JMLS Alumni

We, the undersigned alumni of John Marshall Law School, submit this petition to express our deep concerns over the direction of our alma mater. We hold the value of our degree to be of great importance but fear that recent decisions of the schools Administration threaten to severely degrade that value throughout a legal community that already looks upon the graduates of John Marshall with disdain. We hope that upon considering the concerns expressed in this petition this learned Board will hold the Administration accountable to these alumni who chose to invest our time, effort, and considerable finances into John Marshall. Specifically, we request that the Board hold a town hall-style meeting at which alumni and students may voice their concerns and learn how the Board plans to address them.

Although reasonable minds may disagree as to the means to the end, few would argue that providing an education of the utmost quality and preparing graduates to succeed at the bar exam and the practice of law must be the highest priority of John Marshall Law School. That being the ultimate goal, the release of the 2010 bar passage statistics for John Marshall graduates was quite stunning to alumni, students, professors and Administration alike. While we are assured that the Administration of John Marshall took note of these alarming figures, it is unclear how recent initiatives on which the school is focusing its resources will serve this goal.

For many years, the legitimacy of the education received by graduates of John Marshall has been shouldered by the stellar professors employed by the institution. With the impending departure of several of the professors to whom we attribute our successprofessors whose students, statistically, succeed on the bar in overwhelming percentagesit is difficult to see how the Administration is serving the goal of adequately preparing students for the challenges faced by attorneys. We alumni are extremely concerned about the seemingly unchecked authority of the Administration to make such decisions without providing an appeals process. It is unapparent how John Marshall intends to attract and retain the caliber of educators which it is about to lose without providing some defense to the unimpeded, without cause terminations of proven professors. In losing such professors, it is our fear that John Marshall is losing the shred of legitimacy to which we, as alumni, have been clinging.

Moreover, the expense of resources into a failing LLM program and a Savannah Campus is extremely disheartening. As long as the facilities of John Marshall are incapable of accommodating the capacity of its students, the technology available is inconsistent at best, the outreach to facilitate greater support and respect from the legal community is minimal, the scholarship opportunities are severely limited, and most importantly, a significant percentage of graduates struggle to gain admission the state bar, it seems illogical to undertake programs of such magnitude while significant need for improvement in the schools current commitments exists. With the J.D. program so recently approved by the ABA, the fact that the ABA has not approved the LLM program and felt the need to step in and express its disapproval of the Savannah Campus is discomforting. Having received newsletters lauding the creation of these programs but not a word to address their gradual demise, we as alumni are left wondering how such expense can be justified.

Finally, the decision to postpone the long-planned conversion of John Marshall from a for-profit to a non-profit institution is baffling. From the outside looking in, this decision creates the inference that the schools priority is creating revenue rather than maximizing the worth of the product it provides. It is reasonable to conclude, as many of us have, that a lack of resources is not the motivation behind this decision, given the apparent belief that resources were sufficient to fund a new campus and a new degree programa conclusion that is bolstered by the drastic increase in the number of students being accepted to and paying tuition to John Marshall. As investors in John Marshall, we celebrated the ABA approval of the J.D. program for its added value to our degrees, feeling confident that with that approval came increased standards for and exclusivity in admissions to John Marshall. Now, we are astounded to see the decline in median GPAs and LSAT scores and the exponential increase of the first-year class size. Through this missed opportunity to raise the esteem of John Marshall, much profit is earned, no doubt. But along with that profit and the decision to forgo non-profit status, comes the stigma of these unflattering inferences, putting your graduates at a disadvantage in the market place.

Having expressed these concerns and despite them, we hope this much is clear: we are paying attention to the developments at John Marshall. We are willing to lend our support to improvements in John Marshall. We will withdraw that support and seek other means to address our concerns if John Marshall is unwilling to address them. Again, we hope and request that the Board will schedule a town-hall meeting, before the end of the Spring 2011 semester, at which the Board can respond to our concerns and consider alumni and student proposals to address these concerns. We suggest advertisement of this meeting come through the alumni newsletter. Until we receive news of such a meeting, we remain hopeful that action from the Board is imminent and better days lay ahead for our alma mater.