Admissions chances with a Title IX suspension Forum

[Tjam123]

3.8 GPA, 168 LSAT, competitive NESCAC undergrad, looking to apply next cycle

Lots of work/volunteer experience, couple leadership positions, good recs

In 2017 I was found responsible for sexual misconduct that allegedly occured on campus in 2015. I was suspended for one year/ two semesters. For what it's worth, I think I got screwed in the whole thing.

The law school counselor at my university is pretty good, but I may hire a private counselor to help w/ personal statement and addenda. I was hoping anyone could weigh in with direct experience or knowledge of similar applicants.

Will a suspension like this ruin my chances at otherwise attainable schools?

Would schools be less likely to give scholarship money because of it?

Are there any schools that are more/less lenient than others?

[cavalier1138]

For what it's worth, I think I got screwed in the whole thing.

That's not worth a whole lot. I imagine a lot of people feel that way after getting caught.

There are a few big issues here. First, although the incident occurred in 2015, you were found responsible in 2017. That's pretty damn recent. Second, sexual misconduct is serious, and fortunately, it's something that people have been taking more seriously as of late. And third, you don't appear to be taking responsibility or expressing any kind of remorse for your actions.

The first issue can be ameliorated by time. That means that you probably want to put a little more distance between yourself and college. The second issue isn't something you have control over unless this was a more minor instance of sexual misconduct (I've asked a more detailed question below to give some texture to this). The third issue can be corrected by things like an addendum expressing remorse and you not using the word "alleged" to describe an incident that some formal authority has determined actually took place.

Now, there is one big question you haven't really addressed: what were you actually found responsible for? "Sexual misconduct" encompasses a huge range of behavior. If you were found responsible for making inappropriate remarks in class, that's one thing. If you were found responsible for trying to assault a drunk girl at a party, that's another. So can you be more specific about what happened?

On a totally separate note:

The law school counselor at my university is pretty good

Odds are that they aren't very good at all and are likely giving you very bad information. I think a private business may be more helpful. But honestly, you should be considering a Character & Fitness lawyer first. This issue is going to impact more than your law school admissions chances, and that lawyer can help you figure out the right way to address it.

[Tjam123]

I appreciate your response. I left the circumstances vague intentionally. I intend to fully disclose everything about the situation honestly, which certainly includes what I've learned/ why I think it happened. I won't however lie and pretend that I believe I'm guilty. Your recommendation regarding counselors is a helpful one, thank you. If anyone has insight on dealing with suspensions particularly, I'd appreciate any input.

[nixy]

I understand why you say that you don’t want to lie, but in the context of legal admissions, saying that you didn’t do something when there’s an institutional finding that you did raises a lot of red flags. It’s partly a legal profession thing where disclosure is king and denial is always worse than the crime, and more cynically, you’re applying to another educational institution that doesn’t want to admit people who pose a risk of bad behavior.

I’m not saying you didn’t get screwed; I don’t know anything about you. I’m just saying that if you want to maximize your admissions opportunities you’re going to have to walk a tightrope.

[LSATWiz.com]

The standards of evidence are different so it is possible that the evidence suggests it’s less than 50-50 OP did it and was suspended. I think they should consult with an expert they can disclose all of the facts to. It’s a complicated situation. Certainly if OP did not sexually assault anyone, it would be dishonest for them to say they did. If they did, then they should count their blessings they weren’t expelled, sued, and jailed.

I think the answer is it can have a big impact and they should speak to someone with expertise in law school admissions. I also agree it is recent, but am unsure how big a variable time is here. Sexual offenses don’t really become less of a red flag over time unless OP committed them as a child. It’s not like a DUI or cheating on a test that can be chalked up to a bad time in someone’s life, behavioral changes, etc. and are things most people are capable of doing.

[LawTweet]

The standards of evidence are different so it is possible that the evidence suggests it’s less than 50-50 OP did it and was suspended.

Uhh that's not what a preponderance of evidence is (which is the federally mandated standard of evidence)... It means the weight of the evidence (more than 50%) supports finding OP responsible.

You should advise someone responsible for a Title IX violation in the same way you'd advise someone who had a civil judgment against them for a tort of sexual battery.

