The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed inventor Franz Wakefield’s attempt to challenge a patent ruling because one of the presiding judges, Judge Pauline Newman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, is currently under investigation regarding her fitness to serve on the bench.

Wakefield had argued that the ongoing investigation into Judge Newman raised concerns about due process, warranting a new hearing in his case. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument without providing a written opinion, effectively upholding the original ruling.

Responding to the court’s order, Wakefield expressed his belief that U.S. institutions heavily favor corporations and the wealthy while constitutional protections are under threat. This case highlights his concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the judicial system.

See also: Supreme Court Refuses Patent Review Despite Concerns Over Judge’s Fitness

In April, the Federal Circuit initially revealed the probe into Judge Newman’s competency. Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore stated in court orders that Judge Newman, who is 96 years old, exhibited signs of impaired judgment and physical and cognitive decline. However, Judge Newman has firmly denied these claims and has filed a lawsuit in the federal court in Washington, D.C., seeking to halt the investigation.

Are you being paid fairly for your hard work? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Franz Wakefield’s legal battle began in 2019 when he sued Meta, Microsoft, IBM, and other technology companies in a Delaware federal court, alleging patent infringement related to presenting hyperlinks within videos. Unfortunately for Wakefield, the Delaware court invalidated his patent in 2021. Subsequently, a three-judge panel from the Federal Circuit, including Judge Newman, upheld the decision without comment.

In February, Wakefield initially petitioned the Supreme Court to review his case. However, his petition was declined in May. Undeterred, he then sought a reconsideration, citing the Federal Circuit’s disclosure of the ongoing probe into Judge Newman’s competency.

In his filing to the Supreme Court, Wakefield emphasized the fundamental principle of a fair and impartial hearing guaranteed by the Constitution. He argued that the presence of a judge with a mental disability on the appeal panel, consisting of fellow judges who believe she is disabled, undermines this principle.

While the Supreme Court’s decision maintains the validity of the original patent ruling, this case raises broader concerns about the integrity of the judicial system and the protection of constitutional rights. It underscores the need for transparency and accountability in ensuring fair hearings and impartial judgments.

As the legal proceedings continue and the competency probe unfolds, it remains to be seen how this case will impact future patent disputes and the overall perception of the U.S. judicial system. The ramifications reach beyond the specific parties involved, sparking discussions about the importance of upholding constitutional protections and maintaining public trust in the fairness of the courts.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of Wakefield’s bid serves as a reminder of the complexities and challenges inherent in pursuing justice. It underscores the ongoing efforts to balance the interests of all parties involved while upholding the principles of fairness, due process, and constitutional rights within the legal system.

The post US Supreme Court Maintains Decision Despite Judge Undergoing Competency Probe first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

In a recent legal development, U.S. District Judge Joshua Wolson in Philadelphia has dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by Judge Paula Patrick against media publication The Daily Beast. The lawsuit accused The Daily Beast of defaming Judge Patrick through an article headline that suggested her association with the conspiracy group QAnon. However, Judge Wolson ruled that Judge Patrick had failed to demonstrate “actual malice,” a legal standard required to prove that the news reporter knowingly published false information.

The disputed article, published in October 2021, remained available online and criticized a decision made by Judge Patrick regarding a Christopher Columbus statue in Philadelphia. According to the ruling, Judge Patrick gained attention due to her headline-grabbing decision that mandated the visibility of the controversial statue.

In his order dismissing the lawsuit, Judge Wolson emphasized the importance of resilience and the ability to make decisions in the face of criticism, even when it may be unfair. He stated, “Being a judge requires a thick skin and a willingness to make decisions in the face of criticism, even unfair criticism, and to remember that sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me.”

Judge Patrick has consistently denied any affiliation with QAnon, a group known for portraying former President Donald Trump as a messianic figure. Her lawyer, James Beasley Jr., expressed disagreement with the court’s decision and announced plans to appeal, arguing that the judge had prematurely assessed the level of recklessness exhibited in the article.

Trust BCG Attorney Search to connect you with top legal employers in your area. Search now!

At the time of writing, there has been no immediate response from Judge Patrick’s chambers regarding the dismissal of the lawsuit.

