Complaint 2 Amended

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ORLANDO DIVISION
ANITA L. STAVER, SCOTT BLAUE, )

CESERY L. BULLARD, TERRY )
COVERT, DARYLAINE HERNANDEZ, )
TIMMY MCCLAIN, STEPHANIE )
PAPOULIS, SHANNON KEITH )
TURNER, individually, and on behalf of )
all others similarly situated; )
MICHAEL M. O’BRIEN, and )
ARMANDO R. PAYAS, individually and )
on behalf of all others similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. ) Case No.: 6:01-CV-873-0RL-31-KRS
) Judge Gregory A. Presnell
) Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding
)
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Defendant. )
____________________________________)
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
COME NOW, the individual and representative plaintiffs, ANITA L. STAVER, SCOTT
BLAUE, CESERY L. BULLARD, TERRY COVERT, DARYLAINE HERNANDEZ, TIMMY
MCCLAIN, STEPHANIE PAPOULIS and SHANNON KEITH TURNER, (hereinafter
“Representative Plaintiffs”), MICHAEL M. O’BRIEN and ARMANDO R. PAYAS (hereinafter
“Representative Plaintiffs O’Brien and Payas”) (collectively referred to hereinafter as “Plaintiffs”),
by and through their undersigned counsel, and respectfully request this Court to issue Declaratory
Judgment, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief and Damages. In support thereof, Plaintiffs
show unto the Court as follows:
This is a civil action whereby Plaintiffs seek Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief
Second Amended Complaint - Page 1

enjoining Defendant, the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, (hereafter “ABA”), and other
conspirators, agents, servants and employees and those acting in active concert and with actual notice
thereof, from engaging in further violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1
et. seq.), the Florida Antitrust Act of 1980, and Section 108.40 of the General Not for Profit
Corporation Act of 1986 (805 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 105/101.01 et seq. (West 2001)) (hereafter
“Illinois Not for Profit Act”). An actual controversy exists between the parties, in that the challenged
actions of the ABA have caused and will continue to cause Plaintiffs substantial harm unless the
requested relief is granted. Plaintiffs further pray for treble damages under 15 U.S.C. § 15.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. The Plaintiffs bring this class action against the ABA pursuant to15 U.S.C. §§ 15, 26,
and Section 542.22 of the Florida Statutes, for treble damages and injunctive relief as a result of
violations by the ABA of the Sherman Act and the Florida Antitrust Act, and pursuant to 805 Ill.
Comp. Stat. 105/101.01 et seq.
2. Exclusive jurisdiction exists in this Court over the federal claims herein pursuant to
the 15 U.S.C. § 4 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
3. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 22, and 28 U.S.C. § 1391, in
that the ABA transacts business and is found in Orlando, Florida through its accrediting and other
business activities.
4. This Court is authorized to issue the Injunctive Relief requested by Plaintiff under
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Procedure and pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 26 and Section 542.23 of the
Florida Statutes.
5. This Court is authorized to award damages, including a reasonable attorney’s fee
under 15 U.S.C. § 15 and Fla. Stat. Ann. § 542.22.
6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 4 to prevent and restrain

violations by the ABA of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
7. This Court has jurisdiction of any and all state law claims by virtue of 28 U.S.C.
§1367.
8. This Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The amount in
controversy in this action exceeds $75,000.00.
9. The ABA is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, and transacts business and is found
within the State of Florida. Representative Plaintiffs are students or graduates of Barry University
School of Law (hereafter “Barry”) located in Orlando, Florida, or were former students of Barry that
have withdrawn until Barry receives accreditation.
10. Representative Plaintiff O’Brien is an ABA member and a resident of Orange County,
Florida.
PARTIES
11. Defendant, the ABA is a national association of lawyers. It is the world’s largest
professional trade association.
12. The ABA is organized as an Illinois not for profit corporation with its principal place
of business in Chicago, Illinois.
13. The ABA’s major functions are to “provide law school accreditation, continuing legal
education, information about the law, programs to assist lawyers and judges in their work, and
initiatives to improve the legal system for the public.” See http://www.abanet.org/about/home.html.
14. The ABA sends Site Teams to visit law schools throughout the United States and in
the state of Florida and performs other accrediting activities within all the states, including Florida.
15. Representative Plaintiffs reside in Florida, but some members of the Class reside
outside the State of Florida.
16. The ABA engaged in any act, deed, or transaction through its officers, directors,

employees, agents, or other representatives while they were actively engaged in the management,
direction, control, or transaction of its business or affairs.
17. Various others, not named as defendants, have participated as conspirators with the
ABA in the violations alleged in this Complaint, and have performed acts and made statements to
further the agreement.
18. The ABA’s accrediting activities and operations have a substantial effect on, or
involve or affect the flow of, interstate commerce.
19. The ABA’s accrediting activities and operations have a substantial effect on, or
involve or affect the ability of, law schools seeking to provide legal education services and such
activities and operations affect the supply of attorneys in many states, including Florida.
20. Plaintiff Anita L. Staver, a resident of Seminole County, Florida, graduated summa
cum laude from Barry University School of Law in June 2000, and sat for the Florida Bar Exam in
July, 2000. While in law school, she was on the law review Editorial Board and served as Note and
Comment Editor. She is employed as a law clerk for Liberty Counsel, a not-for-profit civil liberties
organization.
21. Plaintiff Scott Blaue, a resident of Brevard County, Florida, graduated cum laude
from Barry in June 2000, and sat for the Florida Bar Exam in July, 2000. While in law school, Mr.
Blaue was Editor of the Barry Law Review. Mr. Blaue is employed as a law clerk for the law firm
of Markey & Fowler, P.A.
22. Plaintiff Cesery Bullard, a resident of Orange County, Florida, graduated magna cum
laude from Barry in June 2000, and sat for the Florida Bar Exam in July 2000. Ms. Bullard is
employed as a law clerk with the law firm of Fishback, Dominick, Bennett, Stepter, Ardaman,
Ahlers, Sikes & Bonus.
23. Plaintiff Terry Covert, a resident of Orange County, Florida, is a student at Barry,
with an anticipated graduation date of December 2001. Mr. Covert is employed as the Vice
President of Compliance for a broker/dealer and a proprietary mutual fund.
24. Plaintiff Darylaine Hernandez, a resident of Orange County, Florida, is a June 2000
graduate of Barry, and sat for the Florida Bar Exam in February 2001. Ms. Hernandez is employed
as a legal assistant for the law firm of Billings, Cunningham, Morgan and Boatwright.
25. Plaintiff Timothy McClain, a resident of Orange County, Florida, is a law student at
Barry, with an anticipated graduation date of December 2001. Mr. McClain is employed as a law
clerk by Dennis Savagio, P.A.
26. Plaintiff Stephanie Papoulis, a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida, graduated
second in her class from Barry in January 2000, and sat for the Florida Bar Exam in July, 2000. Ms.
Papoulis is employed as a law clerk for the General Counsel of U.S. Industries.
27. Plaintiff Shannon Keith Turner, a resident of Orange County, Florida, is a law student
at Barry, with an anticipated graduation date of December 2001. Mr. Turner is a case manager at
the law firm of Best & Anderson, P.A.
28. Plaintiff Michael M. O’Brien, a resident of Orange County, Florida, has been an
attorney for approximately 20 years. Mr. O’Brien is a member of the ABA. Mr. O’Brien employs
graduates of Barry.
29. Plaintiff Armando R. Payas, a resident of Seminole County, Florida, has been an
attorney for approximately 18 years. Mr. Payas is a member of the ABA. Mr. Payas employs
students and graduates of Barry.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
30. Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, as members of a proposed plaintiff class pursuant to Rule 23(a), 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2) and/or
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The first proposed plaintiff class (“Class I”) is
composed of and is defined as all persons who have graduated from Barry, or who are currently
enrolled as students at Barry. The second proposed plaintiff class (“Class II”) is composed of and
is defined as all attorneys who have employed graduates of Barry. The second proposed plaintiff
class (“Class II”) is also composed of and is defined as all attorneys who are members of the
American Bar Association who employ or wish to employ graduates of Barry.
31. This class action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action
satisfying the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, superiority, and impairment
requirements because:
(a) There are over 400 members of Class I residing in various parts of the United
States and they are so numerous that their individual joinder would be
impractical. There are numerous members of Class II residing in various
parts of the United States and they are so numerous that their individual
joinder would be impractical.
(b) Common questions of law and fact that exist as to all members of Class I and
Class II predominate over any questions that only affect individual Class
members. These questions of law and fact include without limitation:
(1) whether Rule 6(b)(4) of the ABA’s Rules of Procedure for the
Approval of Law Schools, and Article I, section 2(b), Article IV,
section (b) and Article X of the Section Bylaws, which give the
Council of the Section of Legal Education and Bar Admission (which
was created by the ABA as an advisory body) final authority over
accreditation decisions, violates the Illinois Not for Profit Act and
Article 6.1 of the ABA Constitution;
(2) whether the ABA violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and
the Florida Antitrust Act of 1980, by denying accreditation to Barry
University School of Law because of the ABA’s intent to prevent
competition to state-sponsored law schools, at least one of which is
to be located in Orlando;
(3) whether the ABA violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and
the Florida Antitrust Act of 1980, by denying accreditation to Barry
because of the ABA’s intent to prevent Barry from competing with
non-religious schools such as the Appalachian School of Law, the
William S. Boyd School of Law of the University of Nevada-Las
Vegas (hereafter “UNLV”), and others, notwithstanding the favorable
recommendation regarding Barry from the ABA’s Accreditation
Committee of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the
Bar (hereafter “Accreditation Committee”), and the fact that Barry

substantially complied with or exceeded the ABA’s provisional
accreditation Standards;
(4) whether the ABA should be enjoined from enforcing Rule 6(b)(4) of
the ABA’s Rules of Procedure for the Approval of Law Schools,
Article IV;
(5) whether the ABA should be required to grant provisional

accreditation to Barry because the ABA applied accreditation
Standards in a discriminatory manner to protect other law schools
from competition and for other anti-competitive purposes; and thus
effectively engaged in an illegal boycott of Barry;
(6) whether the ABA violated Rule 5 by reviewing de novo the favorable
recommendation by the Accreditation Committee to approve Barry;
and
(7) whether members of Class I and Class II have sustained damages as

a consequence of the ABA’s actions.
(c) The Representative Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the proposed
Class, since each of the Representative Plaintiffs is, or during the relevant
time frame has been, a student or graduate of Barry. All of the
Representative Plaintiffs, like all members of Class I, have sustained
monetary damages arising out of the ABA’s actions in violation of Sections
1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the Florida Antitrust Act of 1980, and the Illinois
Not for Profit Act.
(d) Representative Plaintiffs O’Brien’s and Payas’ claims are typical of those of
the proposed Class II, since they have employed graduates of Barry.
Representative Plaintiffs O’Brien and Payas, like all members of Class II,
have sustained monetary damages arising out of the ABA’s actions in
violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the Florida Antitrust Act
of 1980, and the Illinois Not for Profit Act.
(e) Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of Class I and Class II because they
share the same interests with all Class members and because their claims and
losses are typical of those of the other Class members. Plaintiffs have
retained competent counsel who are experienced in civil litigation and
specifically in antitrust litigation, and they will fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the Class.
(f) The ABA has acted on grounds generally applicable to the members of both
Classes, thereby making appropriate preliminary and permanent injunctive

relief as to Class I and Class II as a whole.
(g) A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this matter, since individual joinder of all affected individuals
is impracticable. It would be virtually impossible for individual Class
members effectively to redress their wrongs on an individual basis.
Individualized litigation would present the potential for inconsistent and
contradictory judgments, and would magnify the potential for delay and
expense for all parties and to the judicial system. The class action proposed
prevents far fewer management difficulties and is the most appropriate forum
for litigating the claims made herein and provides the benefits of unitary
adjudication and comprehensive adjudication of a single court.
FACTS
32. Barry University School of Law (hereafter “Barry”) is a law school located in
Orlando, Florida, that does not have ABA accreditation.
33. Barry is associated with the largest Dominican institution of higher learning in the
world, and is the only law school in the history of the United States to be affiliated with a university
founded by and continually administered by women.
34. Barry’s mission in part is to benefit the community, which includes the education of
minorities. Thirty-seven percent of Barry students are minorities.
35. Barry has applied for and received regional accreditation from the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools.
36. Barry filed an application with the ABA for provisional accreditation.
37. The ABA sent an ABA Site Team (hereafter “Site Team”) to Barry’s campus and the
Site Team prepared an exhaustive report which was submitted to the ABA Accreditation Committee.
Upon consideration of the report, the Accreditation Committee recommended that Barry receive
provisional accreditation.
38. According to Rule 5 of the Rules for Approval of Law Schools by the American Bar
Association (hereafter “Rule” or “Rules”), the Council of the Section of Legal Education and

