Top Law Schools

Does it mean actually disciplined or does it mean formally charged with misconduct?

Question 15: With respect to each school or institution of higher learning you identified in answer to question No. 14, have you ever been dropped, placed on probation, suspended, disciplined, expelled, dismissed, or *subject to discipline* for violation of any school policy, including but not limited to code of conduct or honor code violations or, for any reason, including scholastic or moral?

versus

Question 6.3: Have you ever been accused or investigated, or are you currently under investigation, for improper conduct or alleged cheating on a standardized test?

Could a school read it broadly to report a charge of misconduct if it wanted to?

Standard disclaimer: Not a C&F attorney, not your attorney, not legal advice. The best thing is to consult a C&F attorney in your jurisdiction of interest.

It seems to me that the two questions are very distinct. 6.3 only applies to misconduct related to standardized tests (i.e., the SAT, LSAT, MPRE, bar exam). 15 doesn't really apply to standardized tests at all; rather, it applies to academic misconduct.

"Subject to discipline" typically means that the subject has been found guilty and could potentially be disciplined as a result. In some cases, there may be mitigating circumstances that lead to no formal discipline being imposed. 15's use of the phrase appears to me to reflect the drafters' intent to sweep in such cases of "guilt without [formal] punishment."

I think also it's a way to include all other kinds of possible discipline that aren't expulsion etc. (like getting lower grade, having some kind of punitive assignment imposed, etc) without having to be comprehensive.

I think if you were charged and not found to have violated, it would not count (you weren't, ultimately, subject to discipline for the violation if you were found not to have violated). If you were charged with misconduct and found to have violated whatever school policy, it would count.