Florida Courts Will Not Substitute Their Judgment for That of the American Bar Association
December 20, 2007
Michelle Bedoya Barnett- Jacksonville
In Landon Williams v. American Bar Association (ABA) and Law School Admission Council (LSAC), a suit was filed against the ABA and the LSAC alleging deceptive practices (under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act), fraud and negligent accreditation of a law school. The plaintiff was a frustrated law student who performed poorly and filed suit against the ABA and LSAC claiming that it was their fault that he had failed out of law school. Although the case was presented as a fraud case, the allegations centered around whether or not the ABA can be held liable for negligently accrediting a law school.
Among the plaintiff’s allegations were that the library space, library books and facilities as listed in the ABA-LSAC Official Guide to Law Schools were misrepresented to him. The law school underwent renovations during the plaintiff’s second semester, and he asserted that the ABA should have advised him that the school would be undergoing these renovations before he matriculated. The plaintiff claimed “extreme academic hardship” as a result of the inadequate facilities and that his grades were “clearly and irreparably” harmed by the ABA’s failure to disclose that the school “would” make these changes.
On the defendants’ motions to dismiss, the court dismissed the case with prejudice, thus precluding the plaintiff from pursuing these claims any further. With regard to the issue of negligent accreditation, the court refused to extend the concept of negligent retention or negligent hiring (which has been recognized as a cause of action in Florida in the employment context) to the educational accreditation arena. In formulating its decision, the court heavily relied on Staver v. American Bar Association, 169 F.Supp.2d 372, 1374 (M.D. Fla. 2001), in which the district court declined to decide whether the ABA had acted properly in refusing to grant provisional accreditation to a law school. Refusing to second-guess the ABA, the court reasoned that it should not “substitute its judgment for that of the ABA.”
This lawsuit had not come as a surprise to the ABA. One year earlier, the same plaintiff had filed the identical lawsuit, but it was filed in federal court and included a Section 1981 claim. At that time, the plaintiff alleged that because the law school was part of a historically black university, the school had not been held to the same standards as other law schools. The plaintiff further claimed that because the ABA had accredited a law school that was substandard, his reliance on the ABA’s accreditation of the law school had interfered with his ability to contract with other law schools that met ABA standards. In that action, the plaintiff’s Section 1981 claim was dismissed by the court and the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, thus dismissing the case in its entirety. Relentless, the plaintiff re-filed his case (without the Section 1981 claim) in state court. Following removal to federal court on diversity jurisdiction, plaintiff’s claims were again dismissed (as discussed above), this time, with prejudice.
For more information, email Michelle Bedoya at michelle.bedoya@hklaw.com or call toll free, 1-888-688-8500.