[cavalier1138]

I understand why you say that you don’t want to lie, but in the context of legal admissions, saying that you didn’t do something when there’s an institutional finding that you did raises a lot of red flags. It’s partly a legal profession thing where disclosure is king and denial is always worse than the crime, and more cynically, you’re applying to another educational institution that doesn’t want to admit people who pose a risk of bad behavior.

I’m not saying you didn’t get screwed; I don’t know anything about you. I’m just saying that if you want to maximize your admissions opportunities you’re going to have to walk a tightrope.

I'm quoting this for emphasis, OP. Doesn't matter if you agree with the outcome of the Title IX hearing; as far as school officials are concerned, it happened. A C&F addendum is not your chance to relitigate the case.

[Person1111]

The standards of evidence are different so it is possible that the evidence suggests it’s less than 50-50 OP did it and was suspended.

Uhh that's not what a preponderance of evidence is (which is the federally mandated standard of evidence)... It means the weight of the evidence (more than 50%) supports finding OP responsible.

You should advise someone responsible for a Title IX violation in the same way you'd advise someone who had a civil judgment against them for a tort of sexual battery.

That’s not accurate - the Dear Colleague letter just says that the standard can’t be higher than preponderance of the evidence. It’s entirely possible that the OPs school has a lower standard (not even accounting for the differences in procedure, evidentiary rules, presumption of guilt v innocence, etc.)

[cavalier1138]

The standards of evidence are different so it is possible that the evidence suggests it’s less than 50-50 OP did it and was suspended.

Uhh that's not what a preponderance of evidence is (which is the federally mandated standard of evidence)... It means the weight of the evidence (more than 50%) supports finding OP responsible.

You should advise someone responsible for a Title IX violation in the same way you'd advise someone who had a civil judgment against them for a tort of sexual battery.

That’s not accurate - the Dear Colleague letter just says that the standard can’t be higher than preponderance of the evidence.

That letter was rescinded by the current administration (shocker). The standard is either preponderance or clear and convincing, and the school chooses which one to use.

[LawTweet]

The standards of evidence are different so it is possible that the evidence suggests it’s less than 50-50 OP did it and was suspended.

Uhh that's not what a preponderance of evidence is (which is the federally mandated standard of evidence)... It means the weight of the evidence (more than 50%) supports finding OP responsible.

You should advise someone responsible for a Title IX violation in the same way you'd advise someone who had a civil judgment against them for a tort of sexual battery.

That’s not accurate - the Dear Colleague letter just says that the standard can’t be higher than preponderance of the evidence. It’s entirely possible that the OPs school has a lower standard (not even accounting for the differences in procedure, evidentiary rules, presumption of guilt v innocence, etc.)

See above about rescission. Also see page 11 of the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter informing schools that they were to use the preponderance standard for sexual misconduct. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ ... 201104.pdf ("Therefore, preponderance of the evidence is the appropriate standard for investigating allegations of sexual harassment or violence.")

[hdivschool]

OP, I doubt it will be disqualifying, but you'll need to be considered in how you write about it in your disclosure. It is not great that it is relatively recent, but the fact that the university took two years to suspend you and only suspended you for a year suggests that the university didn't consider you a threat to other students on campus. FWIW, I have heard of people with more serious adjudicated misconduct who were still admitted.

[LawTweet]

FWIW, I have heard of people with more serious adjudicated misconduct who were still admitted.

Well that's disheartening.

[Halp]

FWIW, I have heard of people with more serious adjudicated misconduct who were still admitted.

Well that's disheartening.

Your professional responsibility class didn’t go over convicted murderers that have gotten admitted to the bar? Mine did. Like multiple ones. Blew my mind at first, but as someone else said, disclosure is king...

[cavalier1138]

FWIW, I have heard of people with more serious adjudicated misconduct who were still admitted.

Well that's disheartening.

Your professional responsibility class didn’t go over convicted murderers that have gotten admitted to the bar? Mine did. Like multiple ones. Blew my mind at first, but as someone else said, disclosure is king...