Admissions to the Bar (hereafter “Council”), is required to give deference to a favorable
recommendation from the Accreditation Committee and may only undertake a de novo review if the
Accreditation Committee recommends against provisional accreditation.
39. Violating its own Rule, the Council undertook a de novo review, reversed the
recommendation, and denied Barry accreditation.
40. The Council, in denying Barry accreditation, impermissibly took into consideration
anti-competitive concerns with regards to other competing law schools.
41. Approval of the ABA is a critical factor to the continued operation of any law school.
The ABA is the only accrediting agency for law schools that is recognized by the United States
Department of Education (hereafter “DOE”).
42. Graduation from an ABA approved school is a requirement for admission to the bar
in Florida.
43. Obtaining a Juris Doctorate degree from an ABA approved school is a prerequisite
to enrolling at most law schools to pursue a speciality degree in law, such as an L.L.M. degree. Law
schools offering an L.L.M. degree require not only the J.D. degree, but most further require that the
degree be conferred by an ABA accredited school. A law license is not required to pursue an L.L.M.
degree.
44. Standard 401(a) requires that a law school “shall have a faculty that possess a high
degree of competence, as demonstrated by its education, . . .” To conform with this Standard, ABA
approved schools offer employment to teach only to those applicants who have graduated from an
ABA approved school. However, a law license is not required to be a legal educator in order to teach
at law schools.
45. Some of the Plaintiffs desire to teach law in a law school environment, to teach law
outside the law school environment, to pursue employment outside of the legal profession and some
have political aspirations (hereafter collectively “non-licensed job opportunities”). None of these
areas of pursuit require a law license. Yet, Plaintiffs’ ability to pursue non-licensed job opportunities
have been either precluded or severely restricted because the ABA wrongfully withheld
accreditation of Barry.
46. Some of the Plaintiffs desire to offer their legal representation and other legal services
pro bono or at below market prices.
47. A requirement of joining the Orange County Bar Association is the provision of pro
bono legal representation.
48. If Barry does not receive provisional accreditation from the ABA, graduates of Barry
may be precluded from being licensed to practice law in any state or territory. (See State-By-State
Educational Requirements, (Exhibit 1).
49. Since the ABA refused to accredit Barry within twelve months of the 2000 Site Team
visit, many of the graduates will be precluded from pursuing L.L.M. degrees at a school of their
choice and from pursuing non-licensed job opportunities. The ABA’s actions have created a stigma
separate and distinct from obtaining a law license which will hinder the current students from
pursuing L.L.M. degrees at a school of their choice and from pursuing non-licensed job
opportunities.
50. Under the ABA’s recently revised procedure, the Council, an advisory body of the
ABA, has been vested with final authority over accreditation decisions as the ABA’s House of
Delegates (hereafter “House”) no longer has the authority to overrule a Council decision.
51. The ABA’s action in vesting an advisory body with the power to bind the corporation
on a central concern of the ABA (namely accreditation), is an illegal, ultra vires act in violation of
the Illinois Not For Profit Act and violates Article 6.1 of the ABA Constitution.
The History and Structure of the ABA
52. The ABA was founded in 1878, and is the largest voluntary professional association
in the world. Established in 1936, the House meets twice per year, at the ABA annual and mid-year
meetings. This year the annual meeting is August 7-8, 2001. The control and administration of the
ABA is vested in the House, which consists of 532 members.
53. At the mid-year meeting, a nominating committee nominates officers and members
of the Board of Governors, and at the annual meeting, the full House votes on these nominees. The
Board of Governors consists of 37 members and has authority to act and speak for the ABA when
the House is not in session. The Board of Governors usually meets five times per year and oversees
the general operation of the ABA.
54. In 1973, the House adopted the Standards for Approval of Law Schools
(“Standards”), which set forth the requirements that law schools must meet in order to be approved.
The Standards and Interpretations of the Standards that are adopted relate to many aspects of the
operation of law schools, including admissions, educational requirements, faculty, placement
programs, funding and facilities.
55. Legal educators have historically dominated and have continued to dominate the law
school approval standard-setting and law school approval process.
56. Since 1921, the ABA has accredited law schools.
57. Law school accreditation is a central and integral part of the ABA’s operation.
58. The ABA’s Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar was created in
1893 as the ABA’s first section (hereafter “Section”).
59. The ABA has sections, divisions, and commissions, standing and special committees,
forums and task forces that are part of the ABA and are not separately incorporated.
60. Each section has Bylaws, but amendments to the Bylaws become effective only upon
approval of the Board of Governors or the House of Delegates.
61. The Council established the Accreditation Committee to recommend provisional or
full approval of new law schools and to oversee and reinspect currently approved law schools.
62. A Site Team, as fact-finder, is assigned by the Accreditation Committee to visit a law
school that has applied for accreditation.
63. The law school is charged for every Site Team that visits the school.
64. The Site Team prepares a detailed report for the Accreditation Committee, but makes
no conclusions or recommendations.
65. After reviewing the Site Team’s report, the Accreditation Committee makes
conclusions based on the facts in the report and makes a recommendation to the Council for or
against approving the school’s application for accreditation.
66. If the Accreditation Committee recommends denial of accreditation, Rule 5(b)
requires the Council to review the school’s application de novo.
67. If the Accreditation Committee recommends approval of a school, there is no
provision for a de novo review of the school’s application.
68. The Council’s review of a favorable accreditation recommendation must give the
Accreditation Committee deference.
69. Rule 5(a), pertaining to Council consideration of a Committee Recommendation,
states as follows:
(a) Accreditation Committee Recommendation to Approve. In the event that

the Accreditation Committee shall determine to recommend to the Council that
provisional or full approval be granted, the Consultant shall place the Committee
recommendation on the agenda of the meeting.
70. Rule 5(b), pertaining to Council consideration of a Committee Recommendation,
states as follows:
(b) Accreditation Committee Recommendation to Disapprove. In the event

that Accreditation Committee shall determine not to recommend to the Council that
provisional or full approval be granted and if the Consultant receives a timely notice
of appeal to the Council from that decision, the Consultant shall place the school’s
appeal on the agenda of a Council meeting. The appeal to the Council shall
constitute a de novo proceeding. (emphasis added).
71. The Section has been charged with overseeing accreditation activities. From 1921

to August 1999, the House had final authority over accreditation decisions, but in August 1999, the
ABA amended the Section Bylaws to vest final authority over accreditation in the Council.
72. In response to federal law that was enacted in 1992, and federal regulations adopted
in 1994, the DOE began reviewing the ABA accreditation procedure in 1997.
73. In determining that the ABA was not in compliance with the federal law, the ABA
revised the bylaws governing the section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar (hereafter
“Section”) in August of 1999.
74. Article IV, section (b) of the Section Bylaws now states as follows:
The Council shall develop separate budgets for the Accreditation of Law Schools
Project and for its other activities. Both budgets shall be prepared pursuant to the
generally established accounting principles used by the Sections and entities within
the Association. The Accreditation of Law Schools Project budget itself, however,
will not be subject to review or consultation by the Board of Governors or any other
entity outside the Section. The budget for the other activities of the Section will be
subject to the Association’s regular budget process. With respect to those other
activities, the Council shall not authorize committees for expenditures in a fiscal year
that would exceed the income and reserves of the Section for that fiscal year without
approval of the Board of Governors.
American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar Bylaws.
75. Article X of the Section Bylaws states that while any action of the Section must be
approved by the House or by the Board of Governors of the ABA before the action can be effective,
actions relating to the accreditation of law schools do not need approval by these governing bodies.
Any action by this Section must be approved by the House of Delegates or by the
Board of Governors of the American Bar Association before the action can be
effective as the action of the American Bar Association. Actions taken pursuant to
Article I, Sections 2(a-b) of these Bylaws shall become effective after review by the
House of Delegates, as set forth in the Rules of Procedure for the Approval of Law
Schools. Any resolution or recommendation adopted or action taken by the Section
shall, on request of the Council of the Section, be reported by the Chairperson or
Section Delegate to the House of Delegates or to the Board of Governors for action
by the Association.
76. Actions pursuant to Article I, section 2(a-d) of the Section Bylaws pertain to the

accreditation of law schools.
77. Rule 6 sets forth a new procedure regarding an “appeal” to the House, but limits the
House’s authority solely to a remand.
78. In response to concerns raised by the DOE pursuant to the 1992 amendment to the
Higher Education Act, in August 1999, the ABA amended Article X of the Section Bylaws to state:
Any action by this Section must be approved by the House of Delegates or by the
Board of Governors of the American Bar Association before the action can be
effective as the action of the American Bar Association. Actions taken pursuant to
Article I, Sections 2(a-b) of these Bylaws shall become effective after review by the
House of Delegates, as set forth in the Rules of Procedure for the Approval of Law
Schools.
79. Article I, Sections 2(a) of the Section Bylaws provide that “the Section through its
Council and subject to the review of the House of Delegates shall have the power (a) To establish
standards and procedures to be met and observed by law schools in obtaining and retaining the
approval of the Association. Such standards and procedures shall become effective after review of
the House of Delegates.”
80. Article I, Section 2(b) of the Section Bylaws provide that the Council may “receive
and process applications of law schools for provision or full approval, to grant or deny such
applications, and to withdraw, suspend or terminate approval of law schools. Such decision
concerning the approval of law schools shall become effective after review of the House of
Delegates.”
81. The ABA Rules of Procedure of the House of Delegates under Article 45.9 now
provides that the House may only “agree” or “refer” back to the Council a Council decision to grant
or deny provisional or full accreditation but does not allow the House to overrule a Council decision
regarding accreditation.
82. Rule 6(b) explains the new procedure for review by the House of the Council’s
decision to deny provisional or full accreditation to law schools. Subsection (4) of the Rule states:

A decision by the Council to deny an application for provision or full approval, if
appealed by the law school, is subject to a maximum of two referrals back to the
Council by the House. If the House refers a Council decision back to the Council
twice, then the decision of the Council following the second referral will be final
and will not be subject to further review by the House. (emphasis added).
83. The Council decision after a second remand is final and binding on the corporation.
Neither the House nor the Board of Governors may veto the Council’s decision.
84. Despite the amendments to the Section Bylaws and the Rules, the ABA never
amended Article 6.1 of the ABA Constitution, which states in relevant part:
The House of Delegates shall control, formulate policy for, and administer the
Association. It has all the powers necessary or incidental to performing those
functions. It shall supervise and direct the Board of Governors, officers, sections,
committees, and employees and agents of the Association. (emphasis added).
85. Article I, Sections 2(a) and 2(b), Article IV, Section (b) and Article X of the Section
Bylaws along with Rule 6(b) conflict with and are prohibited by the ABA Constitution under Article
6.1 in that the Constitution requires the House of Delegates to supervise and direct the Section but
the Section Bylaws and Rules prohibit the House of Delegates from supervising and directing the
Section with respect to law school accreditation and the Accreditation of Law Schools Project
budget.
86. From the inception of the ABA until 1992, the ABA was an unincorporated
association. In December 1992, the ABA incorporated in Illinois as a not for profit corporation.
See 805 Ill. Comp. Stat. 105/101.10 et seq.
87. Members of the Board of Governors were listed as the incorporators on the ABA’s
Articles of Incorporation filed with the State of Illinois.
88. The ABA has been granted 501(c)(6) status as a “business league” by the IRS.
89. Pursuant to Illinois law, the Board of Directors (referred to by the ABA as the Board
of Governors) “may create and appoint persons to a commission, advisory body or other such body
which may or may not have directors as members, which body may not act on behalf of the