Judge Patrick, a Republican, was elected to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, a trial court, in 2003. Throughout her career, she has presided over cases involving juvenile offenses, parental rights, and various other legal matters. In the 2021 primary, she ran for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court but was unsuccessful.

During her campaign, it was revealed through court records that Judge Patrick participated in a recorded interview with a supporter of QAnon. The Daily Beast article highlighted this interview and mentioned her alleged participation as a speaker at a QAnon-affiliated conference. However, Judge Patrick’s lawsuit stated that she neither attended nor spoke at the event in question.

The lawsuit brought by Judge Patrick contended that The Daily Beast’s headline describing her as “QAnon-linked” was a deliberate falsehood and an outrageous assertion.

Lawyers representing The Daily Beast from the law firm Ballard Spahr argued in a court filing that the article took care to report Judge Patrick’s disavowal of any connection to QAnon.

As of now, The Daily Beast spokesperson and the lawyers from Ballard Spahr have not responded to requests for comment on the recent dismissal of the lawsuit.

This ruling serves as a significant development in the ongoing debate surrounding the freedom of the press and the standards required to prove defamation. The decision by Judge Wolson highlights the challenges faced by public figures, such as judges, who must make difficult decisions while enduring criticism, even if it is unjust.

The post Landmark US Court Decision: Judge’s Defamation Lawsuit Ends in Dismissal first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas has been accused of concealing the bulk of his personal fortune in financial disclosure forms for 2020 and 2021. Kacsmaryk is known for blocking access to the abortion drug mifepristone, which caused widespread criticism. Reports suggest that while the judge disclosed he owns between $5 million and $25 million in stock in a company, he did not reveal the name of the company. This information was reportedly redacted on the forms, which is an unusual move that has drawn attention from media outlets like CNN and the Washington Post.

According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, federal judges can withhold information on financial disclosure forms if it could endanger the judge or a family member. The articles note that Kacsmaryk may have redacted the company’s name due to concerns for his safety or his family’s safety. However, some believe the redaction may have been made to hide the judge’s wealth.

Interestingly, it is possible that the redacted information refers to the Florida supermarket company Publix, where Kacsmaryk’s grandmother had worked. Reports suggest that Kacsmaryk had disclosed owning Publix stock on a 2017 disclosure form when he was a judicial nominee. His 2020 disclosure form stated that the unnamed stock was previously held in trust for Kacsmaryk but that the judge now owns it personally after the dissolution of the trust. Publix stock is not publicly traded; only employees and board members can purchase it.

Kacsmaryk told CNN in a statement that the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts had approved the redaction after reviewing the relevant rules and applicable threats. He further stated that the company is a private corporation that operates outside Texas. The jurisdiction is overseen by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans, which hears appeals from Kacsmaryk’s district court. Kacsmaryk claimed that the clerk’s office has the name of the company and that he would be automatically recused from any cases involving this entity.

Take the first step towards finding your dream job – submit your resume to BCG Attorney Search today.

Kacsmaryk had recently blocked all access to mifepristone because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration did not properly consider safety concerns when it approved the drug. This decision was met with criticism, and the U.S. Supreme Court later stayed that order.

In conclusion, Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk’s financial disclosure forms for 2020 and 2021 have raised questions due to the redaction of the name of a company that he owns stock in. While federal judges are allowed to withhold information on financial disclosure forms, some believe that Kacsmaryk may have made this redaction to conceal his wealth. The judge has denied these allegations and claims that he made the redaction due to concerns for his safety or the safety of his family. The case is ongoing, and further developments are expected.

The post Financial Disclosure Forms of Judge Who Blocked Abortion Pill Access Show Unusual Redaction first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications has filed an ethics complaint against Judge Jason A. Cichowicz of South Bend, Indiana. The complaint claims that Cichowicz used his role as a sole trustee for a charitable foundation, the C Foundation, to pay for tile work and car purchases provided to local courts by his father’s companies.

The complaint also claims that Cichowicz had a conflict of interest when he continued to represent a wealthy client who made Cichowicz the beneficiary of various trusts and bank accounts. The complaint also alleges that Cichowicz used his position as a judge to secure a line of credit to build a new courtroom and hide the funds’ source.

Cichowicz’s lawyer has issued a statement saying that Cichowicz’s interest was in improving the court and that he acted in the best interest of the community and the children and families served by the juvenile justice center.