I'm betting those convicted murderers had a decade or two of ridiculous credentials they'd built up in things like mentoring, youth programs, etc., as part of their compelling narrative about turning their life around after the conviction. And even then, not every state bar would take the chance on them.

Right now, from an adcomm's perspective, the OP committed some sort of sexual offense a few years ago and refuses to admit that he actually did it. He hasn't indicated that there's been any rehabilitation or attempts to set things right. It's a wildly different situation, even though the underlying offense is less serious.

[Halp]

FWIW, I have heard of people with more serious adjudicated misconduct who were still admitted.

Well that's disheartening.

Your professional responsibility class didn’t go over convicted murderers that have gotten admitted to the bar? Mine did. Like multiple ones. Blew my mind at first, but as someone else said, disclosure is king...

I'm betting those convicted murderers had a decade or two of ridiculous credentials they'd built up in things like mentoring, youth programs, etc., as part of their compelling narrative about turning their life around after the conviction. And even then, not every state bar would take the chance on them.

Right now, from an adcomm's perspective, the OP committed some sort of sexual offense a few years ago and refuses to admit that he actually did it. He hasn't indicated that there's been any rehabilitation or attempts to set things right. It's a wildly different situation, even though the underlying offense is less serious.

I don’t disagree. I was just responding to the comments above that seemed to be expressing surprise that people with worse offenses can and do get in sometimes.

[notinbiglaw]

The way you wrote about it in this post is a red flag even if the underlying incident is actually minor.

If alcohol was involved, you better not be drinking more than a very moderate amount on social occasions anymore. If it’s indiscretion and lack of awareness about boundaries, you better have been to sensitivity trainings and grown much more respectful of personal space.

I am actually reluctant to basically tell you what to write but I am doing this in the hopes that you actually do the things I am saying you need to write about.

[LSATWiz.com]

The standards of evidence are different so it is possible that the evidence suggests it’s less than 50-50 OP did it and was suspended.

Uhh that's not what a preponderance of evidence is (which is the federally mandated standard of evidence)... It means the weight of the evidence (more than 50%) supports finding OP responsible.

You should advise someone responsible for a Title IX violation in the same way you'd advise someone who had a civil judgment against them for a tort of sexual battery.

I mean even with a preponderance of evidence standard, 50.1% vs. 49.9% is subjective. Schools have a degree of autonomy on how to analyze evidence that ordinary courts do not. In truth, even with no other evidence, a he-said/she-said dispute is already 50-50 so could boil down to who appears most trustworthy. If say the accused or victim had a prior offense for plagiarism or something dealing with dishonesty, that could very well alter the credibility of their testimony such that no evidence other than he-said/she-said is necessary. As a general matter, a sexual offender is always incentivized to lie whereas it is abnormal for someone to make up a sexual offense so even on the basis of he-said/she-said, one could easily conclude there is a preponderance of evidence. If one is truly following that standard, they'd be required to find someone guilty even if they know there is a 49.9% chance they are wrong.

I'm not saying preponderance of evidence is the wrong test as properly addressing the issue unfortunately requires some false positives. I'm only stating that it is likely that there are people who didn't commit a sexual offense but who are suspended/expelled under these policies, which presents a thorny issue when applying to law school and the like that requires professional guidance.

[nixy]

I don’t quite get what you’re saying
because the contrasts you’re drawing with courts aren’t actually correcr. Courts could absolutely consider prior offenses dealing with honesty, and do consider such things, all the time, and considering someone’s credibility when evaluating he-said/she-said evidence also happens all the time. I also don’t think “sex offenders are incentivized to lie” is actually a thing anyone considers. People accused of a crime may deny involvement; but people falsely accused of a crime will also deny involvement, truthfully. So there isn’t some kind of assumption that because someone denies being involved in a sexual offense they must be lying. I admit there may be some weight on the scale in favor of believing a victim (in part because of the negative consequences of coming forward), but that’s not the same thing as assuming someone who denies involvement is lying.

In any case, to the extent this is a significant problem, law schools are going to be as much if not more aware of that as any institution. It is probably fair that the OP might benefit from talking to a good admissions consultant.

