|
STUDENT DISCIPLINARY CODE
Preamble
Students at the Georgetown University Law Center, as present and future members of a self-regulated profession, are required to conduct themselves with the highest degree of honesty, integrity and trustworthiness. Doubts about the propriety of particular conduct should be resolved in favor of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. Each matriculating student is held to have notice of the high standard of conduct demanded by the Law Center. A student’s failure to satisfy this standard of conduct in connection with academic or nonacademic activities subjects the student to sanctions under this disciplinary code. Jurisdiction is not limited to the territorial limits of the Law Center or to conduct which affects other members of the Law Center community. Allegations of minor misconduct are processed under the informal provisions of the Code governing administrative violations. Allegations of more serious misconduct, involving a degree of moral offensiveness or untrustworthiness that may call into question a student’s suitability for the practice of law, are processed under the more formal provisions of the Code governing disciplinary violations. The Code is administered by a student-faculty disciplinary committee that is guided in its interpretation and implementation by the Code’s overriding purpose of promoting among law students the highest degree of honesty, integrity and trustworthiness. If special circumstances so require, the Law Center may override the provisions of this Code.
Please refer to the NOTICE TO THE LAW CENTER COMMUNITY REGARDING DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING LAW CENTER STUDENTS AS BOTH ACCUSER AND ACCUSED (APRIL 5, 2006, AS AMENDED, AUGUST 24TH)
Part One: Substantive Violations
§101 STANDARD OF CONDUCT
Without regard to motive, intentional student conduct that is dishonest, evidences lack of integrity or trustworthiness, or may unfairly impinge upon the rights or privileges of members of the Law Center Community is prohibited.[1]
§102 ADMINISTRATIVE VIOLATIONS
Prohibited conduct that does not evidence a serious lack of honesty, integrity or trustworthiness on the part of the student engaged in such conduct constitutes an administrative violation, but does not constitute a disciplinary violation.
§103 DISCIPLINARY VIOLATIONS
Prohibited conduct that does evidence a serious lack of honesty, integrity or trustworthiness on the part of the student engaged in such conduct constitutes a disciplinary violation.
Part Two: Procedures
§201 GENERAL
The Professional Responsibility Committee shall oversee operation of the Student Disciplinary Code. It will be composed of faculty and students. The Registrar, Ethics Counsel and those faculty members who are assigned as defense counsel will be members ex officio. The Committee Chair will be responsible for creating panels from the faculty and student members of the committee to hear disciplinary charges. Each panel shall consist of two faculty members and one student; panels are authorized to act by majority vote.
The Ethics Counsel will be a member of the bar and an employee of the University, appointed by the Dean. The Ethics Counsel will investigate and resolve all administrative charges, and prosecute all disciplinary charges. In every case, the Ethics Counsel will act in accordance with fairness to the accused student, the need for accurate and prompt resolution of complaints, and the imperative for high standards of honesty by Law Center students. The Ethics Counsel is authorized to act on information received from any source, including a student seeking advice. The Ethics Counsel shall administer his or her duties with careful regard for the educative value of the Code and the rights of students.
All students formally charged with violating the Student Disciplinary Code or questioned by Ethics Counsel in the course of an investigation of a complaint, shall have a right to counsel. Upon request, after the right attaches, counsel will be appointed for the student by the Committee Chair from a list of faculty prepared to be defense counsel maintained by the Chair. The student may also be represented by any other full time faculty member who agrees to do so on a pro bono basis. The student also retains the right to retain outside counsel of the student’s own choice and at the student’s own expense.
§202 COMPLAINTS
Complaints regarding student conduct may be made by any member of the Law Center community. They should be directed to the Ethics Counsel and may be in writing or oral. The Ethics Counsel will decide whether the allegations should be processed as potential administrative or disciplinary charges. In close cases, before a final charging decision is made, the Ethics Counsel is encouraged to consult with the Committee Chair. The Ethics Counsel may not add charges unrelated to the allegations in a complaint without the approval of the Chair. All complaints of student misconduct shall be investigated promptly by the Ethics Counsel.
