COMMITTEE OF BAR EXAMINERS OPEN SESSION AGENDA ITEM AGENDA ITEM:
December 2017 – O- 400
DATE:
November 22, 2017
TO:
Subcommittee on Educational Standards
FROM:
George Leal, Program Manager, Educational Standards
SUBJECT:
McMillan Academy of Law - Periodic Inspection Report
BACKGROUND A periodic inspection of the McMillan Academy of Law (MAOL) was conducted on May 9th 2017 by Sally Perring, an educational standards consultant (Consultant) to the Committee of Bar Examiners (Committee). MAOL is a registered, unaccredited fixedfacility law school, which was last visited in September of 2013 for an interim inspection to confirm if it had corrected various issues of noncompliance found during its initial periodic inspection conducted on behalf of the Committee in May of 2012. MAOL is owned by Scott McMillian, a licensed California attorney, who operates the law school from his law offices in La Mesa, a suburb of San Diego. Initially registered in 2007, the law school’s first students were enrolled in 2009 but, since then, its enrollment has been miniscule and its last student attended classes in early 2013. Since opening, only three students have ever completed MAOL’s first-year curriculum and were able to take the First Year Law Students’ Examination; two of the students eventually passed the examination but each then left MAOL and transferred to other law schools. Since MAOL has had no students nor has held any classes in almost five years, its program of legal education has now been dormant for more than four years. As a result, and as confirmed by the inspection, MAOL is noncompliant as to three material requirements: Its law library is noncompliant since its hardcopy legal authorities have not been updated since 2013; without any tuition income, the law school’s current and future financial viability appears questionable; and its website and written materials offer outdated and misleading information to both the general public and potential applicants. DISCUSSION Attachment A is the Periodic Inspection Report prepared by the Consultant documenting her findings and conclusions. Based upon several deficiencies noted in the Inspection Report, it appears that MAOL is noncompliant as to a number of critical operational requirements. As a result, Attachment B is a Notice of Noncompliance that
Page |1
staff recommends be issued to MAOL pursuant to Rule 4.260 of the Unaccredited Law School Rules (Rules). Given the long-term absence of admitting and enrolling students, and without a current curriculum of classes being taught, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to judge whether MAOL is now, or may ever again, be found to be operating compliantly. Without any recently admitted students, no classes or final examinations being given and its longterm lack of success in recruiting, enrolling and maintaining students, an accurate and objective assessment of whether MAOL is now or will ever be able to offer “a qualitatively and quantitatively sound program of legal education” as mandated by Guideline 5.1, would be pure conjecture. Moreover, in attempting to remain a registered and technically operational law school, if in name alone, MAOL’s viability and its ability to recruit sufficient new students so that it can remain open long-enough to teach a compliant, four-year program of legal education is also questionable at best. Given the dormant, if not moribund condition of MAOL at the time of the inspection, the issuance of a Notice of Noncompliance will offer Mr. McMillan a full opportunity, as required by Rule 4.261, to respond by providing the Committee with clear evidence that demonstrates that MAOL “is in compliance or is taking steps to achieve compliance.” Depending on the nature and content of MAOL’s response, the Committee may then require that another inspection take place to confirm its compliance or, based upon any such inspection, it concludes that the law school “is not or is not likely to be in compliance with these rules, the Committee will notify the law school that it recommends probation or the withdrawal of registration.” Rule 4.263. RECOMMENDATION As provided by Rule 4.260: “If the Committee believes that a registered law school is not in full compliance with these rules, the Committee will provide the law school with a written Notice of Noncompliance that states the reasons for its belief.” It is recommended that the Committee issue the law school a Notice of Noncompliance in the form and content as set forth in Attachment B. PROPOSED MOTION Should the Subcommittee agree with this recommendation, the following motion is suggested: Move that the Periodic Inspection Report of the inspection of the McMillian Academy of Law (MAOL), conducted on May 9, 2017, be received and filed; that a Notice of Noncompliance in the form attached hereto be issued to the law school pursuant to Rule 4.260 of the Unaccredited Law School Rules; and that MAOL be directed to submit an appropriate response and associated fee within fifteen (15) days after its receipt of the Notice.
Page |2
