian Legal Society, the International Law Society,
Amnesty International, and Delta Theta Phi national legal fraternity.
Despite these positive features, the ABA did not approve WSU's 1987
accreditation application . Two negatives figured most prominently in the denial . First,
the compensation and benefits received by the faculty were below the ABA's then
standards. In particular, faculty salaries were "substantially below" the mean of ABAapproved law schools in California, there was no sabbatical or summer stipend
program, and no members of the faculty had tenure .' WSU also had no plan for faculty
governance .
Second, the physical facilities at WSU were found lacking . The library at the
Orange County campus had only 89,901 volumes and the San Diego campus only
50,304 volumes, either of which would have ranked last in total holdings among
libraries at ABA approved schools. The ABA declined to combine the holdings of the
libraries because they were located ninety miles apart. There was also insufficient
classroom space at the Orange County campus during peak teaching hours so that
some classes had to be held at a nearby high school. The report also criticized the fact
that the San Diego campus was located in leased space . However, the Orange County
campus was housed in a building owned by WSU that was then under expansion .
For students, the library's low actual volume count was somewhat offset by an
equal number of microform volumes and the availability of both LEXIS and WESTLAW,
as well as access to neighboring libraries . In particular, WSU faculty and students had
access to the California State University at Fullerton library located across the street
from WSU, which the ABA described as having a "large collection of . . . government
documents" and as having "strong holdings of interdisciplinary treatises ." Students also
had access to the Orange County Law Library in Anaheim (twelve miles away) with
250,000 volumes, and the Los Angeles County Law Library (thirty-five miles away) with
'WSU had recently instituted a new tenure system, but only one member of the
faculty had applied for tenure as of the 1987 ABA inspection .
over 650,000 volumes . Nevertheless, WSU's own library was indisputably weak and
that was a substantial factor in the ABA's denial of accreditation .
The ABA had other reservations that played a role in its 1987 decision to
withhold accreditation. As a for-profit enterprise, WSU had no endowment and was
dependent upon tuition for its operating expenses. The ABA predicted that its
continued vitality could be in jeopardy because of a declining applicant pool. As we
now know, the predicted demise did not occur . In addition, WSU had a practice of
admitting marginally qualified students with low grades and/or LSAT scores, and
consequently suffered from a high attrition/dismissal rate . The California bar
examination passage rate for WSU graduates was also well below the average rate for
ABA-approved California schools.
Dean Grosse concluded that the negatives mentioned in the ABA report only
minimally impacted the quality of legal education being provided . In his opinion, the
salaries, benefits, and governance issues for the faculty "really do not have any bearing
on the education received by the students ." He also opined that the small library was
not "of any significance" given the close proximity of the Orange County Law Library .
While he agreed that the admission of marginally qualified students and the low bar
passage rate were areas of concern, he added that both were at least "within the
ballpark" of similarly situated schools . In conclusion, Dean Grosse emphasized the
positives in the 1987 report.
The Administration of the school was praised, the teaching of the full-time
faculty was labeled "good," the course of study (the educational program
at the law school) in a lengthy treatment was found to be adequate with
no articulated deficiencies, and there was a recognition that there was
adequate full-time teachers for the academic program .
My conclusion is that Western School of Law was substantially equivalent
to Kentucky law schools in 1987 . I base this conclusion on what I
consider to be very important considerations, education program,
teaching, library availability, and school administration.
In reaching the opposite conclusion, the Board emphasized the same
deficiencies noted by the ABA in denying accreditation .
Unfortunately, it is clear under our past rules and practice that many of the
items mentioned by Mr. Grosse are, his view notwithstanding, quite
"substantial ." The most striking example[s] . . . are the several matters
related to the teaching faculty. While such matters as whether the
property is leased or owned might be of small significance, the quality and
incentives and treatment of the faculty is perhaps the most critical factor,
and there was no way we could find a "substantial equivalency" as of
1987 on the basis of the facts available to us .
The Board emphasized both the deficient "quality and incentives and treatment of the
faculty," and the inadequacy of the Orange County campus library .
Under SCR 2 .014(2)(a), an applicant is not required to prove that the law school
from which he/she graduated is the "substantial equivalent" of an accredited law school,
but only that it provided "a three-year course of study that is the substantial equivalent
of the legal education provided by" an accredited law school. The burden of
establishing that fact rests upon the applicant . In re Brooks, Ky., 11 S .W .3d 25, 27
(2001). Here, Lewis made a prima facie showing that the course of study provided by
WSU in 1987 was "substantially equivalent" to that provided by law schools in
Kentucky . We agree with the Board's expert, Dean Grosse, that the deficiencies relied
upon in 1987 by the ABA accreditation team and now by the Board are insufficient to
rebut this prima facie case . Cf. Hubbard v. Kentucky Bar Association , Ky ., 66 S .W.3d
684, 696 (2001) . As noted, WSU had a large full-time faculty with excellent credentials
1987 .
2 All three law schools in Kentucky are accredited and all were accredited in
who were judged by the ABA to be good teachers . WSU students could participate in
Law Review and the Moot Court Board as well as numerous other organizations . Its
administration was of high quality and was headed by the former Dean of the Notre
Dame Law School . And, although the on-campus library was admittedly deficient, WSU
students and faculty had ready access to collections of 250,000 and 650,000 volumes
within reasonable distances, as well as access to a substantial number of microform
volumes, LEXIS, and WESTLAW.
We agree with the Board's premise that deficiencies in "the quality and
incentives and treatment" of a law school faculty can impact the quality of legal
education being provided . However, the existence of an attractive compensation
package is at best indirect evidence of teacher quality, based on the premise that a law
school with an attractive compensation package is likely to lure good teachers with
good credentials . The faculty-incentive deficiencies found by the ABA in this case,
however, are substantially outweighed by its findings that (1) more than a third of the
faculty came from top-rated law schools and a number of others graduated with honors
and/or served on Law Review; (2) the newer members of the faculty had already
achieved "a fine record of publications ;" (3) the teaching was good ; (4) the teaching
loads were typical of ABA law schools ; (5) seventy percent of the classes were taught
by full-time faculty members ; (6) grading was "consistent with normal grading
practices ;" and (7) the legal writing and analysis program was developed by a wellknown and prolific author. In the face of this direct evidence that the WSU faculty
members were, in fact, highly credentialed and effective teachers, the quality of the
faculty-incentive package becomes largely irrelevant . Indeed, in 1995, the Department
of Justice brought an antitrust lawsuit against the ABA and obtained a consent decree
under which the ABA was enjoined from "using law school compensation data in
connection with the accreditation . . . of any law school ." United States v . American Bar
Association , 934 F. Supp . 435, 436 (D .D .C . 1996) .
Accordingly, we conclude that the applicant, Richard O . Lewis, graduated from "a
law school accredited in the jurisdiction where it exists and which require[d] the
equivalent of a three-year course of study that [was] the substantial equivalent of the
legal education provided by approved law schools in Kentucky ." SCR 2 .014(2)(a) . We
remand this case to the Character and Fitness Committee for further proceedings
pursuant to SCR 2 .040 .
All concur .
ENTERED : October 17, 2002 .
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.