§203 ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES
If a complaint alleges administrative violations, the Ethics Counsel has the authority to dismiss the complaint or to bring and adjudicate administrative charges. If the Ethics Counsel elects to dismiss a complaint that alleges administrative violations, notice of the filing and disposition shall be given to the student named in the complaint. Administrative charges shall be in writing and filed with the Registrar who shall provide the student with a copy of the charges. Before finding an administrative violation, the Ethics Counsel must provide the student with notice of the charges and a fair opportunity informally to explain or defend his or her conduct. In the course of the investigation of the alleged administrative violation, if the Ethics Counsel wishes to speak to the student before deciding to proceed with administrative charges, the student must be advised of the right to counsel. The right to counsel otherwise attaches when the administrative charges are filed.
The Ethics Counsel shall provide a written report to the Associate Dean for the J.D. or Graduate Programs, as appropriate, explaining the disposition of each administrative complaint. Such reports do not become part of any official student record, nor do they fall within the scope of outside requests for disciplinary information about particular students.[2]
§204 DISCIPLINARY CHARGES
If a complaint alleges disciplinary violations, the Ethics Counsel may dismiss the complaint or bring disciplinary charges. If disciplinary charges are brought, the Ethics Counsel may reach an agreed disposition with the student, or prosecute the charges before a hearing panel. If, in the course of the investigation, the Ethics Counsel wishes to speak to the student before deciding whether to bring charges, the student must first be advised of the right to counsel.
If the Ethics Counsel brings disciplinary charges they shall be in writing and filed with the Registrar who shall provide the charged student with a copy of the charges. The right to counsel, if it has not attached pursuant to §204(a), attaches when the charges are filed.
If the Ethics Counsel dismisses the complaint, the Ethics Counsel shall notify the student and submit a brief written report to the Committee Chair and responsible Associate Dean, describing the complaint and the reason for the dismissal.
The Ethics Counsel and the charged student may agree to a disposition of the charges. Such a disposition must be in writing and submitted to the Committee Chair for approval. The Ethics Counsel shall report approved dispositions to the responsible Associate Dean. In cases in which the Committee Chair rejects the disposition, the matter shall be referred to a hearing panel.
If the charge or charges are referred to a hearing panel, the student may plead guilty, not guilty or no contest. Regardless of the plea entered, the panel must conduct a fair hearing and decide the charges only upon the evidence or stipulated facts that are presented. However, formal rules of evidence will not apply and procedural irregularities should be considered only when they result in actual prejudice.[3] The hearing panel may acquit the student, or find the student guilty of a disciplinary or administrative violation and impose an appropriate sanction or sanctions. If the charges are contested, the hearing panel may convict only upon clear and convincing evidence of a violation. The hearing panel should submit to the Committee Chair and responsible Associate Dean a brief written report explaining its disposition. Convictions and approved dispositions of disciplinary charges normally become part of the student’s official record. Disciplinary charges resulting in acquittals should not appear in a student’s official record.
Part Three: Appeals
§301 GENERAL
Only appeals from final dispositions are permitted. No appeals from agreed dispositions approved by the Committee Chair are permitted.
§302 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS
Within 15 calendar days of the Ethics Counsel’s finding of an administrative violation, a student may appeal to the Committee Chair by submitting a written notice of appeal to the Registrar. The written notice of appeal should conform to the requirements of §304. An appeal may be taken only on the grounds that the penalty is disproportionately severe to those imposed on other students for similar conduct. No further review of administrative sanctions is authorized.
§303 DISCIPLINARY APPEALS
Within 15 calendar days after a hearing panel decides a disciplinary charge, either party may appeal to the full Professional Responsibility Committee by submitting a written notice of appeal to the Registrar. The written notice should conform to the requirements of §304. The only grounds for appeal are a serious misreading of the Student Disciplinary Code, gross insufficiency of the evidence, or a gross impropriety that tainted the proceedings.
