‘CHAIRPERSON Rebecca White Bech Phoenix, AZ (CHAIRPERSON. ELECT (Gregory G: Map lng, MT VICE CHAIRPERSON Maureen O Rourke ‘Boston MA SECRETARY Eve N- Tucker Satimore, MD PAST CHAIRPERSON Hoan: Howland Minneaplis, MN SECTION DELEGATESTOTHE HOUSE OF DELEGATES Chisine M: Dahan Salt take Cy UT Solomon Olive levand, OF BOARD OF GOVERNORS UAISON €.Fagealé Pael ‘havlone, NC YOUNG LAWYERS DIVISION UAISON Daniel RTs Chicago It ‘COUNCIL MEMBERS Tune Aen Washington, DC Josephine Bahn NewYork NY Diane F Bosse Butte, NY Leo A. rons, 5 For Behoi, VA Michae! Davis Lawrence, KS Roger}. Demis Philadephia PA ‘Arona Garcia ail San aan, PR James. Hanks je Baltimore, MD James M Kein Charieston, SC aul G. Mahoney Chalo, VA Leo P Martinez San Francisco, CA Cynthia Nance Faye, AR equa H. Napa Norman, OK Charles Ray Nash Tuscaloosa, AL Raymond C. Perce Raleigh, NC Macy R Russ Jeferson Ciy, MO Defending Liberty Pursuing Justice : Section of Legal Education April 12, 2016 and Admissions to the Bar Office of the Managing Director Mr. Jeffrey Malkan 321 N. Clark Street 12 Valleywood Ct. W Chicago, IL 60654-7598 Saint James, NY 11780 G12) 988-6738 legaled@americanbar.org Re: Complaint against University of Buffalo Law School wwwamericanbarorg/legaled Dear Mr. Malkan: We have received your complaint dated March 17, 2016, against the University of Buffalo Law School, Rules 42 t0 48 of the ABA Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools ‘govern the filing of complaints against law schools. The Rules of Procedure can be found on ‘our website: http:/www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_educatiowresources/standards.html. ‘The complaint process outlined in Rules 42 to 48 are designed to bring to the attention of the Couneil, the Accreditation Committee, and the Managing Director facts and allegations that ‘may indicate that an approved law school is operating its program of legal education out of compliance with the Standards. Rule 43(b\2) states that the complaint must provide the Standards and Interpretations alleged to have been violated and the time frame in which the lack of compliance is alleged to have occurred, ‘The Council ofthe Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar is not available to serve as a mediation or dispute-resolution process for persons with complaints about the policies or actions of an approved law school. The Council will not intervene with an approved law school on behalf of an individual with a complaint against or concer regarding action taken by a law school that adversely affects that individual. Thus, even ifa school violates a Standard, the end result might bea directive to the school to change its policies or procedures to come into compliance, but it would not be an order for relief in an individual case. Often, the best avenue for the complainant is to pursue the remedial procedures and appeals that are provided by the law school and university policies, or other mechanisms for individual relief. Rule 43(d) provides that ia law school that is the subject of a complaint is due to receive a regularly scheduled sabbatical site evaluation within a reasonable amount of time after the complaint is received, the complaint may be handled as part of the sabbatical site evaluation, Since the law school is due to receive a site evaluation within a few weeks, this matter will be referred to the site team and handled as part of the sabbatical site evaluation. Sincerely, ae Giggetts Assistant Consultant ce: Barry A. Currier, Managing Director ss10s1CHAIR Maureen A. O'Rourke Boston, MA CHAIR-ELECT Jeffrey Lewis St.Louis, MO VICE CHAIR Diane F Bosse Bulfalo, NY SECRETARY Antonio GarciaPadilla ‘San Juan, PR PAST CHAIR Gregory G. Murphy Billings, MT SECTION DELEGATES TO THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES Joan S. Howland Minneapolis, MN Solomon Oliver Je Cleveland, OH BOARD OF GOVERNORS LIAISON E. Fitzgerald Parnell Il Charlotte, NC YOUNG LAWYERS DIVISION LIAISON Mathew Kerbis ‘Skokie, IL ‘COUNCIL MEMBERS David Byers Phoenix, AZ Samuel M. Chang San Francisco, CA Roger Dennis Philadelphia, PA, Robert Glidden Rockbridge Baths, VA Donald Guter Houston, 1X James J. Hanks Jr. Baltimore, MD James M. Klein Charleston, SC Leo P. Martinez San Francisco, CA Mary Campbell McQueen Williamsburg, VA Cynthia Nance Fayetteville, AR Jequita H. Napoli Norman, OK Charles Ray Nash “Tuscaloosa, AL Raymond C. Pierce Durham, NC Mary R, Russell Jefferson Cty, MO Phyllis D. Thompson Washington, OC Joseph K. West Washington, DC Defending Liberty Pursuing Justice Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar Office ofthe Managing Director 321 N. Clak Street. Chicago,IL 60654-7599 (312) 988-6738 January 29, 2018 legaledt@amercanbarorg swowamericanbarorg/legaled Mr. Jeffrey Malkan 12 Valleywood Ct. W Saint James, NY 11780 Re: Complaint against University of Buffalo Law School Dear Mr. Malkan, ‘We have received your complaint dated January 17, 2017, against the university of Buffalo Law School. Rules 42 to 48 of the ABA Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools govern the filing of complaints against law schools. The Rules of Procedure can be found on our website: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/standards.h tml. The complaint process outlined in Rules 42 to 48 is designed to bring to the attention of the Council, the Accreditation Committee, and the Managing Director facts and allegations that may indicate that an approved law school is operating its program of legal education out of compliance with the Standards. Rule 43(b)(2) states that the complaint must provide the Standards and Interpretations alleged to have been violated and the time frame in which the lack of compliance is alleged to have occurred. ‘The Council of the Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar is not available to serve as a mediation or dispute-resolution process for persons with complaints about the policies or actions of an approved law school. The Council will not intervene with an approved law school on behalf of an individual with a complaint against or concern regarding action taken by a law school that adversely affects that individual. Thus, even if a school violates a Standard, the end result might be a tive to the school to change its policies or procedures to come into compliance, but it would not be an order for relief in an individual case.Often, the best avenue for the complainant is to pursue the remedial procedures and appeals that are provided by the law school and university policies, or other mechanisms for individual relief. ‘The Rule provides that the Managing Director shall make a determination within six weeks of receiving the complaint on January 29, 2018 as to whether the report alleges facts that raise issues relating to compliance with the Standards. You will hear back from our office upon final disposition of the complaint as provided in Rule 45. V Stephanie Giggetts Accreditation Counsel ce: Barry A. Currier, Managing Director