corporation or bind it to any action but may make recommendations to the Board of Directors or
to the officers.” 805 Ill. Comp. Stat. 105/108.40(d) (emphasis added).
90. Pursuant to the Illinois Not for Profit Act, a corporation may establish a committee.
“Each committee shall have two or more directors, a majority of its membership shall be directors,
and all committee members shall serve at the pleasure of the board.” 805 Ill. Comp. Stat.
105/108.40(a).
91. A majority of the Council’s membership does not consist of members of the Board.
92. A majority of the Council’s membership does not consist of members of the House.
93. An advisory body an Illinois not for profit corporation may or may not have directors
as members, and may not act on behalf of the corporation nor bind the corporation to any action, but
merely makes recommendations to the board or to the officers. See 805 Ill. Comp. Stat.
105/108.40(d).
94. Council members are not appointed by the ABA president, nor by the Board of
Governors or House.
95. ABA Committees are either standing or special, depending upon the probable
duration. Standing committees consist of the Executive Committee, the Operations and
Communications Committee and the Finance Committee.
96. The Council is not a committee, but instead is an advisory body.
97. Until August 1999, the Council has always operated as an advisory body consistent
with the Illinois Not for Profit Act.
98. Outside of the function of accrediting law schools, the Council continues to operate
as an advisory body.
99. With respect to the function of accrediting law schools, the Council now makes
binding decisions on the corporation which neither the House nor the Board of Governors may veto.
100. The Accreditation of Law Schools Project budget is no longer subject to review or
consultation by the Board or any other entity outside of the Section.
101. The Council operates as an autonomous entity with respect to budgetary matters
pertaining to accreditation and with respect to decision-making authority regarding accreditation of
law schools.
102. Barry, and the Plaintiffs herein, are the first to be subject to this binding authority of
the Council, in that the Council decisions may not be vetoed by the House.
103. This newly-established procedure violates the Illinois Not for Profit Act and is
unlawful ultra vires action in that, contrary to Illinois law, an advisory body (the Council) is seeking
to bind the entire corporation.
The Department Of Justice Antitrust Consent Decree.
104. On November 23, 1993, the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover filed a federal
suit against the ABA, complaining that the ABA and others combined and conspired to organize and
enforce a group boycott, and conspired to monopolize legal education, law school accreditation, and
the licensing of lawyers, in violation of the Sherman Act.
105. In January, 1994, the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice
(hereafter “DOJ”) began an investigation of ABA accreditation of law schools .
106. On June 27, 1995, the DOJ filed a federal antitrust action against the ABA under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
107. The federal court for the District of Columbia approved a Consent Decree between
the ABA and the DOJ on June 25, 1996.
108. The DOJ’s Complaint alleged that the ABA restrained competition among
professional personnel at ABA-approved law schools by fixing their compensation levels and
working conditions, and by limiting competition from non-ABA-approved schools. The Complaint
also alleged that the ABA allowed its accreditation process to be captured by those with a direct
interest in the outcome, and as a result, the ABA sometimes acted as a guild, protecting the interests
of professional law school personnel, rather than as a legitimate accreditation agency setting
minimum standards for law school quality. The Complaint also alleged a number of other
accreditation standards and practices which had been applied inappropriately to enhance
compensation and working conditions for professional staff.
109. The parties reached an agreement on a proposed Consent Decree with the remedial
measures falling into three categories.
110. The agreement contained structural measures to ensure that the accreditation process
is governed by persons other than those with a direct economic interest in its outcome, and that the
process is brought more into the public view.
111. These measures included enhancing the Board’s involvement in the Council’s
decisions on accreditation, restricting the role of legal education professionals in the accreditation
standard-setting processes, and providing an enhanced voice for the public and for law schools
receiving adverse results from the process.
112. The agreement contained prohibitions on plainly anti-competitive conduct designed
to eliminate the adoption or enforcement of any rules, or the taking of any action imposing
requirements, related to the base salary, stipend, fringe benefits, or other compensation paid to those
who work at law schools, and to end the collection and dissemination of compensation data.
113. The Consent Decree eliminated rules that prohibit enrolling Bar members or
graduates of state-accredited (but non-ABA-accredited) law schools, or accepting transfer credits
from state-accredited law schools.
114. The Consent Decree calls for the ABA to establish “a Special Commission To
Review The Substance And Process Of The ABA’s Accreditation Of American Law Schools” to
review the issues and report to the ABA’s Board of Governors in order to begin a process to
eliminate anti-competitive objectives.
115. The Consent Decree required, inter alia, that the Council revise its membership so
that, in part, no more than fifty percent of the members consisted of law school deans or faculty.
116. The DOJ determined that the application of certain ABA standards “unreasonably
restricted competition and the market for the services of professional law school personnel.”
117. The DOJ explained that the Consent Decree was necessary because most of the
process, as it applied to individual law schools, “was carried out by the Accreditation Committee and
the Consultant’s office and was kept from public view and the supervision of the ABA Board of
Governors and House of Delegates.”
118. The DOJ concluded that a mere amendment to the ABA standards and practices
would not provide adequate or permanent relief in that “reform of the entire accreditation process
is needed.”
119. The “provisions were designed to address allegations that the ABA had allowed the
accreditation process to be misused by law school personnel with a direct interest in its outcome.”
120. The federal court for the District of Columbia approved a Consent Decree between
the ABA and the DOJ on June 25, 1996.
121. The Consent Decree did not address the issues in the complaint regarding the
application and enforcement of the Standards and Rules pertaining to Barry’s application for
accreditation.
122. The DOJ represented to the federal court that the Consent Decree does not prevent
individually aggrieved parties from having a private cause of action against the ABA.
The Department Of Education’s Review Of The ABA And The DOJ Modified Consent Decree.
123. In 1992, Congress passed a requirement in the Higher Education Act that required
a DOE-recognized accrediting agency to be “separate and independent” from an affiliated trade
association. See 20 U.S.C. §§1099b(a)(3), 1099b(b). In 1994, the DOE promulgated regulations to
implement the federal law. See 34 C.F.R §602.3(d) (1994-1999), recodified effective July 1, 2000,

at 34 C.F.R. §602.14(a), (b), 64 Fed. Reg. 56612, 56618-19 (Oct. 20, 1999) (hereinafter “34 C.F.R.
§602.14(a), (b)”).
124. After 1994, the DOE began a thorough review of between 80-100 accrediting
agencies to determine whether each met the new requirements.
125. The ABA sent a letter stating that, in its opinion, it complied with the new federal law
regulations.
126. Based on that assurance, the DOE did not schedule the ABA for review until 1997,
the year after the federal court approved the DOJ Consent Decree in June 1996.
127. Under DOE regulations, 34 C.F.R. §602.14(d), a waiver of the “separate and
independent requirement” may not be granted if the trade association plays any role in the “making
or ratifying” of accreditation decisions, or engages in sharing of the accrediting agency’s non-public
information, both of which the ABA did.
128. The DOE informed the ABA that it was not entitled to a waiver based on the House’s
role in approving accreditation policies, making final accrediting decisions, and hearing appeals, and
on the sharing of non-public accrediting information between the Council and the ABA’s governing
board.
129. The DOE informed the ABA that any affiliated trade association may not make final
accreditation policies or decisions.
130. The body that makes the accreditation decisions may not be elected or selected by the
board or Chief Executive Officer of the related trade association under 20 U.S.C. §1099b(b)(1); 34
C.F.R. §602.14(b)(1).
131. One-seventh of the accrediting agency’s decision-making body must be members of
the general public, not members of the trade association.
132. Pursuant to Illinois law, the House, an elected body of delegates from the trade
association membership, had the final decision-making authority on accreditation matters.

133. Because the House consisted of only ABA members with no public, non-attorney
members, it was not able to meet the one-seventh public membership requirement without
significantly changing its composition.
134. The DOE recommended to the ABA that either the Council must be the final
decision-making authority, or that the composition of the House must be changed, so the ABA
decided to make the Council the final decision-making authority.
135. The DOJ consented to the DOE’s recommended modification to the Consent Decree.
136. The district court’s only consideration regarding the Consent Decree was limited to
determining whether the proposed modification was within the “zone of settlements.”
137. In the United States’ Memorandum in Support of the Joint Motion for Modification
of the Final Judgment, the DOJ and the ABA in response to the DOE
agreed to modify the Final Judgment to specifically provide for the House of
Delegates to have a House of Lords advisory role in accrediting individual law
schools. At the time the Final Judgment was entered, the House of Delegates had
been the final decision-maker on accrediting individual law schools for more than
half a century, and, therefore, the Justice Department did not need to seek relief on
this issue. Because the DOE has now determined that the House may not make these
decisions, the parties have agreed to add this provision to mandate the House of
Lords oversight role that the DOE has approved. Moreover, adding this provision to
the Final Judgment will prevent further dilution of the role of the House of Delegates
without the court’s permission.
138. The DOJ and ABA agreed to modify Section VI(A) of the Final Judgment, which now
states as follows:
The ABA shall:
(A) Require
1. that the adoption of amendment of all Standards, Interpretations, and Rules

be subject to the same public comment process before the Standards Review
Committee and Council in the same review process, including approval by the
Council; and
2. that following notification by the Council of the Council’s action to adopt
or amend any Standard, Interpretation, or Rule, the House of Delegates shall vote

either to agree with the Council’s action, or refer it back to the Council for
consideration based on reasons specified by the House; provided that the House shall
be limited to referring an action back to the Council a maximum of two times, and
that the decision of the Council will be final following its consideration of the last
permitted referral; Id. (emphasis added). A further modification to VI(N) of the
Final Judgment now requires that the ABA shall:
(N) permit appeals to the House of Delegates from a Council decision
granting or denying provisional or full approval to a law school or withdrawing,
suspending or terminating approval to a law school. The House shall vote either to
agree with the Council’s action or to refer it back to the Council for a reconsideration
based on the reasons specified by the House. An action granting or denying
provisional or full approval may be referred back to the Council a maximum of two
times. An action withdrawing, suspending or terminating approval may be referred
back to the Council one time. The decision of the Council will be final following its
consideration of the last permitted referral. (emphasis added).
139. Tom Leahy, a past president of the Illinois State Bar Association and member of the
House, filed a public objection to the proposed modification, stating that if the House no longer had
authority over the Council, the Council could make independent decisions and not be swayed at all
by the corporation.
140. While the approval of the Consent Decree was pending, the House amended Article
IV of the Council’s bylaws to divest oversight by the House or the governing board of the
Accreditation of Law Schools Project budget, over which now the Council has sole authority
because, according to Article VI, Section I(b), ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to
the Bar Bylaws, the budget may no longer be “subject to review or consultation by the Board of
Governors or any other entity outside the Section.”
141. Article X of the Bylaws was amended so that actions taken by the Council regarding
law school accreditation decisions are effective after review, rather than approval, by the House,
pursuant to the Rules.
142. Rule 6 now conforms with the modified Consent Decree so that both the House and
the Board of Governors are divested of final decision-making authority over the Council’s
accreditation decisions.

143. The amendment to the Bylaws and Rules regarding the Council’s ability to make the
final decision on accreditation was ultra vires, as is prohibited by the Illinois Not for Profit Act and
Article 6.1 of the ABA Constitution.
The History of Barry University School of Law
144. Barry University of Miami Shores, Florida was founded in 1940 by the Dominican
sisters of Adrian, Michigan. The primary purpose of Barry University is to offer students a quality
education while offering a religious dimension and providing community service and presence
within a caring environment.
145. The entity that would eventually become Barry University School of Law (hereafter
“Barry”), started as a law school of the University of Orlando, which was incorporated and organized
in 1993 as a not-for profit Florida corporation.
146. The University of Orlando was granted provisional licensure in 1995 and full
licensure in April 1998, by the State of Florida.
147. The University of Orlando became a dual division school, offering programs for full-
time and extended division students. The University of Orlando offered graduate degrees in
education and business in addition to the juris doctorate degree.
148. The University of Orlando School of Law began enrolling students in the part-time
division in the fall of 1995. In 1996, a full-time class was added.
149. In October 1997, the law school applied for provisional ABA accreditation, and had
the first ABA Site Team visit on February 16-18, 1998.
150. The school decided to withdraw the application and reapply at a later date.
151. Barry University acquired the University of Orlando School of Law in March 1999.
152. In 1999 SACS approved the merger between Barry University and the University of
Orlando School of Law. Having been successful in obtaining SACS accreditation, the law school
began offering federal financial aid to its students in the second semester of the 1999-2000 academic
year.
Barry Applies for ABA Accreditation
153. Barry University School of Law (hereafter “Barry”) applied for provisional
accreditation (what the ABA calls “provisional approval”) by the ABA in September 1999. On
October 24-27, 1999, an ABA Site Team visited Barry to determine whether to recommend
accreditation.
154. The Accreditation Committee met on April 27-29, 2000, to consider Barry’s
application.
155. An Action Letter was issued by the Accreditation Committee on May 16, 2000,
recommending denial of the Barry’s application, but waiving the normal ten-month waiting period
typically required for reapplication.
156. The Action Letter stated that Barry “has made considerable progress toward coming
into substantial compliance with the Standards since its last appearance before the Committee.”
157. The Action Letter listed four Standards and three Findings of Fact that indicated that
Barry must address in order to be in substantial compliance: Standard 301(a), Standard 303(a) and
(c), and Standards 501 and 505.
158. The basis for finding noncompliance was Findings 10, 11 and 12 in the Accreditation
Committee’s report.
159. Finding of Fact (10) states:
Students enrolling for the first time in the Fall 1999 had LSAT scores ranging from
131 - 154 and UGPAs of 2.03 - 3.80. Eight L1s had LSAT scores below 140. Ten
students starting in 1998 had scores below 140. The 25th percentile levels for
admittees were 141/2.38 for full-time students and 141/2.49 for part-time. In 1999
the School accepted two transfer students with LGPAs of 1.6 and 1.7 but no transfer
credit was given. In 1998 a transferee with a 1.86 LGPA was given 19 hours of
credit and another with a 1.75 LGPA was given 18 hours. The school is addressing
the admissions problems with additional scholarship funds; a new, more
experienced admissions director; and a goal of increasing the 25th percentile levels
by one point each year for the next three. School officials also believe that the
eligibility of students to participate in federal loan programs in light of the SACS
approval will assist them in attracting higher quality students. (emphasis added)
The team’s review of selected academic records reveals that the School ‘is retaining
students after they fall into grave academic difficulty.’ The report adds that ‘[t]here
have not been serious efforts at remediation . . . nor has the [S]chool academically
dismissed students on a consistent basis.’ The team found one enrolled student who
had ‘attempted 62 credits and earned 54, for an LGPA of 1.37,’ and another with 50
earned credits with a 1.54. The School’ failure until recently to timely calculate GPA
certainly contributed to this problem. The School reports that by the end of the
1999-2000 academic year, students in academic difficulty received prompt
notification. (emphasis added)
The grading and examination process had not been standardized prior to the site
evaluation visit. One consequence was substantial grade inflation, which the
evaluation team found anomalous in light of the student body’s entering credentials.
The School has been addressing the problem this academic year, and found only
‘three instances of unrealistically high grading’ of last semesters’ examinations.
(emphasis added)
162. Barry decided not to request an appearance before the Council, but chose to address
the Council’s concerns, and reapply for accreditation in the Fall of 2000.
163. Another Site Team was sent to Barry from October 29 through November 1, 2000.
164. The Site Team prepared a 39 page, single-spaced report (hereafter “Barry Site
Report”, Exhibit 2).
165. After conducting a thorough on-site examination of Barry, the Site Team summarized
its findings as follows:
Barry University and its Law School have proceeded with getting all the
pieces into place for the operation of an institution that will produce qualified
lawyers. There have been marked and observable changes since the prior site visit
in 1999, and the University has shown good faith in its delivery of support and
encouragement. The law school is maturing.
Many obstacles have been overcome during the process. Over a relatively
short period of time, the acquisition of the Law School by the University, the

