September

10, 2013 Renea Eshleman Acting Director Academic Affairs and Licensing Division SC Commission on Higher Education 1122 Lady Street, Ste. 300 Columbia, SC 29201 via email Dear Ms. Eshleman: As student leaders of the Charleston School of Laws primary scholastic and oral advocacy organizations, we write to formally express our opposition to Infilaw Corporations impending application for licensure to assume ownership and operation of the Charleston School of Law. We share the concerns and sentiments expressed by the Alumni Association Board of Directors in their recent letter, and we are likewise strongly opposed to the grant of any such license. Our organizations have already felt the effects of the proposed sale to Infilaw, an out-of- state corporation largely owned by a private hedge fund with no discernable connection to South Carolina. The Law Reviews feel these effects as we struggle to recruit academic authors for our journals, perhaps because of these prospective authors legitimate concerns regarding the overall reputation of Infilaw schools, especially with regards to faculty independence and scholarship at these schools generally. We are having to make do with drastically lower membership numbers because of the high number of top-flight students who transferred upon hearing the news of a partnership with Infilaw.1 And we work daily to assure our current members that their work has value, even in the face of such uncertainty regarding the future of our school. As an agency charged with consumer protection in higher education, we urge you to seriously consider the track record of the existing schools in the Infilaw network. The entering class sizes and high levels of academic attrition at these schools2 evince a model that is based not on selectivity in admissions and commitment to educational excellence, but on profit. By that same turn, Infilaws marketing tactics, such as the direct offer of scholarship monies to those who have merely registered for the LSAT, are akin to credit card solicitations and other types of junk mail. Serious academic institutions do not recruit prospective students in such a manner. For these reasons and many others, the Infilaw model is inconsistent with the mission of the SCCHE, which is charged, under Title 59 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, with promoting "high academic quality" and "instructional excellence. Such a model is also not consistent with the original purpose of the Charleston

1 Many of these students, incidentally, departed for out-of-state law schools, a regrettable fact considering that the vast majority of students who graduate from the Charleston School of Law stay in this state to practice. 2 When questioned about these statistics by one author of this letter, Infilaw representative Peter Goplerud claimed that such numbers were inaccurate, despite the fact that these were the very numbers provided to the American Bar Association by the schools themselves. To date, he has not followed up to provide more accurate data.

School of Law, a school purportedly founded on public service ideals by leading local practitioners and jurists who saw the states need for a different type of legal education. We firmly believe that the Infilaw model, if it is allowed to take root in this state, will impoverish the quality of legal education and therefore the quality of legal services available to the citizens of South Carolina. SCCHE concerns about the ultimate fate of the Charleston School of Law are nothing new. In fact, at least one member of the Commission, during the period of initial licensure, expressed his hope that the Charleston School of Law would remain true to the auspices under which it was being considered for licensure.3 According to the minutes of a 2003 Commission meeting, that member indicated that he had heard of a similar situation in Florida recently with a school sold to another entity. He expressed hope that this school [the Charleston School of Law] was not being organized to sell at a later date. That school was Florida Coastal, and that entity was Infilaw. Judges Carr and Kosko, now a two-person majority on the schools Board of Directors, have indicated in their conversations with students and alumni that there has been a long-standing relationship with Infilaw and the Infilaw schools since the founding of the Charleston School of Law. If true, such a fact calls into serious question the representations made by some founders in their original application for licensure. The members of the SCCHE were properly concerned with the possible motive to later sell the Charleston School of Law to an entity such as Infilaw then, and should be similarly wary of the proposal under consideration now. But motives are of course only one indicia of the suitability of the proposed Infilaw licensure. Also pertinent are the concrete actions, or inactions, of certain Directors in failing to properly and timely inform the SCCHE of their agreements with Infilaw. We now know, thanks to the release of documents by your agency last Thursday, that the SCCHE was not made aware of the existence of a contingent asset purchase agreement until over a month after it was executed. This delay came about despite the fact that during this same time period the SCCHE staff was in regular communication with those Directors regarding the Management Services Agreement (MSA). Representatives from Infilaw have repeatedly stated that the city of Charleston, and the state of South Carolina as a whole, are different markets than those in which their other schools operate, and that they will be sensitive to that fact in setting class sizes. However, if Infilaw is granted licensure, what will happen when, not if, the state bar, in order to avoid a flooding of the market, pushes back on the number of bar applicants they will allow in a given year? Will Infilaw reduce class sizes accordingly? If not, who will hold them accountable? If they do reduce class sizes commensurate with this market restriction, will Infilaw be able to make the profit to which they are accustomed? And if not, what is to stop them from auctioning off this underperforming asset to the highest bidder? Given these legitimate questions, we were gratified to see Chairman Finans recent comments indicating that the Commission will take a serious look at its role not only in for-profit licensure, but also in post-licensure performance. This inquiry is essential, not only for the protection of current and prospective students, but for those graduates whose degrees represent their educational investment. We would like to thank you for the work that your agency has already undertaken, and especially appreciate the additional information you made available on your website last

3 http://www.che.sc.gov/AcademicAffairs/License/CSOL/3-2003-09-04_CHE-Minutes.pdf. 2

Thursday. However, many questions still remain. We urge you to continue to press for, and to make available, the redacted information from both the MSA and the redemption of membership interest documents, as well as for the release of the full contingent asset purchase agreement. Without this information, your agency cannot understand the true outlines of the proposed deal, and cannot fully execute its duties under law. By that same token, we appreciate your recent statements indicating that an extended timeline for licensure consideration, as opposed to Infilaw and a majority of the Directors preferred timeline, may be warranted in the interests of a comprehensive review and in light of the need for additional disclosures. Charleston School of Law students are a proud group: proud of our faculty who give selflessly to ensure our success, proud of what we have seen our alumni accomplish, and proud of our fellow students when they achieve. We know we are a young institution, and that there is much work yet to be done. But many of us chose the Charleston School of Law because of, not in spite of, this fact. That is precisely why the actions taken by certain Directors have seriously wounded the spirit of our community. A sense of betrayal, mistrust, and disappointment now permeates our campus. In writing to you, we hope to inspire students to recognize that such feelings, while understandable, are not productive. While discussions regarding alternative pathways for the schools future are appropriately being led by those with the resources and connections to seriously pursue such possibilities, we firmly believe that students have an essential role to play, and voices that should be heard, in decisions regarding our schools future. While we are not shareholders, we are important stakeholders, and the path forward demands accountability, honesty, and sincerity from all involved. It is with these positive goals in mind that we urge students to stand up for what they believe and make their opinions known to representatives in the General Assembly and to the Commission. Likewise, as student leaders dedicated to repairing the community that we love so dearly, we offer ourselves to the Commission as partners committed to the best interests of the Charleston School of Law. We would welcome the opportunity to provide you with further information or to appear before the Commission or the licensing committee at future meetings. We will be closely monitoring the work of all governmental entities with an interest in these proceedings, including the Office of the Attorney General, the General Assembly, and of course, this body. Thank you again for your careful attention to this matter. Sincerely, Derek M. Bush President, Trial Advocacy Board Leigh Ellen Gray Editor in Chief, Charleston Law Review Corey B. Shipley Editor in Chief, Maritime Law Bulletin (MALABU) Jescelyn S. Tillman Editor in Chief, Federal Courts Law Review

cc:

Dr. Richard C. Sutton, Executive Director SC CHE CHE Committee on Academic Affairs and Licensing Charleston County Legislative Delegation