§304 PROCEDURE FOR FILING AN APPEAL
The only written document that will be required for all appeals will be a written notice indicating the date the appeal is filed with the Registrar, the ruling being appealed, the Disciplinary Code authority for the appeal and the entity or person to whom the appeal is taken. The Registrar shall notify the parties, the Committee Chair and the reviewing entity of the pendency of the appeal. Administrative appeals shall be presented orally. Disciplinary appeals may be presented orally but written presentations should be used by counsel to the extent practicable or as directed by the Committee. Appeals shall be heard as promptly as possible consistent with protecting the rights of the charged student.
§305 ADVISORY OPINIONS
If the Ethics Counsel or the chairperson is uncertain whether charged conduct, if proven, constitutes a serious offense, he or she may ask for an advisory opinion from the full committee. The ex parte ruling shall control the charging process and the track determination.
Part Four: Sanctions
§401 GENERAL
Sanctions shall be appropriate to the nature and severity of the violations to which they attach.[4] When possible, sanctions should seek to educate the student about the nature and importance of honesty and mutual respect. Community service may constitute all or part of any sanction.
§402 ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS
The Ethics Counsel may establish, in consultation with the Associate Deans, schedules of grade reductions and/or community service for administrative violations other than late submission of take-home exams. Late submissions of take-home exams are dealt with outside the provisions of the Disciplinary Code and are subject to the following penalty scale: Take-home exams that are submitted from 6 to 15 minutes late will receive a one-step grade reduction (e.g., from A to A-); exams submitted 16 to 30 minutes late will receive a two-step reduction (e.g., from A to B+); exams submitted 31 to 45 minutes late will receive a three-step reduction (e.g., from A to B); exams submitted 46 to 60 minutes late will receive a four-step reduction (e.g., from A to B-); if an exam is submitted over 60 minutes late the student will receive a D in the course if the instructor determines that the exam is entitled to a passing grade. Under this scale, there is a five minute grace period, and the maximum reduction for any late exam that receives a passing grade will be a D. There will be no deviation from this scale except in the case of bona fide, documented medical or other emergencies to be determined by the Dean or delegated Associate Dean.
§403 DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS
Any appropriate sanction may be imposed for a disciplinary violation, including expulsion, suspension, failing grades, and transcript notation.
Part Five: Confidentiality and Reporting
§501 CONFIDENTIALITY
Confidentiality shall be maintained with respect to all proceedings under this Code, except that students charged with disciplinary violations have a right to a public hearing if they so desire.
§502 CENTRAL REPORTING
Notwithstanding the requirement of confidentiality, convictions involving suspension or expulsion may, to the extent permitted by law, be reported to a central collection service such as the Law School Data Assembly Service for use by other schools.
§503 PUBLICATION
The disciplinary committee shall publicize, without identifying details, the results of its disciplinary proceedings. In addition, each year the disciplinary committee shall publish, in summary form and without identifying details, a report disclosing the number of cases handled during the previous year, and the nature and disposition of each case. Copies of annual reports issued by the committee shall be available for inspection by students in the Office of the Registrar.
Notice to Law Center Community Regarding Certain Disciplinary Proceedings Involving Law Center Students as Both Accuser and Accused (April 5, 2006, as amended, August 24, 2007)
The “Clery Act,” 20 U.S.C. § 1092f, the Department of Education (DOE) regulations promulgated thereunder, 34 C.F.R. § 668.46, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., as interpreted by DOE’s Office of Civil Rights, require the University to implement particular procedures in certain disciplinary proceedings. In order to ensure compliance with the law and fair and responsive processes, the Law Center hereby directs the following:
In all disciplinary cases involving alleged conduct within the scope of the Clery Act or that implicate Title IX , in which both the accuser and accused are Law Center students, the following procedures shall be implemented:
When a Law Center student presents allegations against another Law Center student to the Ethics Counsel for investigation, the Ethics Counsel may direct that both the accused and the accuser refrain from contact with the other, either directly or indirectly, during the pendency of the disciplinary investigation and any proceeding initiated based upon the allegations.