eventual merger of the Law School into the University, the sale of the property
housing the Law School to the University, and the recent successful bond issue have
drastically improved the prospects of the Law School.
The Law School has been hampered, to some degree, by its early history and
its legacy of problems. Nevertheless, while overcoming the problems associated with
the earlier incarnation of the School may have yielded challenges beyond those faced
by an altogether new law school, meeting those challenges, and experiencing “before
and after,” may have granted wisdom and insight that will ultimately strengthen the
Law School as it moves forward.
The team that visited the Law School in October 2000 found an institution
that has the components in place for continued growth and development. The faculty
is generally competent and committed to teaching and scholarship. The environment
is nurturing for students. The physical facilities are adequate for the present. The
library and other information services are good. The curriculum is basic and
otherwise appropriate for a student body of this size and composition at this stage of
the School’s development.
The students are remarkably enthusiastic. Those who weathered the earlier
pre-Barry year cite “stability” to describe what the University has brought to the Law
School. The University administration has been supportive and appears to be
understanding of the need for strong continuing support as the Law School gets on
its feet.
The future is not without its challenges. The addition of more students will
heighten the demand for appropriate space and for additional curricular opportunities.
The output measures for those first graduates who pioneered at the Law School may
fall well below what the Law School, the University, or the American Bar
Association should tolerate over the course of the next year or two, and a special
effort directed at students who are currently enrolled will be necessary if the period
of unacceptable output measures is to be kept to a minimum. Also in this regard, the
development of broader academic support will be essential if students are enrolled
with risky predictors, and it is essential that the Law School adhere to its newly
adopted attrition and retention policies. The competition for students can be
expected to intensify with the planned addition of a publicly supported law school in
the Orlando area. And finally, the institution will need to prepare itself for the
growing pains that often occur after a school achieves provisional approval, if indeed
provisional approval is attained, since matters that have been deferred during the
common pursuit of accreditation may begin to surface.
In sum, however, the Law School is poised and ready for the next steps in its
development.
See Barry Site Report at 38-39 (emphasis added).
166. On January 26 through 27, 2001, the Accreditation Committee voted to recommend
that Barry be provisionally approved. The Accreditation Committee’s report (hereafter

“Accreditation Committee Report”) concluded that the Law School was in substantial compliance
with each of the ABA Standards for approval and recommended that the Law School be
provisionally approved.
167. The Accreditation Committee recommendation was reached after an exhaustive
review of the Barry Site Report and other supporting documentation.
168. The Accreditation Committee always lists items in their report that indicates where
a law school must improve before receiving full accreditation.
169. The Accreditation Committee issued a report that stated: “In accordance with
Standard 102(b), the Accreditation Committee concludes that Barry . . . needs to address several
areas in order to establish that it is in full compliance with the Standards within the required
timetable for provisionally approved schools of law.” (Emphasis added).
170. The Accreditation Committee Report listed four Standards that Barry needed to
address in order to show full compliance with the Standards.
171. Full compliance with the Standards is not necessary for provisional approval.
172. According Standard 102(a) and Interpretation 102-1 of the Standard, to receive
provisional approval, the school need only show that it is in “substantial compliance” with the
Standards and must present a reliable plan for being in full compliance within three years.
173. At the February 17, 2001, Council meeting, Council member Jeffrey Lewis
questioned Barry’s Dean Talcott regarding the impact of the law school affiliated with Florida A &
M University (hereafter “FAMU”): “Have you made any assessment of the need for legal
education in Florida in light of the two public law schools that have been authorized by the
legislature in the state of Florida? One will be in north Dade County and the other one I believe
will be in Orange County.” (emphasis added). See Transcript of Counsel Meeting Executive
Session (hereafter “Council Transcript”), p. 41, lines 17-22, (Exhibit 3).

174. Mr. Lewis was Dean of the University of Florida College of Law for eight years and
was a faculty member at the same law school for 27 years. He previously recused himself from a
decision regarding Barry’s accreditation when he served on the Accreditation Committee.
175. Mr. Lewis did not recuse himself from the February 17, 2001 Council meeting.
176. Mr. Lewis should have recused himself from voting on Barry’s application because
he had already determined to do everything in his power so that Barry would not receive approval.
177. The Council is supposed to “act impartially and avoid even the appearance of
impropriety.” See Statement of Ethical Practices in the Process of Law School Accreditation, ¶ 1
at http://www.abanet.org.
178. While he was on serving the Accreditation Committee, Mr. Lewis told a class of
students at the University of Florida that he would make sure that Barry would not be accredited.
See Kelley Affidavit, (Exhibit 4).
179. Pursuant to 34 C.F.R.§602.15(a)(6), an accrediting agency must have: “clear and
effective controls against conflicts of interest, or the appearance of conflicts of interest . . . .”
180. 34 C.F.R. §602.18 states that an accrediting agency recognized by the DOE “must
consistently apply and enforce its standards.” An accrediting agency meets this requirement “only
if the accrediting agency – (a) has effective controls against the inconsistent application of the
agency’s standards; (b) bases decisions regarding accreditation and pre-accreditation on the agency’s
public standards; and (c) has a reasonable basis for determining that the information the agency relies
on for making accrediting decisions is accurate.”
181. Mr. Lewis, in his capacity as member of the Council, and for anti-competitive
purposes, has conspired with the ABA and others, to keep Barry from receiving ABA approval.
182. At the February 17, 2001, Council meeting, Mr. Lewis represented to the Council that
Barry did not have a plan to achieve full compliance with the Standards within three years.
183. When Dean Talcott discussed feasibility studies that showed that Orlando could
support a new law school, Mr. Lewis asked whether these studies “take into consideration the
public schools [in Florida]. . . .” See Council Transcript at 67, lines 18-20.
184. The Council has no information to support any concerns that FAMU and Barry cannot
co-exist in Central Florida.
185. The Council has no information to indicate that Florida does not need more law
schools.
186. Virginia has eight ABA approved law schools, including Appalachian School of Law
that received ABA approval by the Council in February 2001, at the same time Barry was denied.
The 2000 Census shows that the population of Virginia is 7,078,515. Although the population of
Florida was 15,982,378 in 2000 (more than twice that of Virginia) Florida has just seven ABA
approved law schools.
187. By the Council’s own admission, it engaged in a de novo, rather than a deferential
review. See Report by Diane C. Yu at 2, (Exhibit 5).
188. The Council reviewed Barry’s application de novo, although the Council is only
permitted a de novo review if the Accreditation Committee recommends denial.
189. On February 17, 2001 the Council voted not to accept the recommendation of the
Accreditation Committee, and denied provisional approval to Barry.
190. The Council’s Action Letter Barry outlining the reason for the Council’s denying of
the application for provisional approval stated:
(a) The School has not established that its educational program prepares its graduates
for admission to the bar and to participate effectively and responsibly in the legal
profession [Standard 301(a)] because (1) examinations vary substantially in degree
of difficulty and there has been little progress since the October 1999 site visit in the
development of challenging evaluation measures [Finding 10 of Accreditation
Committee Report); (2) some student upper-class writing papers were of average or
less-than-average quality and did not appear to meet the School’s own policies that
the paper must reflect original research and analysis and be suitable for publication
(Finding 11); and (3) the School’s academic support program has only been

implemented in Fall 2000 and its plans for support during the second semester of the
first year were still under development (Finding 21).
See Council Action Letter, (Exhibit 6)
191. Reason (a) was previously rebutted by Barry, and is not supported by a review of the
examinations administered since the fall 1999 site visits.
192. Six of the exams given in 27 classes during 1999 contained some multiple-choice
questions, five of 24 exams contained multiple-choice questions in 2000, and no open book
examinations were given.
193. A committee of senior faculty and the Dean read all examinations prior to
administration.
194. Dean Talcott pointed out the improvements in exam composition during the Council
meeting. See Council Transcript at 39, (Exhibit 3).
195. Other ABA approved law schools regularly give exams consisting of a combination
of essay and multiple choice questions.
196. Standard 302(a)(2) requires at least one (1) rigorous writing experience which is
usually met by an introductory research and writing course.
197. Barry not only complies with that Standard but has imposed an additional substantial
writing requirement. It is this additional substantial writing requirement to which the Accreditation
Committee referred in Finding 11, which the Council cited in order to deny Barry provisional
accreditation.
198. At the time of the site visit, Barry had only a few papers on hand because the
remaining papers were sent back to the students. Since these papers were not required for ABA
accreditation, the papers were not kept at Barry but returned to the students.
199. A previous Site Team report from the earlier 1999 visit, praised Barry’s writing
program:

Barry’s program of legal writing and analysis is unusually strong. In additional to six
units of required legal writing and research in the first year, including a first year
moot court experience, several upper division writing and research elective courses
are offered. Advanced Legal Writing is a prerequisite for all skills course and
clinical placements.
See 1999 Site Team Report at 9, (Exhibit 7).
200. The Council should not have considered these few papers as representative of the
writing skills of Barry students, because the fact that the additional papers did not meet Barry’s
requirements does not support the conclusion that the school does not substantially comply with the
existing ABA standard, which does not require students to submit an upper level paper.
201. Contrary to the Accreditation Committee’s Report, Barry’s academic support program
was implemented in 1998, and the Accreditation Committee had a detailed description of the
program.
202. Even the 1999 Site Team report recognized that there was an academic support
program and indicated that “[t]wo faculty members assist in the academic support program. Almost
all the students identified as at risk who participated in the program are in school and appear to be
much stronger academically.” See 1999 Site Team Report at 9-10 (Exhibit 7).
203. The Council Action Letter stated another reason for denial:
(b) The School has not established that it adheres to sound standards of scholastic
achievement and that it does not continue to enroll students whose inability to do
satisfactory work is manifest [Standards 303(a) and (c)] because of concerns
expressed in (a) supra and because of the very high percentage of high grades and
uncertain implementation of the School’s new academic retention policy [Findings
10 and 20].
204. The Council expressed concerns over “high grades” and noted that Finding 10
indicated that in the spring of 2000, there were 12% As, 36.5% Bs, 46.2% C, 4.5% D, and .6% F
grades.
205. Reason (b) in the Council Action Letter, regarding the alleged “high grades” and

“uncertain implementation” of Barry’s “new academic retention policy” was previously rebutted by
Barry, and was discussed by Dean Talcott in the Council meeting.
206. Other law schools, including a school provisionally approved by the ABA in 200l,
had similar grade ranges.
207. The Council unreasonably and arbitrarily applied Standard 303 to Barry, which is
apparent when comparing Barry to UNLV.
208. A May 2000 letter from the Accreditation Committee regarding UNLV noted that of
1185 grades given to UNLV students during 1998-99, only 35 were C- or lower (.03%) and only 10
were Ds (.8%) and only one was an F (.08%), yet UNLV was approved. See UNLV Report (Exhibit
8), Finding (14)).
209. Although the Accreditation Committee noted that UNLV was not in full
compliance with seven different Standards, the Council approved UNLV in 2000.
210. Barry had in fact, imposed a new mandatory grade distribution curve requested by the
ABA to meet the ABA’s concerns.
211. The Council Action Letter listed Finding 20 as a reason for denial of Barry’s
application, but Finding 20 does not support the Counsel’s conclusion that there is any “uncertain
implementation of the School’s new academic retention policy.”
212. Finding 20 indicates that no students were enrolled with law school grade point
averages (LGPAs) below 2.0 except for three students who were as a result, on probation in the fall
2000.
213. Effective in the fall of 2000, changes were made to ensure that the academic retention
policy met the concerns expressed by the Site Team.
214. There is nothing in the Barry Site Report to indicate the lack of application of the
retention policy.
215. Reason (c) in the Council Action Letter, regarding the credentials of the fall 1999 and
2000 classes and other admissions, were rebutted by Barry, and the issues were previously
successfully addressed.
216. The Action Letter stated:
(c) The School has not established that it is not admitting applicants
who do not appear capable of satisfactorily completing its educational
program and being admitted to the bar [Standard 501(a)1, because of
the credentials of the Fall 2000 and Fall 1999 entering classes and the
admission of a number of transfer students having law school grade
point averages of less than 2.0 (Findings 15, 16 and 18).
217. The Council indicated that their concern was over the “credentials of the Fall 2000
and Fall 1999 entering classes,” and because “transfer students” had LGPAs below 2.0. The 25th
percentile of the 2000 LSAT/UGPA was 143/2.44 for full-time students and 142/2.38 for part-time
students, while the 1999 LSAT/UGPA was 141/2.38 and 141/2.49 for the full-time and part-time
classes respectively.
218. No students were admitted with LSAT scores below 140 after Barry received a letter
from the Accreditation Committee dated May 16, 2000, wherein the Accreditation Committee
complained about the lower scores.
219. Barry’s admission decisions were made in accordance with ABA Standards and the
assertions of the ABA that admission decisions should not be based solely on the Law School
Admission Test (LSAT) scores.
220. The Council Action Letter pointed to Finding 16 regarding four 2000 admissions in
the Accreditation Committee’s Findings: (1) LSAT of 138 and UGPA of 2.39; (2) LSAT of 140 and
UGPA of 2.09; (3) LSAT of 145 and UGPA of 1.53; and (4) LSAT of 139 and UGPA of 2.47.
221. The student who was admitted with a LSAT/UGPA of 138/2.39 was a minority
1
The letter incorrectly listed 501(a), but should have cited Standard 501(b) which states:
“A law school shall not admit applicants who do not appear capable of satisfactorily completing
its educational program and being admitted to the bar.”
student who had shown exceptional leadership and success in graduate programs. The student who
was listed with the 145/1.53 LSAT/UGPA, actually earned a 2.0 from his degree-granting school
and had paralegal work experience.
222. Another student who was mentioned in Finding 16 only learned English after moving
to the United States after completing college, and had excellent letters of recommendation as a
paralegal.
223. The student with the LSAT/UGPA listed in Finding 16 actually had a UGPA of 3.54,
not 2.47, when discounting graduate level courses taken.
224. Contrary to Finding 18, Barry did not admit any “transfer students” with LGPAs
below 2.0.
225. Only one transfer student was admitted, and that student was in good standing at a
prior law school.
226. Some other students were admitted as new students with no transfer credit after the
Barry admissions committee determined the students were likely to succeed and the reason for
difficulty several years earlier in their prior law school experience was related to physical illness or
other reasons unrelated to scholastic aptitude.
227. One of those students admitted by Barry as a new student was dismissed from her
prior law school after medical problems related to her being a kidney donor for her father.
228. According to the 2002 Edition of the ABA/LSAC Official Guide to ABA-Approved
Law Schools (hereafter “ABA Guide”), many other ABA approved schools have admitted students
with the same LSAT and GPA scores as those for which the Council now faults Barry.
http://www.abanet.org/legaled/home.html.
229. When searching the ABA Guide for schools that have admitted a student with an
LSAT/UGPA combination of 138 and 2.39, one retrieves the names of twenty-two ABA approved
law schools, including the University of Denver, Loyola University, Rutgers, and Stetson University.
A similar search finds that 13 ABA approved law schools have admitted at least one student with
and LSAT/UGPA of 140/2.09; one law school admitted a student with an LSAT/UGPA of 145/1.53;
and 33 schools, including Pepperdine, Widener, Stetson and Nova Southeastern, admitted students
with an LSAT/GPA combination of 139/2.47. See ABA-LSAC Official Guide (Exhibit 9).
230. The final statement from the Council Action Letter was:
(d) The School has not presented a reliable plan for bringing it into
full compliance with the Standards within three years (Findings 4, 5,
and 29). (emphasis added)
231. The reasons given for denial, (a), (b) and (c) show that the Council is holding Barry
to the standard for full approval rather than provisional approval.
232. Reasons (a), (b) and (c) in the Action Letter are not sufficient reasons to deny
provisional accreditation to Barry because other law schools that the ABA has recently accredited
have not performed any better on those Standards.
233. The Council has held Barry to a more stringent standard of approval than for-profit
schools, non-religious, and state-supported institutions and law schools in states that have permitted
graduates from those schools to sit for the Bar exam and receive a license to practice.
234. The “Findings” referred to in the Action Letter are factual determinations made by
the Accreditation Committee upon which the Council relies in part to make their decision.
235. The Council relied upon Finding 4 as the basis to reject Barry’s application for
accreditation.
236. Finding 4 relates solely to the fact that the Florida legislature has approved two
additional law schools in Florida, one of which is FAMU, to be located in Orlando.
237. Finding 4 states as follows:
Neither the 1995 feasibility study nor any document subsequently prepared by the
University has explicitly considered the expansion of publicly funded legal education
in Florida. After the October 2000 site visit took place, the Florida legislature
determined that one of the two additional publicly funded law schools it had