The case is now being decided by a panel of three independent judges who will decide the validity of the ethics complaint.

REFERENCES:

Judge accused of using role as charity trustee to donate money to courts, juvenile justice center

The post Judge Accused of Misusing Charity Funds for Court and Juvenile Justice Center Donations first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

President-elect Joe Biden has announced his nominations for the attorney general as well as other senior members of the Justice Department. Biden has nominated federal appeals judge Merrick Garland as his formal choice for the role of the United States Attorney General. In 2016, when Biden served as the Vice-President, former President Obama had nominated Garland to the Supreme Court, but his nomination was blocked by the Republican controlled Senate. However, this time, with the expectations of Democrats controlling the Senate, his nomination is anticipated to be cleared easily. He has also served in the Justice Department during the Clinton administration.

Garland, 68, currently serves at the US Court of Appeals at the District of Columbia. Garland has a reputation for being politically moderate and is considered by many as a centrist judge. The choice to appoint a politically neutral judge as the attorney general is seen by many as a reflection of Biden’s approach to have a politically independent Justice Department. If appointed as the attorney general, Garland will have to assume responsibility of a Justice Department that became increasingly politicized during Trump administration. He will also take decisions regarding how the Department will proceed with the tax investigations into Biden’s son and whether investigations will be conducted against Trump and his cabinet members, associates and aides. The unprecedented events that took place in the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday and the riots caused by Trump supporters might impact his decision.

Commenting on Garland’s nomination and calling him “a consensus-building voice”, a statement from Biden’s team stated, “Judge Garland’s nomination underscores the President-elect’s commitment to restore integrity and the rule of law, boost morale of the dedicated career professionals at DOJ, and build a more equitable justice system that serves all Americans.” Merrick Garland was chosen over former senator Doug Jones and former deputy attorney general Sally Yates.

Alongside Garland, Lisa Monaco has been nominated to the post of deputy attorney general. First woman head of the National Security Division, Monaco has also served as homeland security and counter-terrorism adviser to the then President Barack Obama. She also co-chairs the Data Security and Privacy group at O’Melveny. She also served as Chief of Staff to former FBI Director, Robert S. Mueller, III. She is also a recipient of the Justice Department’s highest award, Attorney General’s Award for Exceptional Service, for her work on the Enron Task Force.

Biden has also nominated Indian-American Vanita Gupta, a well-known civil rights attorney and former head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, who served as the principal deputy assistant attorney general during the Obama administration as the associate attorney general. Gupta will become the first woman of control to serve on this post.

Kristen Clarke, a renowned civil rights lawyer, and president of the National Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law has been nominated as the associate attorney general for civil rights. Commenting on her nomination, Clarke tweeted, “This job is about justice. It’s about equality. And under our DOJ we’ll move closer to the TRUE meaning of equal justice under law.”

These nominations bought an end to weeks of contemplation by the President-elect, who received requests and representations from various civil rights groups, civil rights leaders and progressives regarding their preferences for the nominations to roles in the Justice Department. Commenting on the nominations, Biden’s transition team tweeted, “This team will work to move us closer to the American ideal of equal justice under law. They will work to restore independence of the Justice Department, always follow facts and the law, and serve and protect the American people with integrity.”

The post Judge Merrick Garland is Joe Biden’s Choice for Attorney General first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Judge Stephen F. Williams, D.C. Circuit federal judge for more than three decades, passed away Friday at the age of 83 due to complications from COVID-19, the Washington Post reports.

The highly respected jurist who was widely considered a “giant” in regulatory and economic law had been hospitalized since May, after contracting the novel coronavirus.

Williams was nominated to the federal bench in 1986 by Ronald Reagan. He reached senior status in 2001 but continued to handle a full caseload until he was 80 and heard cases until earlier this year.

Judge Williams presided over a host of significant legal cases that touched on gun control, energy deregulation, the powers of independent prosecutors, and the Civil Rights Act as reported by the Washington Post.

Judge Wiliams was among the judges who heard Microsoft’s antitrust appeal, finding that the software giant had abused its Windows monopoly but reversing a lower court’s order to break up the company. He was a fierce advocate of the philosophy that free markets create free societies.

