This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
•. I I
IN THE eIRC COUNTY
IT COURT OF COQW.:'O.QlJ~TYJ:,ILLINOIS I EP ARTMENT, C~C~RV I)I~;tS~IQ~1
I ''1[4 I," .~...,.
OHA1vllv1ED, JORlE JOHNSON and ERUM on behalf of themselves and all thers similarly situated, P aintiffs, v.
1HE JOHN MARSHALL and DOES 1-20,
-Case,Np; 12~!;I 03494
) ) ) ) ) ) )
Han. Mary L. Mikva Room 2508
OTICE OF FILING INSTANTER PLEASE TAKE NO CE that on May 24, 2012 plaintiffs filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook Co y, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, its First Amended Class Action Campi 'nt, a copy of which is hereby served on you.
One of Plaintiffs' Attorneys Edward X. Clinton Sr., ARDC Edward X. Clinton Jr., ARDC o. 0462578 o. 6206773
The Clinton Law Firm
III West Washington Suite 1437 Chicago, Ill. 60602 Phone: 312/357-1515
The undersigned, a non attorney, hereby certifies that she caused one copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing and First Amen ed Class Action Complaint to be served upon the person(s) listed above in an envelope at the address list d above, by first class mail, postage prepaid this 24th day of May, 2012.
IN THE CIRC IT COURT-ij'F·a~ COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY EPARTMEN~':S1!.~~~~RY:Il,JrISION
JORIE JOHNSON and ERUM oHAMMED , '-, ,~)_. ,I on behalfof themsel ves and all ' thers si~lra1~)'-::-:--_) I,. situated, P aintiffs,
(Ji '; I
f-· :---Ca~e!fJo. 12 CH 03494 ) ,
Class Action Complaint
THE JOHN MARSHALL LA and DOES 1-20,
) ) ) )
Ma.ry L.. Mikva
FIRST AMENDED LASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, Jorie Johnsoi and Erum Mohammed, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (collectively against Defendant The John (collectively "Defendants") as 'Plaintiffs"), by and through their attorneys allege and complain arshall Law School (".TMLS") and individual DOE Defendants 1I0ws: I. 1.
Plaintiffs bring t is action to seek redress for actions, fraudulently or negligently,
committed by Defendants agai 2. Plaintiffs assert (i)
For viol tions of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505 et seq.;
(ii) (iii) (iv)
For corm on law fraud, For negli ent misrepresentations, For frau against the Lawyer Defendants.
II. 3. The Illinois Co
JURISDICTION AND VENUE has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2e headquartered in Illinois, transacted business and committed
209(a)(1) because Defendants the alleged acts in Illinois.
Venue in Cook
ounty, Illinois, is appropriate because the circumstances giving hole or in part in Cook County, Illinois and because Defendants
rise to this action occurred in
are doing, and at all relevant ti es have done, business in Cook County, Illinois. III.
Plaintiffs Plaintiffs Jorie J hnson and Erum Mohammed (hereinafter, "Plaintiffs") are
individuals who enrolled at J LS between 2005 and 2006 to obtain a Juris Doctorate ("JD") degree, which is a prerequisite 6. r the practice of law.
Plaintiffs paid t ousands of dollars to JMLS in tuition and ancillary expenses d expenses in attending JMLS.
and incurred substantial costs 7.
As to Plaintiff J ie Johnson:
son ("Johnson") enrolled at JMLS in 2005 with the desire to
become a practicing att rney. She graduated with a JO degree in 2008 and was admitted to the Illinois bar on No ember 6, 2008. (b) lawyer. (c) Instead, ohnson was forced to take a retail position selling handbags and After gr duation Johnson could not find full-time employment as a
shoes. In February 20 0, she opened her own law firm because it was her only viable employment option in e legal profession. Each year a significant number of JMLS
graduates cannot find jo s and are forced to open solo practices like Johnson. income is far too low to ervice her student loan debt. (d)
In choosi g to enroll and continue to be enrolled at JMLS, rather than in
another law school, a m [or factor for Johnson was the extent to which a JD degree from one law school or anoth r would make it more likely for her to find full-time employment
g to apply to, enroll and continue to be enrolled at JMLS, mployment Information," hereinafter defined, including the 2004
Johnson relied on the" employment statistics. (f) Had Jo
son known that the Employment Information was incomplete, ding, she would not have enrolled or continued to be enrolled at
false or materially misl JMLS.
As to Pia ntiff Erum Mohammed: Erum M hammed ("Mohammed") enrolled at JMLS in 2006 to become a S graduated with a JD degree in 2009 and was admitted to the 5,2009.
Illinois bar on Novemb (b) lawyer. (c) Instead,
After gr duation Mohammed could not find full-time employment as a
ohammed was forced to take temporary, contract assignments ohammed did not find a meaningful permanent position in the
legal profession until M y 0[2010.