[LawTweet]

The standards of evidence are different so it is possible that the evidence suggests it’s less than 50-50 OP did it and was suspended.

Uhh that's not what a preponderance of evidence is (which is the federally mandated standard of evidence)... It means the weight of the evidence (more than 50%) supports finding OP responsible.

You should advise someone responsible for a Title IX violation in the same way you'd advise someone who had a civil judgment against them for a tort of sexual battery.

I mean even with a preponderance of evidence standard, 50.1% vs. 49.9% is subjective. Schools have a degree of autonomy on how to analyze evidence that ordinary courts do not. In truth, even with no other evidence, a he-said/she-said dispute is already 50-50 so could boil down to who appears most trustworthy. If say the accused or victim had a prior offense for plagiarism or something dealing with dishonesty, that could very well alter the credibility of their testimony such that no evidence other than he-said/she-said is necessary. As a general matter, a sexual offender is always incentivized to lie whereas it is abnormal for someone to make up a sexual offense so even on the basis of he-said/she-said, one could easily conclude there is a preponderance of evidence. If one is truly following that standard, they'd be required to find someone guilty even if they know there is a 49.9% chance they are wrong.

I'm not saying preponderance of evidence is the wrong test as properly addressing the issue unfortunately requires some false positives. I'm only stating that it is likely that there are people who didn't commit a sexual offense but who are suspended/expelled under these policies, which presents a thorny issue when applying to law school and the like that requires professional guidance.

It presents no "thornier" of an issue than those disciplined for plagiarism (overwhelmingly also under a preponderance standard or one even lower than that), yet I see no such concerns about wrongful findings in those threads. I'm just frustrated that I see a difference in the way TLS is advising someone found responsible for sexual misconduct vs. plagiarism as it relates to guilt/innocence.

[MGomez]

Can you keep us posted with what you find out and all the best to you. My roommate was found to be in violation under the preponderance of evidence standard with evidence he provided in form of text messages which also show she was not credible as she changed her story once she saw he submitted evidence... they still ruled against him. It was so so disturbing and sad.

[cavalier1138]

Can you keep us posted with what you find out and all the best to you. My roommate was found to be in violation under the preponderance of evidence standard with evidence he provided in form of text messages which also show she was not credible as she changed her story once she saw he submitted evidence... they still ruled against him. It was so so disturbing and sad.

Unless the text messages were the victim saying she consented to each sexual act before and during the incident, that's not very surprising. Rape victims usually don't tell the exact same story twice (nor does any credible witness), so your BFF's reputation notwithstanding, it sounds like his result was normal.

[mom2law]

I think it is worth a consultation with an attorney specializing in Title IX matters. The last 2 years have seen an enormous change in how these cases are evaluated, based on materially revised Dept of Ed guidelines. There are attorneys with expertise in overturning past findings and obtaining settlements. I make absolutely no presumption here about OP’s culpability or lack thereof. I do know of several cases that were reversed due to clear due process violations, some of them pretty egregious, however.

[LSATWiz.com]

Can you keep us posted with what you find out and all the best to you. My roommate was found to be in violation under the preponderance of evidence standard with evidence he provided in form of text messages which also show she was not credible as she changed her story once she saw he submitted evidence... they still ruled against him. It was so so disturbing and sad.

As someone with a close relative who was a victim at a young age where the perpetrator went from essentially confessing to altering the story after his family got him a lawyer, which turned it into a he said-she said debacle, comments like this upset me. Although I'm admittedly biased, rapes are dramatically underreported and false rape accusations are exceptionally rare. Most women who are raped want to try to move on as quickly as possible, and the idea someone would go through the hassle just to punish someone is also rare. Unless someone is mentally ill, people don't often subject themselves to extensive hassles and risk unless there is a material benefit to be gained by doing so.

[apachee]

@Tjam123

I'm in a similar situation, undergrad and numbers-wise, and just found this. I don't want to identify you but is there anyway you could narrow down your NESCAC school? For instance, by state or alphabet letter/range? You can try to private message me if you want but it says my account is too new to message anyone.

[MGomez]

Just checking to see if you have any advice to shed from going through the law school app process with a title ix suspension from college.