decided to establish would be located in Orlando, as part of Florida A & M
University. Officials of the University predict that Barry’s identity as a religiously
based university and its ability to recruit regionally and nationally based on its
Catholic mission will enable the Law School to meet enrollment goals in numbers
and quality, despite the presence of a state-funded law school in the area. (emphasis
added) See Accreditation Committee Report (Exhibit 10).
238. The Council’s reliance on Finding 4 is evidence that the Council has anti-
competitive purposes in the denial of approval to Barry.
239. Barry had previously addressed the issues raised by the Council regarding the
difficulty of examinations, the upper-class writing requirement, the academic support program,
retention policy, and the admission of certain students.
240. Since Barry is in substantial compliance the ABA Standards, the only reason the
Council relies on to deny Barry approval is the plan of a new law school in Orlando and other
schools in Florida.
241. The Council has no solid, objective evidence to deny Barry provisional accreditation.
242. Barry requested the Council reconsider the application at the Council’s May 2001
meeting, but the Council voted not to reconsider.
243. On April 2, 2001, Barry received a letter from ABA Consultant John Sebert on behalf
of the Council, acknowledging receipt of Barry’s petition for reconsideration.
244. The letter indicated that the ABA has no process for reconsideration by the Council.
245. The letter also stated that at its June 2001, meeting the Council would consider only
whether to reconsider its February 2001 decision and that in the event that the Council adopts a
motion to reconsider its decision, the reconsideration would occur at the Council’s August 2001
meeting.
246. On June 5, 2001, Barry was notified that the Council denied its petition for
reconsideration. The purported reason for the denial was that the Council did not want to set a
procedural precedent for appeal and/or reconsideration.

247. Barry filed an appeal with the House, requesting a remand, which would have been
considered at the annual ABA meeting during the first week of August 2001.
248. Barry’s appeal to the House outlined Barry’s position, and rebutted a number of
statements made in the Council’s report.
249. On or about the week of July 13, 2001, the ABA agreed to send another Site Team
to Barry in September if Barry would drop the appeal to the House.
250. The Council negotiated the change because they did not want to take the chance of
having their decision remanded by the House for further consideration.
251. Because of the history of the Council’s actions, Barry administration was
understandably concerned about offending the Council by continuing with the appeal.
252. Barry agreed to drop the “appeal.”
253. The Site Team will generate a supplemental report that will be considered by the
Accreditation Committee in November, along with the 2000 Site Team report.
254. The Accreditation Committee will make a recommendation to the Council.
255. The Council will review the Site Team reports and the Accreditation Committee’s
recommendation and will vote for or against Barry’s provisional approval in February 2002.
256. If the Council gives provisional approval, the House will review that decision at their
February 2002 meeting.
257. After two remands by the House, the Council’s decision is final.
258. Although the Council is supposed to be purely an advisory body, neither the Board
of Governors nor the House is able to overrule the Council’s decision.
Barry is in Substantial Compliance with ABA Standards and Provides a High Quality Education
259. At the February 17, 2001, Council meeting, member Dorothy Ridings expressed
concern about the fact that Barry did not have a history of Bar exam scores, stating: “One of our
responsibilities is to look at a school’s ability to educate students so they could pass the bar. And
if we don’t know whether they passed the bar, how do we know.” See Council Transcript at 56, lines
19-23 (Exhibit 3).
260. The Florida Bar exam scores of Barry students are sealed until Barry achieves
accreditation.
261. The ABA has ignored the only indicators of success that are available to show that
Barry graduates are prepared to be competent members of the legal profession: the opinions of those
who employ Barry students and graduates, and how well Barry students have performed in Moot
Court and Trial Team competitions.
262. Numerous law firms and government agencies that employ Barry students and
alumni, wrote to the ABA in support of Barry’s application for accreditation. The letters indicate
that the students and alumni are succeeding in the legal field, and are expected to succeed as
attorneys. See Attorney Letters (Exhibit 11).
263. In addition to the successfully employed students and alumni, Barry has been
extremely successful competing in Moot Court and Trial Team competitions against students from
ABA approved schools.
264. In every competition in which Barry’s Trial Team has participated, it has faced only
ABA approved schools.
265. The Trial Team has a tenure-track faculty member as faculty advisor and coach, who
is a board certified trial lawyer in Florida.
266. The Trial Team has regularly competed and has excelled in statewide competitions
and also Southeast regional competitions of the American Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA). See
Barry Competitions (Exhibit 12).
267. In Moot Court Competitions, Barry’s teams have advanced against teams from each
Florida law school with which they have gone head-to-head. Id.
268. Success in such prestigious competitions as those where Barry has excelled against
ABA accredited schools indicates that Barry is effectively preparing for the legal profession.
269. Although the Florida Supreme Court has issued several orders permitting Barry
graduates to take the Florida Bar Exam, pursuant to the orders, the exam scores must remain sealed
and cannot be released until Barry receives ABA accreditation.
270. The last order that applies to the June 2000 Barry graduates (entered February 23,
2001) states that the General Bar Exam results “shall be impounded and released only if Barry
University School of Law achieves accreditation for its law school from the American Bar
Association at or before the American Bar Association August 7-8 meeting.” See February 2001
Order (Exhibit 13).
271. The same order states that the scores of the January 2001 graduates who sat for the
Florida Bar Exam in February 2001 are to be “impounded and released only if Barry [is accredited]
within twelve (12) months from graduation.”
272. Another order entered on June 29, 2001, permits the June and July 2001 graduates
to take the July 2001 Florida Bar Exam, but those scores will only be released if Barry is accredited
within twelve months of graduation. See June 2001 Order (Exhibit 14).
273. Without this Court’s intervention, it is likely that the bar scores of the June 2000 and
January 2001 graduates will never be released.
274. Barry substantially complies with ABA Standard 301(a) which states: “A law school
shall maintain an educational program that prepares its graduates for admission to the bar and to
participate effectively and responsibly in the legal profession.”
The Council Has Inconsistently Applied ABA Standards and Holds Barry to a Higher Standard
275. Barry is in substantial compliance with ABA Standards, and in fact, more thoroughly
prepares its students for the practice of law than many of the recently-approved ABA law schools.
276. The Standards cited as concerns by the Council are all non-qualitative Standards, so
that compliance is determined subjectively by the Council.

277. Standard 301(a) states: “A law school shall maintain an educational program that
prepares its graduates for admission to the bar and to participate effectively and responsibly in the
legal profession.”
278. Standard 303(a) states: “A law school shall have and adhere to sound standards of
scholastic achievement, including clearly defined standards for good standing, advancement, and
graduation.”
279. Standard 303(c) states: “A law school shall not continue the enrollment of a student
whose inability to do satisfactory work is sufficiently manifest so that the student’s continuation in
school would inculcate false hopes, constitute economic exploitation, or detrimentally affect the
education of other students.”
280. Standard 501(b) states: “A law school shall not admit applicants who do not appear
capable of satisfactorily completing its educational program and being admitted to the bar.”
281. The ABA has used its Standards to discriminate against Barry students, while
approving other law schools such as Appalachian School of Law, Florida Coast School of Law, and
UNLV.
Council Approved Appalachian School of Law in February, 2001
282. The Council voted in February, 2001, to approve Appalachian’s application for
accreditation, while denying Barry’s application.
283. Appalachian School of Law (hereafter “Appalachian”) is located in Grundy,
Buchanan County, Virginia, a “very isolated rural community.” See Council Transcript at 10
(Exhibit 3).
284. Appalachian is approximately two hours from the nearest airport, one and one-half
hours from a shopping mall and one hour from a bookstore. See Council Transcript at 11 (Exhibit
3).
285. Students participate in a mandatory summer clerkship because of the lack of clerkship
opportunities in the Grundy area during the school year.
286. Barry offers significant clinical and internship opportunities, and has recently received
a grant from the state of Florida of between $800,000 and $900,000 to begin a Social Justice Clinic.
287. The 1999 Site Team that studied Barry reported that Barry provided “a number of
externship opportunities, including a Public Defender Service Clinic and a Civil Poverty Law Clinic,
as well as externships with Florida’s Ninth Judicial Circuit and County Mediation Services. A
greater number of placements are not yet possible because students are not permitted to practice in
Florida courts unless they are enrolled at ABA accredited schools.” See 1999 Site Team Report at
10 (Exhibit 7).
288. Teaching loads at Appalachian are very heavy.
289. Appalachian has racial and gender tensions, along with faculty tension, especially
in the area of scholarship and the selection of a new dean. Id. at 32-34.
290. Appalachian is located in “literally [an] all-white region. Professor Dale Ruben, an
African-American colleague of mine on the faculty, is only the second African-American person ever
to vote in Buchanan County ever. And the first person only voted once, and Dale has already
improved that record.” See Council Transcript at 32 (Exhibit 3).
291. In contrast, Barry has no racial or gender tensions. In fact, the student body is thirty-
seven percent minority, and the faculty is approximately thirty percent minority, of which forty-three
percent are female.
292. Appalachian announced its inaugural board for the Appalachian Journal of Law in
2000, while Barry’s law review board was seated in 1997 and published its first Law Review volume
in 2000 year on juvenile justice.
293. Twenty-five percent of the Appalachian students admitted in the fall of 2000 had
LSAT scores at or below 141. Id. at 16.
294. The Council assumed that, based on the 2001 applications, the LSAT scores would
be essentially the same as those in 2000. Id. at 26.
295. Under Virginia law, Appalachian students were permitted to take the Virginia Bar
Exam. Appalachian had 44.8% of their graduates passed the exam, while the state pass rate was
68.8%. See http://www.asl.edu/miscinfo/news.htm.
296. Appalachian’s Dean pointed out that the LSAT and GPA credentials did not show
a significant correlation with bar passage. The Dean noted that “[r]oughly speaking the top half of
our class passed and the bottom half pretty much didn’t . . .” See Council Transcript at 8
(Exhibit 3).
297. Like Barry, Appalachian received a favorable recommendation by the Accreditation
Committee, but unlike Barry, Appalachian was also approved by the Council.
Council Approved UNLV in 2000
298. UNLV it opened its doors to its charter class in1998, and applied for provision
approval in August 1999, only one year after admitting its first student.
299. The Accreditation Committee recommended provision approval in a report to the
Council dated April, 2000.
300. The Accreditation Committee listed seven Standards and enumerated twelve Findings
of fact that indicated areas of “apparent non-full compliance:”
(a) Standard 202(a) - Finding (5): “much of the information is in the form of
planning statements in the document that was prepared after only one year of
operation. Many elements of the program were not developed.”
(b) Standard 302(c) and (d) - Finding (11): “The upper class curriculum was still
in the process of development at the time of the site visit.”; and (12) “the
curriculum for skills development had not been finalized.”
(c) Standard 303 - Finding (14): “Of the 1185 grades in Spring, Fall, and Summer
sessions (1998-99), only 35 were C- or lower; only 10 were D (+ or -) and only
one was F.”
(d) Standard 403 - Finding (25): “The site team found that the required nine-credit