In deci ng to apply to, enroll and continue to be enrolled at JMLS,
Mohammed relied on t e "Employment Information," hereinafter defined, including the 2004 and 2005 employ ent statistics.
that the Employment
incomplete, false or rna erially misleading, she would not have enrolled or continued to be enrolled at JMLS.
B. Defenda ts
Defendant JML is an ABA-accredited law school. It is an Illinois not-for-profit
corporation with its principal pI ce of business in Chicago, Illinois. 10. The true name and capacities (whether individual, corporate, associate or
otherwise) of Defendants Does 1 through 20, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sue these Defendants by fictitious ames and will seek leave to amend this Complaint after their identities are learned. Each fie tious Defendant either personally made or disseminated the false and misleading representations contained herein or contributed to the acts and practices alleged herein. 11. Plaintiffs are i ormed and believe that the fictitiously named Defendants
proximately caused Plaintiffs' amages. 12. Plaintiffs are in rmed and believe that many of the Doe Defendants are lawyers
licensed to practice law in Illin is. These Doe Defendants are sometimes collectively referred to herein as "the Lawyer Defend ts."
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. 13. Background In ormation For the 2009
JMLS is an inde endent law school not part of a larger university.
fiscal year, JMLS's total operat ng revenue was over $55 million (including solicited donations), with operating costs of $50,641 969, resulting in an operating profit of just under $5 million. 14. For the 2010-2 11 academic year, it enrolled approximately 1,450 students,
including 317 part-time student, 15.
making it one of the largest law schools in the country.
The average ent ring class size for 2012 is 360 for the fall semester and 125 for
the spring semester. 16. 17. JMLS is in the b siness of educating students to qualify them to work as lawyers. JMLS's tuition for each year of law school ranged between approximately
$28,000 in 2005 to $36,920 in 011-2012, with living expenses estimated to be at least $26,440, bringing the total annual cost f 20. attending JMLS to $63,360.
As part of its b siness JMLS maintains, and at all relevant times maintained, a
Career Services Office (or the equivalent), that promises its students and prospective students, and even its former students, a cess to and help from the Career Services Office in order to find post-graduate employment. 21. JMLS currently and for an unknown number of years previously, publishes its
graduates' employment statisti s on its website under a "Career Services" tab and in its on-line Viewbook. This data is accom "[d]istinguish yourself Whether you want to p rigorous education offe needed to stand out taught by the leading a ensure you remain com ied by the following boast: ith a law degree from The John Marshall Law School. rsue a specific area of law or develop a solo practice, our s you the dynamic academic and real-world experiences ng other graduates. And we've developed our courses, demics and practicing authorities in every area of law, to etitive in any job market." 5
d belief, JMLS publications all used similar language at the
times the various Plaintiffs wer applying to JMLS. 23. JMLS is a la school accredited by the Section of Legal Education and merican Bar Association ("ABA"). As mandated by Section
Admission to the Bar of the
509(a) of the ABA's 2011-201 Standards for Approval of Law Schools ("Section 509(a)"), an accredited law school must "pu lish basic consumer information" in a "fair and accurate manner reflective of actual practice" (" 24. On information d belief, equivalent ABA guidelines were in effect at the times
the various Plaintiffs were appl 25. JMLS affirmati ly and actively sought to market itself to prospective and current aduates had found success in obtaining desirable jobs after
students by stating that its graduation. B. 26.
To that end, JM S prepared information purporting to set forth the employment
history of its graduates with n the first nine months after graduation (the "Employment Information"). The Employm t Information was based upon surveys sent to the recent JMLS graduates. However, the return of the surveys was entirely voluntary. 27. alia, representations that:
from 2004 to 2009, the Employment Information included, inter
100 percent of JMLS graduates had secured employment within
nine months of graduation; (b) The median sal y being earned on average by graduates within nine months of
graduation was between $61,00 and $87,276.
For the class of 004, JMLS provided employment statistics to US News & World
Report (US News). JMLS sta ed that 89% of its graduates had secured employment within 9 months of graduation. JMLS s ted that 54% of its graduates were working with law firms, 21% were working in "business," d 17% were working in government. JMLS stated that the
median salary in the private sec or was $65,000. (d) On information nd belief, for the class of 2005, JMLS published employment
statistics on its website. These tatistics have completely disappeared from the website of JMLS. JMLS has stated that it did not eep a copy of the 2005 statistics. (e) For the class
2006, JMLS published employment statistics on its website. the graduates that responded to the JMLS survey were employed
JMLS stated that 100 percent
within nine months of gradua on, with 54 percent working in private practice, 30 percent in "business", 18.1 percent in go ernment, 3.5 percent in public interest, 3.9 percent in judicial clerkships and 1.6 percent in cademia. JMLS reported that the average salary for those in private practice was $77,228 and that the median salary for those in private practice was $65,000. JMLS also reported at the average salary for those in business was $87,276, while
the median salary for those in b siness was $80,000. See Exhibit 1. (t) On information d belief, for the class of 2007, JMLS published employment
statistics on its website. These tatistics have completely disappeared from the website of JMLS. (g) On information d belief, for the class of 2008, JMLS published employment
statistics on its website. These tatistics have completely disappeared from the website of JMLS. (h) For the class of 009, JMLS published employment statistics on its website. The JMLS also
employment statistics have co pletely disappeared from the website of JMLS.