The jurist was known for his down-to-earth style, wearing casual dress off the bench, cycling to the courthouse, and his brown-bagged vegetarian lunches. A father of five children, Williams had a passion for studying pre-revolutionary Russian history that resulted in two books about the subject.

Among colleagues, Williams was known for consuming almost every legal opinion circulating on a legal question before the court and being unfailingly polite and solicitous toward clerks and staff.

“He had an uncommon love of ideas, an extraordinarily broad-ranging intellectual curiosity, an infectiously good-spirited demeanor, and a joyful sense of humor,” Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan said in a written statement. “We have been immeasurably enriched by the privilege of serving with him.”

“Truthfully, it breaks my heart. He was my closest colleague. He was my friend. We would have lunch occasionally and talk about everything in the world,” Judge Laurence H. Silberman said Saturday in an interview. “We teased each other because he thought I was too sympathetic to trade unions, and I thought he was too sympathetic to animals.”

Silberman said Williams was a brilliant scholar and jurist, and he took good care of himself. But Silberman worried about his daily commute on a bicycle through the streets of D.C.

“I used to constantly try to persuade him to stop riding his bike to court,” Silberman said. But he said Williams was undeterred by advancing age and mishaps that sometimes resulted in injury.

Another colleague on the bench, Judge Merrick B. Garland, called him “the kindest of colleagues, eager to engage in vigorous intellectual debate in the most open-minded and non-personal way.”

“He was at heart the professor he had been before taking the bench,” Garland said in an email, “and it is no surprise that many of his superb law clerks have gone on to become professors themselves.”

The post Longtime Federal Appeals Judge in D.C. Dies of COVID-19 at 83 first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

A self-described “men’s rights” lawyer found dead Monday in Sullivan County, New York is the primary suspect in the deadly shooting of a federal judge’s family in New Jersey.

Federal officials identified Roy Den Hollander as the main suspect in a shooting at U.S. District Judge Esther Salas’ family home Sunday afternoon in which he killed her 20-year-old son and seriously injured her husband.

On Sunday, a gunman disguised as a FedEx delivery person approached the North Brunswick house of Judge Esther Salas and started shooting, killing the jurist’s son Daniel Anderl and wounding her husband, defense attorney Mark Anderl. Judge Salas was at home at the time of the shooting, but she was in the basement and is not injured.

Daniel Anderl, 20 was fatally shot when he opened the door for the gunman around 5 p.m.

“He was shot through the heart,” North Brunswick Mayor Francis “Mac” Womack (D) told ABC News.

When Mark Anderl, 63 went over to see what happened, he was shot multiple times. He was rushed to the hospital and is now in stable condition.

Roy Den Hollander, 72 was a self-professed “anti-feminist” activist who gained media attention including appearances on Comedy Central and Fox News for writing a 1700 page book about “feminazis” and filing frivolous lawsuits against women’s studies programs and night clubs who hold “ladies night.”

In the 2008 Fox News appearance, he called women “the real oppressors” and wrote online about his grievances against female judges.

He told the New York Times in 2008 that his anger towards women stemmed from his bitter divorce from a woman he married in Russia.

In 2015, Den Hollander had an open case before Judge Salas — whom he described in the self-published book as “a lazy and incompetent Latina judge appointed by Obama.” In the case, he was contesting the government’s refusal to allow women to register for the military draft. 

Judge Salas allowed the case to proceed in a 2018 ruling, marking a victory for Den Hollander. However, he criticized the judge for not moving the case along fast enough.

He left the draft case in 2019 and asked a Boies Schiller Flexner partner Nicholas Gravante Jr. to take over, after reportedly being diagnosed with terminal cancer.

Den Hollander’s body was found by New York State Police on Sunday about a two-hour drive from the home — after he shot himself in an apparent suicide, officials said. 

Along with Den Hollander’s body, the officials found a package addressed to Salas. The package was empty.

New York State’s Chief judge, Janet M. DiFiore was contacted by the FBI on Monday to notify her that they found a photograph of her and her name in Den Hollander’s car, according to her spokesman, Lucian Chalfen. 

According to one law enforcement official, officials are still investigating whether Den Hollander had decided to “take out” some of his enemies before he died. 