Both the accuser and the accused shall be entitled to faculty counsel appointed by the Chair of the Professional Responsibility Committee at no expense and both accuser and accused shall have the right to have their appointed faculty counsel present at the disciplinary hearing.
The disciplinary hearing shall be confidential unless the accuser and the accused agree that the hearing shall be open to the public.
The Law Center acting through the Associate Dean for Academic Administration, upon request of the accuser or accused, will change the student’s academic and/or University-controlled living conditions, if the changes are deemed to be reasonable. The Ethics Counsel may request such changes be made by the Associate Dean on behalf of the student, if such a request has not been made by the student directly.
Both the accuser and the accused shall be informed of the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding, including any sanctions imposed, to the extent required by the Clery Act and/or Title IX.
Ethics Counsel must notify the accused of the existence of the complaint within 30 days of the complaint being made to Ethics Counsel. Ethics Counsel must file charges or dismiss the matter within 30 days of notice to the accused of the complaint. The hearing panel must conduct its hearing within 45 days of the filing of charges and render its report within 45 days of the conclusion of the hearing. Any appeal must be resolved within 45 days after all briefs have been filed or after oral argument is concluded, whichever occurs later. These time limits are not jurisdictional and may be extended for good cause shown by the Chair of the Professional Responsibility Committee.
In adjudicating allegations of sexual harassment, including allegations of any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, the standard of proof to be applied by the hearing panel under § 204(e) of the Code shall be a preponderance of the evidence standard.
To the extent that any of these provisions is inconsistent with provisions of the Student Disciplinary Code, the Code is hereby overridden, as authorized by the Code “if special circumstances so require.” These superseding provisions shall take effect immediately and apply to all disciplinary proceedings pending at this time or arising thereafter, regardless of when the underlying conduct occurred. This announcement shall be distributed to the Law Center Community and included in the next published Bulletin.
Appendix: Plagiarism
Every law student must grasp the overriding importance of scrupulous honesty in the study and practice of law. In the presentation of written work, such honesty is the soul of academic integrity and, for the lawyer, at the heart of credible and effective assistance of counsel. The damage to reputation (and to a cause) which springs from deceit in the presentation of ideas will commonly prove both devastating and enduring. One becomes known as untruthful, or at least untrustworthy, and in either case careless of the rights of others. These are contingencies devoutly to be avoided.
This notion of deceit is not easily translated into an all-inclusive description of plagiarism. The Law Center, therefore, has not attempted a definition so meticulously crafted as to be worthy of inclusion in a criminal code. But surely some central propositions are declarable, and understandable, and no student can fail to be aware of the broad thrust of the notion that the work of others must never be claimed as one’s own.
Here are several of those propositions. The use of another’s work typically takes the form of either a direct quotation, where the other author’s exact words are used, or a paraphrasing, where the true author’s ideas or language are recast in the words of the borrower. Both these forms require that he or she who thus uses the work of another person give adequate credit to that person. Perhaps as important as the fact that the credit is given is the manner in which it is given. Where exact words are used, they must be designated as a quotation (quotation marks or indentation) and footnoted in the obligatory form, identifying source and precise page of location. Similar attribution is called for in the use of charts, tables, diagrams, and like presentations of rather more visual evidence, when originated by someone else. Paraphrasing too demands that the paraphraser candidly and fully account for the derivation of that which the paraphraser has reworded. As a general proposition, prolonged paraphrasing is to be discouraged, but when lengthy paraphrasing does occur the true source is not sufficiently cited when it is cited only at the end, and generally. The rule should rather be that each discrete subportion of the material thus used receive its own recognition, in quite precise form, including page citation.
Of course, matters of general knowledge, and terms so commonly employed as to have entered the public domain need not be footnoted [5], just as this brief essay does not footnote the widely recognized truths appearing in the foregoing lines. But we strongly agree that, in any case involving the slightest doubt, you will be better served to grant rather than to withhold recognition of your dependency on the work of another.