(now changed to 10-credit) lawyering process course is deficient in academic
oversight . . . .”
(e) Standard 405(a) - Findings (28): “According to the Dean, additional support staff
have been added to assist the Associate Deans and faculty in curricular planning and
other institutional activities.”; and Finding (59): “The site team identified the needs
to be: additional secretarial support . . . and the need for an Associate Dean for
Academic Affairs, particularly to relieve the faculty of the administrative
coordination, information gathering, academic planning, and faculty development.”
(f) Standard 606 - Findings (45): “the size of the library collection was 48,544 hard
copy volumes . . . . It presently has little in the way of a practitioner’s collection.”;
and Finding (47): “The Law Library has not yet addressed its foreign and
international law needs, and will be hard-pressed to build even a minimal
collection without a budgetary adjustment. Additional funds are also needed for
travel and student wages.”
(g) Standard 701 - Finding (50) regarding concerns over the library facilities;
Finding (51) regarding the temporary physical quarters of the school; and Finding
(52) about plans for a permanent facility. (emphasis added) (See UNLV Report
Exhibit 8).
301. The Site Team also found that UNLV’s faculty “scholarship may be impeded by
involvement in administrative matters.” Id. Because of the newness of the school, “faculty
involvement in governance may distract the members from the more academic pursuits.” Id. at 6.
A Law Journal “has been organized” and the “faculty are working together to develop a Moot Court
program.” Id. at 8.
302. After the site visit, the “by-laws have been adopted for the Law Journal and Moot
Court and the first Editorial Board has been selected for the Law Journal.” Id.
303. The school is only in temporary facilities and plans to move to an adjoining building
at some point in the future, thus requiring some of the library volumes to be housed in off-site
storage during the interim. Id. at 10-11.
304. Eighty percent of the students in the fall 2000 entering class at UNLV are white, only
7% are Hispanic and only 3% are African-American.
305. In contrast to the substandard thirteen-page report on UNLV, the thirty-nine page

report on Barry is glowing. The school is housed in new facilities which Barry owns. Instead of
7,112 titles, Barry has 38,404 titles comprised of 180,533 volumes, 1,644 active serial subscriptions
for 1,638 titles and 21 CD-ROM titles. The Miami Shores main campus library provides Barry with
a full complement of traditional and innovative library services, including a catalog of more than
600,000 items and almost 150 electronic data bases, 133 electronic journals, web bibliographies and
an online periodical directory of 2,600 titles. See Barry Site Report at 30.
306. In contrast to UNLV, Barry’s “self-study is comprehensive in scope.” Id. at 5.
307. Barry’s “Trial Advocacy and Florida Civil Practice are offered frequently and have
great demand from students. Thus, trial work skills receive more emphasis, although mediation
courses are also available. The school’s strong performance in extramural trial performance
competition attests to the value of this particular educational experience.” Id. at 9.
308. Barry’s Law Review Program was underway and the Site Team reviewed a draft copy
of the first Law Review volume, which has now been published. Id. at 11.
309. “The range of legal education and other advanced degrees held by the [Barry] faculty
is impressive.” Barry’s student-faculty ratio is 11 to 1. Id. at 12.
310. Barry “places a high degree of emphasis on developing faculty scholarship.” Id. at
15. “Faculty morale appears to be high...” Id. at 16. Barry uses mostly full-time professors, more
so than the typical, fully-accredited school. Id. at 17.
311. “Numerous statements were made of the community’s need for Barry graduates to
service unmet legal needs in the surrounding counties.” Id. at 23.
312. Barry had a “comprehensive facilities maintenance plan has been developed and
implemented” and that the “campus contains room for expansion.” Id. at 36. “Students and faculty
were unanimous in praising the design of the library and its ease of use.” Id. at 37.
313. Although Barry was denied accreditation in the Council’s February 2001 meeting,
UNLV obtained the Council’s approval.

Council Approved Florida Coastal School of Law in 1999
314. Florida Coastal School of Law (hereafter Florida Coastal) is located in Jacksonville,
Florida. It enrolled its first class in January 1996.
315. Florida Coastal is the first for-profit law school after the1996 DOJ Consent Decree.
316. In April, 1999, the Accreditation Committee recommended to the Council that Florida
Coastal be granted provisional approval, but indicated that Florida Coastal needed:
to address several areas in order to establish that it is in full compliance with the
Standards within the required timetable for provisionally approved schools of law.
These areas of apparent non-full compliance are as follows: Standards 302(a)
(clinical experiences), 303 (academic standards), 301(a) and 501(b) (admission of
students who do not appear capable of being admitted to the Bar), and 701 and
Interpretation 701-3 (adequate physical facilities both for current and for growth
anticipated in the immediate future, permanently owned by the School of Law or its
parent institution. [See Findings 7(c), 8(a) and (b), 9(a), (b) and (c), 11(a), (b) and (c),
and 13(a), (b) and (c).] (emphasis added) See Florida Coastal Report (Exhibit 15).
317. At the time of the site visit, the school was leasing offices. See Florida Coastal
Report at 3 (Exhibit 15).
318. With respect to “faculty scholarship”, the team noted “the lack of prior teaching and
writing experience by some faculty members” and were concerned about the “other demands
currently made on them.” Id. at 5.
319. Finding 7(c) in the Florida Coastal Report noted prior warnings regarding grade
inflation. Finding 8(a) and (b) discussed prior concerns regarding the previous lack of clinical
experiences and the lack of a full-time permanent clinical director.
320. Finding 9(a), (b) and (c) regarding admissions noted that students were admitted in
1997 with GPA ranging from 2.4 to 3.0 with LSAT scores from 138 to 147, and the 1998 entering
class had GPA between 2.3 and 3.0 and LSAT scores from 143 to 153. In 1997, students were
previously admitted who were academically dismissed from other law schools.
321. Finding 11(a) stated that due to entering GPA and LSAT scores, Florida Coastal

would probably have the lowest Bar passage rates in Florida.
322. In 2000, 45% of Florida Coastal’s graduates who took the Florida Bar Exam passed.
323. Finding 13(a), (b) and (c) concerned the school’s present building lease, and the lack
of a permanent facility owned by the school.
324. In response to the ABA’s concerns regarding low LSAT scores, Florida Coastal’s
percentage of minority entering students declined from 39% in 1997 to 24% in 1998.
325. The Council granted provisional approval, and the Council’s decision was adopted
by the House, which granted provisional approval at their annual meeting in 1999.
The ABA Requires Higher LSAT Scores for Barry than for Other Schools
326. The Accreditation Committee’s previous finding of substantial compliance with the
Standards is supported by looking at how the Standards have been applied to other law schools.
327. The ABA has represented that LSAT scores should not be the sole factor in
admissions. Standard 211 indicates that admission decisions should take into account all factors that
predict success, particularly when considering minority applicants.
328. Members of certain minority groups often do not perform as well on standardized
tests such as the LSAT.
329. Requiring an LSAT score to be at a predetermined level keeps schools from putting
extra weight other indicators that shows a person is likely to succeed in law school.
330. Data provide by the Law School Admissions Council (LSAC) reveals that the average
LSAT scores of white applicants is 154, while the average for African-Americans is 143. The
average for Hispanics is 148 and the average for the subgroup of Puerto Ricans is 140.
331. Thirty-seven percent (37%) of Barry’s students are minority students.
332. Barry actively recruits minority and economically disadvantaged students, and if it
appears that those students can succeed in the law school program, they are admitted and offered the
assistance necessary to be successful in law school and to become competent attorneys.

333. According to the 2002 edition of the ABA-LSAC Official Guide to ABA approved
Law Schools, the LSAT 25th percentile profile of Barry’s fall 2000 entering class is at least as high
as that of twelve schools that are fully approved by the ABA.
334. The LSAT 25th percentile of Barry’s 2000-2001 entering class was 142 for the part-
time division and 143 for the full-time division. The GPA 25th percentile of the same class was 2.84.
335. According to the same ABA-LSAC guide, sixty-four of the schools that reported
admissions by LSATs admitted a total of 396 applicants with LSAT scores below 140. Twenty-one
ABA approved schools admitted more than three students with LSAT scores before 140.
336. The ABA has warned that Barry should not admit students with an LSAT below 143.
337. Several ABA approved Florida law schools have admitted many students with LSAT
scores below 140.
338. Recent data for the 2000 LSAT scores indicate that University of Florida admitted
two (2), Stetson four (4), and Nova Southeastern thirty-seven (37) students with LSATs between 135
and 139 during the year 2000.
339. A comparison between Barry and the three law schools given provisional approval
in the past three years shows that the Council engaged in impermissible anti-competitive behavior
when it denied Barry accreditation.
340. The actions the Council took with respect to Barry were not compelled nor supervised
by the Florida Supreme Court.
341. The development and enforcement of the Rules was not actively supervised by the
Florida Supreme Court.
342. The enforcement of the Standards is not actively supervised by the Florida Supreme
Court.
343. The actions of the ABA with respect to Barry are private actions which are neither
compelled nor actively supervised by the State of Florida or the Florida Supreme Court.
344. The actions of the ABA with respect to Barry are not state action.
345. The ABA is an ongoing conspiracy among its members with respect to law school
accreditation.
346. The ABA has conspired with the Law School Admissions Council (hereafter
“LSAC”) with respect to law school accreditation and has collaborated together to set and apply
standards for law school accreditation in order to raise law school tuition for the purpose of price
fixing.
347. The ABA has conspired with the LSAC to use the Law School Admission Test
(hereafter “LSAT”) in a manner that unreasonably restrains trade among interstate commerce for the
purpose of reducing the number of ABA-approved law schools, reducing the number of minority
students, increasing the cost of legal education, increasing the salary of deans and professors, and
other forms of price fixing.
348. The ABA has conspired with the American Association of Law Schools (hereafter
“AALS”) with respect to law school accreditation and has collaborated together to set and apply
standards for law school accreditation in order to raise law school tuition for the purpose of price
fixing.
349. The ABA has conspired with the LSAC and AALS to boycott non-ABA-approved
law schools and have conspired not to deal with said law schools in order to fix prices.
350. The ABA has conspired among its members and with others to withhold ABA
accreditation from Barry in order to boycott and agree not to deal with Barry for the purpose of price
fixing by reducing the number of law students from the market who otherwise would be eligible to
pursue non-licensed job opportunities. The result to consumers is decreased quality and increased
cost.
351. The ABA has conspired among its members and with others to withhold ABA
accreditation from Barry in order to boycott and agree not to deal with Barry for the purpose of price
fixing by reducing the number of law students from the market who otherwise would be eligible to
pursue careers as attorneys and who would be able to reduce the cost of legal representation by
providing their services at no cost, or at below market cost. The result is decreased quality and
increased cost.
352. The injury to the students and graduates along with the consumers was a foreseeable
consequence of the ABA’s actions with respect to Barry.
353. The ABA’s denial of accreditation of Barry is effectively a boycott and an agreement
not to deal with Barry. The ABA did not objectively evaluate Barry, but in a capricious way and
with vested interest disapproved Barry. By not accrediting Barry, the ABA tried to force Plaintiffs
and other customers not to deal with Barry, not obtain a legal education from Barry, and not hire
Barry students and graduates, which denial has prevented Barry from entering into the market for
law schools and has prevented Plaintiffs from competing in the legal market, from pursuing
specialized legal education, from pursuing non-licensed job opportunities, and from practicing in the
legal profession.
354. The ABA is engaged in interstate commerce. The ABA has members in all fifty (50)
states. The ABA on several occasions traveled from Illinois to Florida for the purpose of law school
accreditation and the ABA routinely travels from state to state to review exacting fees from law
schools for their activity.
355. The ABA controls access to the relevant geographical and product market nationwide
through their ability to accredit law schools.
356. The relevant geographical and product market for the Plaintiffs is both national and
within the Central Florida region. Most of the Plaintiffs reside in Central Florida and desire to
practice law in Florida or to teach or pursue non-licensed job opportunities throughout the United
States. Other members of the Class reside outside the state of Florida and desire to practice law or
to pursue non-licensed job opportunities throughout the United States. The ABA controls and
dominates both markets, and the ABA’s refusal to accredit Barry has affected both in state and out-of
state markets.
357. The ABA’s denial of accreditation to Barry has damaged Plaintiffs and has
significantly restricted the Plaintiffs in Class I from pursuing further specialty legal education, such
as an L.L.M. degree at a school of their choice and from pursuing non-licensed job opportunities.
This injury is separate and distinct from any injury flowing from the inability to obtain a law license.
The actions of the ABA have injured competition by precluding Plaintiffs in Class I from entering
non-licensed job opportunities, thus reducing competition among legal educators, decreasing quality
and increasing the cost to consumers.
358. The product within these markets is legal services and legal education.
359. The ABA’s actions have caused direct injury to both classes of Plaintiffs. Without
the approval of the ABA, Plaintiffs in Class I may never be able to pursue specialized legal
education, may never be able to teach law at an ABA approved law school, may never be able to
pursue other non-licensed job opportunities, and may never become licensed attorneys and Plaintiffs
in Class II will never be able to employ Plaintiffs in Class I as licensed attorneys.
360. Plaintiffs in Class I have sustained injuries as a result of the ABA’s private actions
with respect to Barry separate and distinct from obtaining a law license. As a result of the ABA’s
arbitrary and capricious anti-competitive actions in withholding accreditation from Barry, Plaintiffs
in Class I have been severely restricted and precluded from obtaining further legal speciality
education such as an L.L.M. degree at a school of their choice and from competing in the legal
education market in non-licensed job opportunities. Precluding Plaintiffs in Class I from pursuing
non-licensed job opportunities injures competition among legal educators by decreasing quality and
driving up the cost of employing legal educators and thus driving up the cost to consumers.
361. The ABA’s actions have injured Plaintiffs in Class I by devaluing the worth of their
Juris Doctorate degrees and thus precluding Plaintiffs from competing in the employment market
outside of the legal profession. The injury decreases quality and drives up the cost for consumers.
362. Plaintiffs have sustained an antitrust injury, which injury coincides with the injury
to the public and to competition, and as such, Plaintiffs interests coincide with the injury to
competition and Plaintiffs will be the most efficient enforcer of the antitrust laws. Consumers who
seek legal representation or who desire to enter law school are unlikely to sue to enforce the antitrust
laws. Law schools are unlikely to sue to enforce antitrust laws out of fear of alienating the ABA.
363. The injury to Plaintiffs is irreparable if the ABA continues to unreasonably withhold
accreditation of Barry and does not grant provisional approval of Barry in the immediate future.
364. Plaintiffs and consumers have suffered significant monetary damages, and will
continue to suffer more damages, if this Court does not intervene.
365. The ABA’s private action in the unreasonable denial of Barry, despite Barry’s
meeting the ABA Standards, has caused each of the Class I Plaintiffs to suffer a stigma. Many of
the Class I Plaintiffs have already experienced the effects of this stigma when attempting to find jobs
as law clerks. This stigma caused by the ABA will follow these students into their professional
careers. Those unaware that Barry has objectively met the ABA standards will assume that Barry
offers an inferior education. This stigma means fewer educational and job opportunities and lower
salaries. This stigma is separate and independent from the ability to be licensed attorneys.
366. Damages suffered by Plaintiffs and Class I and II members are subject to proof at
trial, but exceed $75,000.00.
COUNT I - VIOLATION OF ILLINOIS GENERAL

NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION ACT OF 1986
367. The allegations of paragraphs 1-366 of this Complaint are realleged and incorporated
by reference.
368. The ABA was incorporated in 1992 as an Illinois not for profit corporation.
369. Not for profit corporations incorporated in Illinois are subject to the requirements of

the Illinois Not for Profit Act. See 805 Ill. Comp. Stat. 105/101.01 et seq.
370. The ABA is exempt from federal income taxation as a “business league” under
section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code.
371. The ABA’s Articles of Incorporation on file with the Illinois Secretary of State lists
the Board of Governors as the governing body of the ABA.
372. The Board of Governors acts as the ABA’s Board of Directors.
373. The control and administration of the ABA is vested by its Constitution and Bylaws
in the House.
374. The 37-member Board of Governors acts on behalf of the House when the House is
not in session. The House meets twice each year. The Board of Governors oversees the general
operation of the ABA. The Board of Governors usually meets five times each year.
375. The Board of Governors has a number of standing committees, which made
recommendations to the Board of Governors within the committee’s area of responsibility. Some
of the standing committees include the Executive Committee, Operations and Communications
Committee, Program and Planning Committee, and the Finance Committee.
376. Pursuant to Illinois law, a board of directors of an Illinois not-for-profit corporation,
may create committees, but the majority of the members of such committees must consist of
directors.
377. The Council bylaws provide that “the Section through its Council and subject to the
review of the House of Delegates shall have the power: . . . (b) To receive and process applications
of law schools for provisional or full approval, to grant or deny such applications, and to withdraw,
suspend or terminate approval of law schools. Such decisions concerning the approval of law
schools shall become effective after review by the House of Delegates. (c) With respect to other
matters, to implement policies and resolutions referred to it by the House of Delegates.”
378. The Illinois Not for Profit Act is applicable to all not-for-profit corporations
incorporated within the state of Illinois.
379. Section 108.40 allows an Illinois not-for-profit corporation’s directors to create
committees, but the majority of the committee’s members must be directors.
380. Section 108.40(d) of the Illinois Not for Profit Act provides that the board of directors
of an Illinois not-for-profit corporation “may create and appoint persons to a commission,
advisory body, or other such body which may or may not have directors as members, which body
may not act on behalf of the corporation or bind it to any action but may make
recommendations to the board of directors or to the officers.”
381. The Council is not a committee of the ABA.
382. The Council is an advisory body or other such body which may not act on behalf of
the corporation under Illinois law.
383. Applicable law requires that directors of a not for profit corporation must retain the
authority to make final decisions on behalf of the corporation.
384. Directors of a not for profit corporation may not delegate essential functions of the
corporation to an advisory body which is not answerable to the directors.
385. Accreditation is one of the primary functions of the ABA.
386. The ABA has amended its Rules and Bylaws to remove the House and the Board
from having final authority over the accreditation decisions of the Council.
387. The ABA has amended its Rules and Bylaws to remove the House and the Board
from having final authority over the budget of the Council pertaining to the accreditation of law
schools.
388. Members of the House and Board engaged in ultra vires acts contrary to the Illinois
Not For Profit Act when they amended Rule 6(b)(4), Article I, section 2(b), Article IV, section (b)
and Article X and other policies to give the Council final authority over accreditation decisions.

389. Plaintiffs O’Brien and Payas are members of the ABA and may bring a cause of
action challenging the ABA’s ultra vires act. See 805 Ill. Comp. Stat. 105/103.15(a).
390. Plaintiffs have been harmed by the ABA’s violations of the Illinois Not for Profit Act.
391. Since the ABA has improperly vested binding authority in the Council over law
school accreditation matters, the Plaintiffs in Class II have been injured because they no longer have
any recourse to respond to the Council’s decisions in that the avenue once available for redressing
wrongful acts by a vote of the House is no longer available. Although Plaintiffs in Class II are
members of the ABA, the ABA wrongfully took away from the ABA membership their right under
the Illinois Not for Profit Act to exercise their vote to direct and supervise the actions of the Council
and the Section.
392. The ABA’s attempt to set up the Council as an autonomous body on accreditation
matters within the corporate structure injures Plaintiffs in Class II in many ways, including, but not
limited to:
(a) The ABA has committed illegal acts;
(b) The ABA has insulated the Council’s decisions from the House and thus the
Council can bind, and thus injure, the ABA and the ABA has no recourse to
stop or prevent such injury;
(c) The ABA has set up the Council to be captured once again by a cartel of legal
educators and thus to commit illegal acts, including but not limited to,
antitrust violations, for which the ABA remains ultimately liable;
(d) The ABA has set in motion a process whereby the Council can illegally
approve or disapprove accreditation concerning which the ABA has no
recourse;
(e) The ABA has set in motion a process whereby the Council can operate
independently of the ABA, and thus in a real sense, has divested the ABA of
accreditation matters;
(f) The ABA has set up a process whereby the Council can engage in illegal acts,
over which the House has no veto power, but for which the House delegates
may be held personally liable for criminal and/or civil causes of action and
the ABA may be called on to answer for the Council’s illegal or wrongful
activities;
(g) The members have a real and significant interest in preventing the ABA from
engaging now or in the future in illegal acts which would result in harm to the
corporation and to its members.
393. The injury to Plaintiffs in Class II under this Count is in addition to and distinct from
any antitrust injury.
COUNT II - VIOLATION OF SHERMAN ACT SECTION 1
by reference.
395. The ABA in engaged in interstate commerce.
396. The ABA has restrained trade or commerce among the several states in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
397. The ABA is a conspiracy among its members.
398. The ABA has conspired with the LSAC, the AALS and others in order to price fix
and control the legal market.
399. The ABA has conspired with and entered into an agreement with ABA-approved law
schools in order to price fix and control the legal market.
400. The ABA has imposed unreasonable restraints on trade and competition that has had
a substantially adverse effect on the law school market and on the legal services and education
market.
401. The ABA actions were intended to and have had the effect of restraining trade or
commerce by rasing prices and decreasing supply.
402. Plaintiffs are the targets of the ABA’s unreasonable restraint on trade.
403. The ABA is the only nationally-recognized accrediting institution for law schools.
404. Most states require graduation from an ABA-approved law school in order to practice
law.
405. The ABA controls the relevant geographical and product market is Central Florida
and throughout the United States.
406. The relevant market product is legal education and legal services.
407. The ABA and its Council and other co-conspirators have created an unreasonable
restraint in the ABA accreditation activities that prevents some law schools that meet ABA
accreditation Standards from obtaining ABA approval.
408. The ABA’s exclusion of Plaintiffs from the market was intended to affect prices and
supply withing the legal education and services market.
409. The ABA’s ongoing and anti-competitive conduct is likely to continue unless the
requested relief is granted.
410. The combination and conspiracy consists of an agreement, understanding and concert
of action among the members of the ABA who implement their accreditation program, and other
conspirators, including, but not limited to, ABA-approved law schools, the LSAC and the AALS.
The substantial terms of the combination and conspiracy are to restrain trade and hinder competition
among law schools and professional law school personnel in delivering legal education services, and
to restrain trade and hinder competition among legal educators and attorneys who provide legal
services.
411. The specifically-defined markets which the ABA has targeted in this combination and
conspiracy is the market of legal services and legal education in Central Florida and the United
States.
412. In furtherance of this combination and conspiracy, the ABA and its conspirators have,
among other acts, combined and conspired to:
1. Utilize and apply the ABA law school accreditation Standards in an uneven-
handed and inconsistent manner that results in inconsistent decisions in
otherwise similar cases;
2. Prevent African-American, Hispanic and other minority students from

graduating from an accredited law school so that the graduates are unable to
pursue further specialty legal education, pursue non-licensed job
opportunities by devaluing their Juris Doctorate degrees, and from the
practice of law, thus decreasing quality and increasing cost;
3. Prevent law schools from developing admissions and academic assistance

programs that encourage minority attendance and success;
4. Prevent private religious law schools from obtaining ABA approval for the
purpose of suppressing competition and guaranteeing the successful launch
of state-supported schools;
5. Requiring higher standards of religious and women-run law schools than

those required by other schools, for the purpose of preventing such schools
from obtaining ABA approval;
6. Deny Barry accreditation in order to preserve the market for a state-supported

law school;
7. Boycotting Barry by unreasonably denying provisional accreditation despite

the fact the Barry meets or exceeds the ABA Standards for ABA approval;
8. Agreeing not to deal with Barry by unreasonably denying Barry provisional

approval in an attempt to force Barry and Plaintiffs from the legal market;
and
9. Boycotting and agreeing not to deal with Barry in order to control and shrink
the market of law schools and lawyers in an effort to either preserve the
market for others with whom the ABA chooses to deal or to reduce the
production of lawyers in order to increase and fix prices for law school tuition
and faculty salaries.
413. The combination and conspiracy has had, among others, the following effects:

1. Graduates from Barry are unable to practice law in any state without
obtaining further education, notwithstanding the fact that Barry substantially
complies with, meets or exceeds ABA Standards. See State-By-State
Educational Requirements (Exhibit 1);
2. Students currently enrolled in Barry have no reasonable expectation that the