In the epilogue of his online book, he alluded to his cancer diagnosis. “Death’s hand is on my left shoulder,” he wrote, adding that “nothing in this life matters anymore.”

“The only problem with a life lived too long under Feminazi rule,” he said, “is that a man ends up with so many enemies he can’t even the score with all of them.”

Salas, 51, is the first Hispanic woman to serve as a federal judge in New Jersey. She was nominated to the United States District Court for New Jersey by then-President Barack Obama in 2010. 

She has presided over various high-profile cases, including the criminal trial of “The Real Housewives of New Jersey” stars Joe and Teresa Giudice.

According to a 2018 profile of her in New Jersey Monthly, Salas met her husband when he was a prosecutor in the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office. Mark Anderl became a criminal defense lawyer after a decade working as a prosecutor and now works at his own law firm, Anderl & Oakley P.C.

Salas’ son Daniel Anderl was about to become a freshman at the Catholic University of America in Washington, where he was named to the Dean’s List this spring.

“I was shocked last night to hear news of Daniel Anderl’s tragic death Sunday evening in New Jersey. Daniel was a rising junior, enrolled for classes beginning in the next few weeks,” university President John Garvey wrote on Twitter. “He turned 20 last week.”

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) said in a statement, “Judge Salas and her family are in our thoughts at this time as they cope with this senseless act.”

The post Main Suspect in Killing of Federal Judge’s Son Found Dead first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

A Cleveland Municipal Court judge held hearings for defendants despite a court order to postpone hearings for those who are not in jail in an effort to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Judge Pinkey Carr, a former prosecutor, has not only held court hearings but has also issued arrest warrants to defendants who followed the advice on the court’s website to stay home and did not show up to court, Cleveland.com reported.

In an interview with Fox 8, Judge Carr denied issuing any warrants

“Not everyone watches the news, and I wanted to be here and have the hearings for those that showed up,” Carr told the broadcast station. “If they had a hearing and did not show up, I just marked they didn’t come. I did not issue any warrants.”

Carr said she was waiving costs and fines for those who came to her court, which is not uncommon for her to do.

Court spokesman Ed Ferenc said that Administrative and Presiding Judge Michelle Earley knew that Carr held court hearings for two days despite the administrative order. All of the court’s judges got a copy of the order, Ferenc said. 

The court’s website announced the administrative order, declaring that all hearings scheduled between Monday and April 3 would be rescheduled. 

“Criminal cases scheduled for hearings between March 16 and April 3 are rescheduled to prevent community spread of the coronavirus and for the safety of the people who appear before the court and our employees. Those cases are hereby ordered rescheduled for hearing exactly three weeks from the originally scheduled date and time,” the order says.

Rebecca Ruppert McMahon, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association CEO, told Cleveland.com that the organization is “greatly concerned by the action of any judge that keeps his or her court open for nonessential matters during this time of national emergency.”

Doing so, McMahon said, ignores recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institute of Health and other medical and health agencies on social distancing and avoiding crowds of 10 or more people.

“This is not about judicial independence,” McMahon said. “This is about putting the lives of plaintiffs, defendants, attorneys, police officers and courtroom employees in jeopardy, as well the lives of their families and friends.”

The court announced Judge Michelle Earley’s administrative order in a news release, stating she acted “in an effort to prevent ‘community spread’ of the coronavirus and for the safety of the people who appear before the General Division of the Court and our employees.”

In an interview with WJW Channel 8, Carr denied the claim that she issued arrest warrants, and explained she was holding court hearings only for those defendants who showed up to court without knowing about the administrative order.

“Why would I issue a warrant for someone’s arrest knowing what’s going on as it relates to corona[virus],” Carr said during the interview. “Simply not true.”

However, a courtroom video obtained by Cleveland.com showed Carr issuing multiple warrants, and placing arrest bonds on several of them.

Carr’s actions amid a growing pandemic left several attorneys baffled.

“Judge Carr’s actions put lives in danger and violated the public trust in a time of global crisis,” Marcus Sidoti, a partner at the law firm Friedman and Gilbert, said in a statement to Cleveland.com. “We commend Judge Earley’s swift actions in protecting those in the court system, the employees of the Cleveland Municipal Court and their families.”