Attributions that are arguably unnecessary in these marginal instances will at the very least direct the reader to material which could be useful, and so advance the possibility for learning.
Finally, note that plagiarism can be said to have occurred without any affirmative showing that the student’s use of another’s work was intentional. Intent is presumed in any disciplinary case where the source of the material is both plain and unattributed. It will be for the affected student to demonstrate that the copying or restatement was, in any such case, innocent.
Forewarned is forearmed (no citation needed).
ENDNOTES
[1] The fact that conduct is negligent or motivated by a benign purpose does not preclude that conduct from being intentional, as long as the student intended the act upon which the charge is based. Unintentional acts that nevertheless result in unfairness do not come within the scope of this Code but, rather, are handled by the Dean and the Law Center administration. Nonexhaustive examples of prohibited conduct include: plagiarism (see Appendix: Plagiarism), cheating or assisting another student to cheat in connection with an examination or assignment; unauthorized breach of anonymity in connection with a blind-graded examination; possession or use of unauthorized materials in connection with an examination or assignment; failure to follow the instructions given for an examination or assignment, such as unauthorized communication with other students, possession or use of unauthorized material, or failure to stop work at the prescribed time; receiving, providing, requesting or offering to provide unauthorized information concerning a deferred examination or assignment; unauthorized use of another student’s work; unauthorized use of a student’s own work for multiple purposes; unauthorized use, concealment or removal of library books or other University property; and neglect or abuse with respect to a clinic client.
Prohibited conduct also includes: misrepresentation in connection with an application for admission to the Law Center or for financial aid; misrepresentation in connection with a Law Center course, assignment, or competition; and misrepresentation on a transcript, or in connection with an application for employment or bar admission. Misrepresentation includes submitting a resume which lists journal membership without specifying a date of termination, if the student or graduate resigned or was suspended from the journal. The Code prohibits the use, transfer, possession and/or sale of illegal drugs on campus. In addition, conduct that may be independently illegal, for example, theft, destruction or mutilation of property, assault, sexual harassment, and sexual assault, is also prohibited by the Code to the extent that it interferes with the rights and privileges of the members of the Law Center community or it calls into question the student’s suitability to the practice of law.
The Code also prohibits unauthorized refusal to cooperate with the disciplinary committee; failure to maintain required confidentiality in connection with administrative or disciplinary proceedings; failure to comply with an administrative or disciplinary sanction; and attempting or conspiring to commit an act prohibited by the Code. The examples are provided by way of illustration only. Whether or not particular conduct is prohibited is determined by the standard of conduct imposed under §101, not by whether it falls within the scope of the foregoing nonexhaustive examples.
[2] The Law Center does not have complete control over what information will be called for by bar admission’s character committees and others outside the institution. The Law Center will, however, consistent with its obligation for candor, seek to prevent administrative violations from becoming a permanent stain on a student’s record.
[3] Charged students shall be accorded the basic components of procedural fairness, including a copy of the complaint, advance notice of the identities of adverse witnesses, the right to present relevant evidence, the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses, the right to forego a hearing by admitting guilt, the right to admit guilt but nevertheless appeal jurisdiction or sanction, the right to request a particular sanction, and the right to place in the record the student’s own comment on committee action.
[4] A nonexhaustive list of authorized sanctions, in order of increasing severity includes: warning; reprimand; probation, with or without conditions such as counseling; additional work such as writing extra papers, or accumulating extra credits in order to graduate; grade or credit reduction; imposition of a failing grade; suspension with or without automatic reinstatement; expulsion; and withdrawal of a degree. Administrative and disciplinary officials are encouraged to formulate additional sanctions appropriate to particular violations. When authorized, a transcript notation may be required to satisfy the Law Center’s obligation of candor to those outside the Law Center community. Accordingly, a transcript notation can accompany both mild and severe sanctions, or it can be imposed as a sanction in and of itself.
[5] See Comment, Plagiarism in Legal Scholarship, 15 Toledo L.
Rev. 233, 235 n. 12 (1983).
|