ABA will begin to stop their conspiratory practices absent court intervention,
and thus they will be in the same position as the present graduates;
3. There are fewer minorities practicing law in the market, thus, the market of
attorneys is impacted;
4. The cost of attending law school is prohibitive to those who desire to attend
a school that encourages minority attendance, because those law schools have
difficulty getting ABA accreditation;
5. Attorneys in the United States cannot hire Barry graduates as associates or as

partners;
6. Graduates from Barry are severely restricted or precluded from pursuing

further legal specialty education such as an L.L.M degree, from pursuing non-
licensed job opportunities, and from utilizing their Juris Doctorate degree;
7. The quality of legal education and the provisions of legal services is

decreased and the cost of legal education and legal services is increased;
8. Competition is injured as consumers are unable to obtain quality legal

education or legal services at below market cost;
9. Graduates of Barry are unable to provide their legal education and legal
services skills to consumers pro bono or at below market cost.
414. One reason for the ABA’s denial was to keep the market closed to Barry in
anticipation of the location of FAMU’s planned state-supported law school in Orlando.
415. The ABA has, through its involvement in the unreasonable restraint, prevented law
school graduates who have graduated or will graduate from Barry, from pursuing further specialty
legal education, from pursuing non-licensed job opportunities, and from being admitted to the bar
of any state and from practicing as attorneys, although Barry meets or exceeds ABA Standards.
416. The Representative Plaintiffs and the rest of the members of Class I, have been

injured by the ABA’s antitrust activities. The injury is to their business or property, in that some
have already taken the Florida Bar Exam, but cannot have their scores revealed until Barry receives
ABA accreditation, and in that some members have suffered the disadvantages and stigma of
attending or graduating from a non-ABA accredited law school, which injury is separate and distinct
from obtaining a law license. Some Class members took the Florida Bar Exam in July 2000, some
in February 2001, and some intend to take the July 2001, Bar Exam. Others intend to take the
Florida Bar Exam at the earliest opportunity.
417. The ABA’s actions have injured the Plaintiffs and has threatened irreparable injury
to Plaintiffs if the ABA continues to unreasonably restrain trade by withholding approval from Barry.
418. Without returning to law school, Class I members are unable to be admitted to the bar
of any state until ABA accreditation of Barry. Other Class members have had to forgo offers of
associate in various law firms and have instead been forced to accept lower paying positions as law
clerks or paralegals or other jobs outside the legal profession. At least one Plaintiff and a Class I
member have been offered partnership in a law firm contingent upon admission to the Florida Bar.
419. Representative Plaintiffs are likely to continue to suffer damage unless this Court puts
an end to the ABA’s antitrust activities.
420. Representative Plaintiffs O’Brien and Payas, and the members of Class II, have been
injured by the ABA’s antitrust activities, in their business or property.
421. Representative Plaintiffs O’Brien and Payas and many other members of Class II have
offered Barry graduates employment as associates contingent upon Bar membership. In fact,
Plaintiff O’Brien would have offered, and still desires to offer a Barry graduate employment as a
partner if that graduate were to become an attorney. Plaintiffs Payas would have offered, and still
desires to offer to Barry graduates employment as attorneys. ABA accreditation of Barry is the only
factor standing in the way of this offer.
422. Other members of Class II would have offered Barry graduates employment as
associates if Barry had been accredited by the ABA. Although some Class II members have
continued to employ Barry graduates in non-attorney positions and thus the graduates research cases,
draft pleadings and do other work typically performed by associates, the Class II members cannot
offer these services to bill their clients.
423. Pursuant to Section 4 of the Clayton Act, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover treble
their damages and their reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred herein.
424. Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive relief is necessary to prevent the continuing
loss or damage to Plaintiffs and Class I and Class II members as a consequence of the ABA’s
violations herein. Plaintiffs, pursuant to15 U.S.C. § 15 are entitled to recover their reasonable
attorneys’ fees incurred herein.
COUNT III - VIOLATION OF SHERMAN ACT SECTION 2
by reference. The allegations of paragraphs 394 - 424 in Count II of this Complaint are also
realleged and incorporated by reference
426. The ABA is a monopoly.
427. The ABA has used predatorial conduct to obtain and/or to maintain its monopoly
power in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 et seq..
COUNT IV - VIOLATION OF FLORIDA ANTITRUST ACT
428. The allegations of paragraphs 1- 366 of this Complaint are realleged and incorporated
by reference. The allegations of paragraphs 393-426 in Count II and Count III of this Complaint are
also realleged and incorporated by reference.
429. The ABA and other conspirators have engaged in continuing a combination and
conspiracy in unreasonable restraint of interstate trade and commerce in violation of the Florida
Antitrust Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 542.18 et seq.
430. Pursuant to Section 542.22 of the Florida Statutes, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover
treble their damages and their reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred herein.
431. Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive relief, available under Section 542.23 of the
Florida Statutes, is necessary to prevent the continuing loss or damage to Plaintiffs and Class I and
Class II members as a consequence of the ABA’s violations herein.
432. The ABA’s ongoing and anti-competitive conduct is likely to continue unless the
requested relief is granted.
COUNT V - VIOLATION OF ABA CONSTITUTION AND RULES
by reference.
434. Plaintiffs O’Brien and Payas, voting members of the ABA, have standing to challenge
the ABA’s violations of the ABA Constitution, Rules, Bylaws and procedures.
435. The ABA’s amendments to the ABA Rules of Procedure of the House of Delegates
under Article 45.9, Article I, Sections 2(a) and 2(b), Article IV, Section (b) and Article X of the
Section Bylaws the Section Bylaws, and Rule 6(a), which divested the House of Delegates from
exercising veto supervision, control and veto power over the Section with respect to law school
accreditation and the Accreditation of Law Schools Project budget violate the ABA Constitution
under Article 6.1, which requires the House to supervise and direct the Section.
436. The ABA has violated the ABA Constitution, various Rules, Bylaws and Procedures
by making the Council the final authority on accreditation of law schools.
437. The ABA has violated various Rules, Bylaws and Procedures by treating Barry and
Barry students and graduates in an arbitrary and capricious manner due to the inconsistent
application of the Rules.
438. The ABA has violated various Rules, Bylaws and Procedures by allowing Council
members to vote on accreditation matters regardless of any conflicts of interests or personal agenda
the Council members may have against a law school.

439. The ABA’s violation of its Rules is neither substantively rational nor procedurally
fair.
440. The ABA has violated its fiduciary duties by breaching its Rules and procedures.
441. In Rule 5(b) the ABA agreed to review recommendations for denial by the
Accreditation Committee de novo and in Rule 5(a) the ABA agreed to review recommendations for
approval by the Accreditation Committee by giving deference to the recommendation.
442. The ABA reviewed Barry’s favorable recommendation for approval by the
Accreditation Committee de novo and reversed the recommendation, thereby denying Barry
approval. The ABA has breached its owns Rules and procedures by violating Rule 5 and engaging
in a de novo review of Barry’s favorable recommendation for approval.
443. The ABA’s breach has caused injury and resulted in damages.
444. The ABA’s act of reviewing de novo Barry’s favorable recommendation by the
Accreditation Committee is illegal and ultra vires.
445. Since the ABA has improperly vested binding authority in the Council over law
school accreditation matters, the Plaintiffs in Class II have been injured because they no longer have
any recourse to respond to the Council’s decisions in that the avenue once available of redressing
wrongful acts by a vote of the House is no longer available. Although Plaintiffs in Class II are
members of the ABA, the ABA wrongfully took away from the ABA membership their right under
Article 6.1 of the ABA Constitution to exercise their vote to direct and supervise the actions of the
Council and the Section.
446. The ABA’s attempt to set up the Council as an autonomous body on accreditation
matters within the corporate structure injures Plaintiffs in Class II in many ways, including, but not
limited to:
(a) The ABA has committed illegal acts;
(b) The ABA has insulated the Council’s decisions from the House and thus the
Council can bind, and thus injure, the ABA and the ABA has no recourse to
stop or prevent such injury;
(c) The ABA has set up the Council to be captured once again by a cartel of legal
educators and thus to commit illegal acts, including but not limited to,
antitrust violations, for which the ABA remains ultimately liable;
(d) The ABA has set in motion a process whereby the Council can illegally
approve or disapprove accreditation concerning which the ABA has no
recourse;
(e) The ABA has set in motion a process whereby the Council can operate
independently of the ABA, and thus in a real sense, has divested the ABA of
accreditation matters;
(f) The ABA has set up a process whereby the Council can engage in illegal acts,
over which the House has no veto power, but for which the House delegates
may be held personally liable for criminal and/or civil causes of action and
the ABA may be called on to answer for the Council’s illegal or wrongful
activities;
(g) The members have a real and significant interest in preventing the ABA from
engaging now or in the future in illegal acts which would result in harm to the
corporation and to its members.
447. The injury to Plaintiffs in Class II under this Count is in addition to and distinct from
any antitrust injury.
REQUESTED RELIEF
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, respectfully request relief
against the ABA as follows:
(A) For an order certifying the proposed Class I, consisting of Barry graduates and

students, together with any necessary or appropriate subclasses, under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and appointing the Representative Plaintiffs and
their counsel of record to represent Class I;
(B) For an order certifying the proposed Class II, consisting of attorneys who have hired
Barry graduates, and members of the ABA, together with any necessary or
appropriate subclasses, under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
appointing Representative Plaintiffs O’Brien and Payas and their counsel of record
to represent Class II;
(C) For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, enjoining the ABA and other
conspirators from engaging in further violations of the Sherman Act, the Florida
Antitrust Act of 1980, Section 108.40 of the Illinois Not for Profit Act; ABA Rules
and Article 6.1 of the ABA Constitution;
(D) For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, restraining the ABA from:
(1) unreasonably restraining trade affecting Barry and the Plaintiffs;
(2) boycotting Barry and the Plaintiffs, applying its Standards and Rules in a manner
than results in anti-competitive considerations, motives or pursuits;
(3) agreeing and conspiring not to deal with Barry and Plaintiffs;
(3) acting ultra vires by thus requiring the ABA to obey the Illinois Not for Profit Act
and exercise veto power over the Council’s accreditation decisions and accreditation
budget;
(4) violating Rule 5(a) by thus requiring the Council to give deference to the
Accreditation Committees’ favorable recommendation and thereby to approve Barry;
(5) violating Article 6.1 of the ABA Constitution;
(E) For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, requiring the ABA:
(1) To require the House to direct and supervise the Council and to exercise authority
over the Council’s decisions with respect to law school accreditation by reviewing
the Council’s decisions and by exercising veto power over the Council’s decisions;
(2) To require the Council to review the favorable Accreditation Committee Report
with deference pursuant to Rule 5(a) and to grant provisional approval to Barry,
which meeting shall occur at the earliest possible time;
(3) To require the House to exercise full authority over the Council whereby the

House exercises authority to veto the Council’s decision and to accord deference
pursuant to Rule 5(a) to the favorable recommendation by the Accreditation
Committee Council, which meeting shall occur at it annual meeting on August 7-8,
2001, or at a special meeting called at the earliest possible time
(F) For an order awarding Representative Plaintiffs treble damages to Representative

Plaintiffs and the Class I members for their lost salaries, to Representative Plaintiffs
O’Brien and Payas and the Class II members for their lost billing, and that both Class
I and Class II members be awarded their additional general, consequential, incidental
or special damages according to proof, together with interest thereon at the legal rate;
(G) for an order awarding the Plaintiff and their counsel their reasonable attorneys’ fees
incurred herein and costs associated with bringing this litigation;
(H) for such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper under the
circumstances.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by
U.S. Mail, First Class delivery, this _______ day of September, 2001, to: David Pritikin, Esq., Anne
E. Rea, Esq. and Michael P. Doss, Esq., Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood, Bank One Plaza, 10 South
Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60603; David B. King, Esq., Mayanne Downs, Esq., and Thomas
A. Zehnder, Esq., King, Blackwell & Downs, P.A., 25 East Pine Street, Orlando, Florida 32802.
______________________________
Larry Crain Mathew D. Staver
TN Bar No. 9040 Florida Bar No. 0701092
BRENTWOOD LAW OFFICE Erik W. Stanley
5214 Maryland Way Florida Bar No. 0183504
Suite 402 LIBERTY COUNSEL
Brentwood, TN 37027 210 East Palmetto Avenue
(615) 376-2600 - Telephone Longwood, FL 32750
(615) 345-6009 - Telefacsimile (407) 875-2100 - Telephone
(407) 875-0770 - Telefacsimile
Attorneys for Individual and Representative Plaintiffs

Complaint 2 Amended

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint 2 Amended

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ANITA L. STAVER, SCOTT BLAUE, )

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

BLAUE, CESERY L. BULLARD, TERRY COVERT, DARYLAINE HERNANDEZ, TIMMY

MCCLAIN, STEPHANIE PAPOULIS and SHANNON KEITH TURNER, (hereinafter

“Representative Plaintiffs”), MICHAEL M. O’BRIEN and ARMANDO R. PAYAS (hereinafter

“Representative Plaintiffs O’Brien and Payas”) (collectively referred to hereinafter as “Plaintiffs”),

show unto the Court as follows:

Second Amended Complaint - Page 1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Comp. Stat. 105/101.01 et seq.

the 15 U.S.C. § 4 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

5. This Court is authorized to award damages, including a reasonable attorney’s fee

under 15 U.S.C. § 15 and Fla. Stat. Ann. § 542.22.

Second Amended Complaint - Page 2

controversy in this action exceeds $75,000.00.

have withdrawn until Barry receives accreditation.

professional trade association.

of business in Chicago, Illinois.

outside the State of Florida.

Second Amended Complaint - Page 3

direction, control, or transaction of its business or affairs.

further the agreement.

involve or affect the flow of, interstate commerce.

of Markey & Fowler, P.A.

Ahlers, Sikes & Bonus.

clerk by Dennis Savagio, P.A.

the law firm of Best & Anderson, P.A.

students and graduates of Barry.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

American Bar Association who employ or wish to employ graduates of Barry.

satisfying the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, superiority, and impairment

Second Amended Complaint - Page 6

(5) whether the ABA should be required to grant provisional

(7) whether members of Class I and Class II have sustained damages as

Second Amended Complaint - Page 7

Orlando, Florida, that does not have ABA accreditation.

founded by and continually administered by women.

minorities. Thirty-seven percent of Barry students are minorities.

Association of Colleges and Schools.

Second Amended Complaint - Page 8

Accreditation Committee recommends against provisional accreditation.

recommendation, and denied Barry accreditation.

anti-competitive concerns with regards to other competing law schools.

Department of Education (hereafter “DOE”).

pro bono or at below market prices.

bono legal representation.

Educational Requirements, (Exhibit 1).

The History and Structure of the ABA

ABA is vested in the House, which consists of 532 members.

the general operation of the ABA.

operation of law schools, including admissions, educational requirements, faculty, placement

programs, funding and facilities.

school approval standard-setting and law school approval process.

56. Since 1921, the ABA has accredited law schools.

1893 as the ABA’s first section (hereafter “Section”).

approval of the Board of Governors or the House of Delegates.

61. The Council established the Accreditation Committee to recommend provisional or

against approving the school’s application for accreditation.

66. If the Accreditation Committee recommends denial of accreditation, Rule 5(b)

requires the Council to review the school’s application de novo.

67. If the Accreditation Committee recommends approval of a school, there is no