The post Judge Defies Order to Postpone Hearings, Issues Arrest Warrants for No-Shows first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

A long-time Cullman County judge abruptly announced his retirement after being accused of ethics violations.

The Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission filed a complaint on Feb. 7 against District Judge Kim Chaney of appointing his son to handle hundreds of cases from August 2015 to July 2017.

On Monday, the commission and Kim Chaney announced an agreement in which the Alabama Court of the Judiciary would find the ex-judge guilty of the allegations in the complaint and order him to pay $3,700 for the costs in prosecuting him.

Chaney, who served as a Cullman County Circuit Court judge from 1993 until his Feb. 15 retirement, appointed his son attorney Alex Chaney to more than 200 indigent cases.

Reportedly, Chaney Jr. took home around $105,000 from the appointments “exclusive of any monies paid according to an indigent-defense contract,” the commission’s complaint said.

Roger Appell, the WBRC legal expert, says when it comes to the state’s ethics law, the judge and his son could run into legal problems of their own after dealing with the JIC.

“The bigger problem both of them are facing is the potential of being arrested and indicted for the ethics violation. I look at the district attorney’s office and I say how did they let it happen for so long? They were there. They saw what was happening. Lots of people just had a blind eye to this,” Appell said.

The Court of the Judiciary is authorized to suspend a judge without pay, censure a judge for violations of their duties and even remove a judge from office. If the court finds the judge, mentally or physically incapable of performing the duties of the office, it may suspend the judge with or without pay or retire the judge.

The former judge and the commission announced an agreement on Monday, in which the Alabama Court of the Judiciary would find the ex-judge guilty of the allegations in the complaint and order him to pay $3,700 for the costs in prosecuting him.

The deal was accepted by The Court of the Judiciary.

The post Judge Retires After Being Accused of Appointing His Son to More Than 200 Indigent Cases first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: North Carolina Central University School of Law has found an interim leader until a more permanent dean can be found.

North Carolina Central University School of Law announced longtime judge and alumna Elaine O’Neal will take over as interim dean, effective July 16. During a time when the law school has been struggling with low bar-passage rates and admission standards, they are looking for expertise and knowledge to guide them through.

According to the Herald Sun, O’Neal will be overseeing the school’s daily activities to help “ensure that the highest legal educational standards are upheld while the university undertakes a nationwide search for a permanent new dean.”

O’Neal became a North Carolina District Court Judge in 1994. In 2011, she was elected to the Superior Court bench for the 14^th District. As the state constitution does not allow an elected official to also hold an appointed office, O’Neal will be stepping down from the bench.

She earned her undergraduate from NCCU in mathematics and her law degree from the school as well. She formerly served as a member of the NCCU School of Law Board of Visitors. She has also served as a board member or a co-founder to a number of other organizations and institutions, including Women’s Recovery House, Families First, and Restoration Institute for Leaders. O’Neal is a former commissioner for the Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies. She is currently on the board of directors for Systems of Care and a member of the Gang Assessment Oversight Committee.

The university has vowed to increase their admission standards by keeping a minimum LSAT score requirement for future applicants. The school knows this will affect their incoming class with Chancellor Johnson Akinleye stating it will class will likely shrink by a third. Phyliss Craig-Taylor is stepping down as dean to rejoin the faculty. She had been dean since 2012.

The school’s latest bar exam results did not look good. The graduates who took the bar exam for the first time passed at a 54 percent passage rate. In 2016, the rate was 59 percent, so in one year, it dropped by only 5 points. However, the law school’s attrition rate grew to 37.7 percent of their 2016-2017 first-year students dropping out. The law school will not reject any admission from those with an LSAT score under 142 in an attempt to only enroll students academically prepared for law school.

Akinleye noted that the school’s “accreditation is not threatened at this point.” The ABA has not even placed the school on probation yet.

Do you think a judge will be able to provide unique insight to a law school as a dean? Share your thoughts with us in the comments below.

To learn more about other law schools looking for a permanent dean, read these articles:

• Brooklyn Law School Suddenly without Dean
• Wake Forest University Law in the Market for a New Dean
• University of South Dakota Law School Searching for New Dean

Photo: nccu.edu

The post Durham Judge Named Interim Dean of NCCU Law first appeared on JDJournal Blog.