Even though the ruling was unanimous in dismissing the lawsuit, the court admitted that the data of the New York Law School, “likely left some consumers with an incomplete, if not false, impression of the school’s job placement success.” However, the court held the transgression did not reach the level of falsehood needed to sustain a claim under business law of the state.
However, Justice Ronaldo Acosta, writing for a five-judge panel was sufficiently caustic towards the law school.
Acosta observed in the ruling, “We recognize that students may be susceptible to misrepresentations by law school … As a result, they sometimes make decisions to yoke themselves and their spouses and/or their children to a crushing burden because the schools have made misleading representations that give the impression that a full time job is easily obtainable, when in fact it is not.”
Acosta added, “Given this reality, it is important to remember that the practice of law is a noble profession that takes pride in its high ethical standards … Defendant and its peers owe prospective students more than just barebones compliance with their legal obligations.”
Even though the case was dismissed, the comments and observations of the panel leaves one wondering, what happened to the principle of jurisprudence that says, “where there is a wrong there is a remedy.” The wordings of the ruling seem to imply the panel deeply felt that there was a misrepresentation and injustice somewhere, but the approach to the remedy was not sustainable.