« The Missing Standing Decision in Town of Greece | Main | Two procedural cases of note »

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

State panel denies InfiLaw license

The South Carolina Committee on Academic Affairs and Licensing voted 3-1 to recommended rejection of the sale of Charleston Law School to InfiLaw. Members cited two lawsuits against the company by other law schools. Faculty, students, and alumni all oppose the sale. It now goes to the full Commission on Higher Education for a vote on June 6.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on May 20, 2014 at 07:50 AM in Howard Wasserman, Teaching Law | Permalink


If I'm reading the article correctly, it sounds like the InfiLaw lawyer was the one who revealed that Charleston's owners had extracted $25 million in profits from the school over the last 3 or 4 years? That's a pretty nice profit margin for the owners (presumably the 5 founders mentioned in the article?). It's also interesting that it was InfiLaw, and not CSOL, who released that information. From the article, it sounds like at least one faculty member was both surprised and unhappy at the amount of profit that had been extracted from the school. I'm not sure what exactly "it was presented to the state and community that it would essentially be run like a nonprofit" means in this context. I'm inclined to agree with PaulB that neither InfiLaw nor CSOL comes out of this looking very good. Basically, the students (and taxpayers, with IBR) will be funding that $25 million profit over the next several decades.

Posted by: CBR | May 21, 2014 3:29:04 PM

Infilaw is an indefensible operator of law schools, but the incumbent management is not exactly something to write home about. The most interesting line in the Post-Courier's story was that they made $25 million in profits just since 2010. Given the high student loan debt and terrible outcomes reported, it would seem that the very existence of this school is what should be criticized rather than the particular folks who will be extracting profits from future students there.

Posted by: PaulB | May 20, 2014 6:22:55 PM

Not standards imposed by the ABA however. This is SC and they have yet to have the final vote. But yes, I hope, for Charleston's sake, that Infilaw is voted down.

Posted by: BA | May 20, 2014 5:00:26 PM

Cool. There are some standards.

Posted by: Barry | May 20, 2014 3:02:33 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.