Court Backs St. John’s Law Revocation Of Admission To Student Who Completed Three Semesters

 The New York Court of Appeals has held that St. John’s University School of Law did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in revoking the admission of a law student.

This proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenges a determination of St. John’s University School of Law to rescind petitioner David Powers’s admission, after he had completed three semesters of law school as a part-time student, based on material misrepresentations and omissions in his application regarding his criminal history. We agree with the Appellate Division that this determination “was not arbitrary and capricious, and does not warrant judicial intervention”

The court

The law school’s treatment of Powers was rational insofar as it was not wholly inconsistent with the school’s approach to rescission of admission in general. The law school states that while it routinely receives, and often grants, requests from enrolled students to amend the criminal history sections of their applications, such amendments usually involve minor offenses such as open container or traffic violations, or small quantity marijuana possession. Amendments are by no means guaranteed – -the law school states that on at least two occasions, when the information contained in the subsequent disclosure would have prevented the individual from being considered for admission, the students’ admission was rescinded.

The law school avers that it has an unwritten policy of not admitting people who sell drugs and that if Powers had disclosed on his application that his arrest was for the distribution of LSD to an undercover officer and possession with intent to distribute, his application would have been denied  initial screening process. The school explains that it generally distinguishes between applicants with a history of personal drug use, and those with a history of drug dealing – – the former can be accepted under certain circumstances, but the latter are not. That is not an irrational policy and certainly within the exercise of the law school’s honest discretion.

Associate Judge Pigott dissented on both the “school policy” issue and sanction

David Powers has accomplished a significant amount since his (now expunged) conviction. After successfully completing an in-house drug treatment program, he graduated summa cum laude with a Bachelor of Science degree in accounting and obtained a Masters in Science degree in taxation. He is currently a certified public accountant at a well-recognized accounting firm, which hired Powers notwithstanding his prior conviction. St. John’s University School of Law is apparently not as forgiving.

I respectfully dissent because, in my view, St. John’s failed to demonstrate with admissible proof  that Powers had been convicted of a “distribution” offense as opposed to a personal use offense (which is what Powers led the school to infer on his application), it would have denied his admission…

 I also disagree with the imposition of this particular penalty — rescission of Powers’s three semesters worth of credit. Ironically, the only reason the nature of Powers’s conviction was disclosed was because Powers requested a letter from St. John’s in support of his application for an advanced ruling from the Appellate Division concerning whether he would be admitted to the New York bar in light of his prior conviction, thereby demonstrating his clear goal of becoming an attorney.

Given that Powers had obtained three semesters worth of credit and presumably paid tuition to attend, rescission of Powers’s application is, in my view, too harsh a penalty for the alleged infraction.

(Mike Frisch)