published salary information fo the class of2009. JMLS stated that the overall mean salary was
$75,923 and overall median sal
was $61,000. The mean salary for 2009 graduates was stated
to be $85,142 for those in priva e practice and $72,214 for those in "business". See Exhibit 2. (i) For the class
2010, JMLS published employment statistics on its website. er graduation 56 percent of its graduates were employed in fulI-
JMLS stated that nine months
time positions for which a JD degree is required or preferred, including 51 percent allegedly working in private practice and 2 percent in "business." Exhibit 3. 28. The context of he Employment Information made it reasonably appear to the
public, and especially to Plai iffs and other prospective law students, that the jobs reported represented full-time permane t employment in attorney positions where bar passage was required. 29. The Defendant intended that the Employment Information would be so
interpreted by those receiving i 30. At all relevant imes, the Employment Information was incomplete, in that it
omitted or concealed material nformation, was false or materially misleading in the following respects: (a) The total numbe of graduates employed was substantially overstated, because (i) The jobs reported included any type of employment, including jobs that
did not require or even refer a J.D. degree. Such jobs could even have included working part-time as a barista at tarbucks. (ii) The jobs reported included jobs that were part-time or were full-time but
temporary short-term p itions. (iii) The jobs eported included jobs such as "research assistant" or "intern" or
other "make-work" po itions - including some which JMLS provided to its own
graduates while they w e studying for the Bar exams and/or to tide them over until they found "real jobs" requiri (iv) paralegal and law clerk (v) Many
ation and belief, the law firm jobs reported included many ositions for which a law degree is not required or preferred. the graduates listed as working in "business" ith the law. r food service. had jobs with
almost nothing to do positions such as retail (b)
Instead, the vast majority of these jobs were in
The salaries rep rted were substantially overstated, because JMLS, on one hand, num ers the numbers from any kind of employment (including
reported as employment
temporary and part-time), but, time employment.
n the other hand, reported salary information based only on full-
Given that ull-time employment generally pays significantly higher salaries mployment, the published salary numbers were significantly
than part-time or temporary
distorted to show higher sala es than statistically warranted and, therefore, were inherently misleading. (c) The Employme t Information omitted and concealed material information that
was necessary for recipients to roperly evaluate the data contained, particularly: (i) the term 'business" jobs did not mean jobs working as lawyers in an entity
other than a law firm, b t included jobs that any college graduate (or even non-graduate) could obtain, such as w iter, delivery person, barista or store clerk. (ii) (iii) the data as obtained only through surveys voluntarily returned. This information
only a s all percentage of surveys had been returned,
was important because such surveys are most often returned by those who have done comparatively well, not hose who have struggled in finding employment.
the respe tive numbers or percentages of graduates reporting employment
who were employed (1) in the legal profession in a position requiring a J.D. degree, or (2) in a non-legal professi n in a position preferring a J.D. degree, or (3) in a related profession, or (4) in a p sition not requiring a J.D. degree. (v) the resp ctive numbers or percentages of graduates in each category of
employment and wheth r employed in a full time or part time or temporary positions. (vi) the data i the Employment Information had not been audited or otherwise
As a result, the data reported in the Employment
Information implied a much
stronger statistical basis than graduates with full-time perm
as fact and failed to show the material distinctions between ent positions as lawyers and other graduates.
32. At all relevant ti es, JMLS reported the Employment Information in its print and d to third parties, such as the ABA, the National Association for
electronic marketing materials Law Placement ("NALP"), an reported portions of the Emplo 33.
Us. News & World Report ("U.s. News"). These organizations
ent Information to other persons and/or the public. and intended that Us. News would publish data from the
Employment Information it pr vided and that Plaintiffs and prospective and current law school students would give particular i portance to law school information published by Us. News. 34. Defendants kne that Plaintiffs and prospective and current law school students
made their decisions as to whi h law school to enroll in, or to remain enrolled in, based on the perceived advantage a degree permanent employment as a la rom that particular school would give them in finding full-time er.
that the ability to find a job as a lawyer was important to
Plaintiffs notwithstanding that orne of students believed that a J.D. degree could be useful even if they chose not to practice la (as distinguished from believing that they might have to find a
non-law position on account of aw positions not being as available as represented). 36. The cumulative effect of Defendants touting its post-graduate employment
placement record - whether in ts own publications or in its reports to other organizations - was to imply to prospective stude ts, and to induce prospective students to infer, that JMLS's employment statistics accuratel reflected their likelihood of finding a permanent full-time job as a lawyer within nine months a 37. Knowing that r graduation. laintiffs and other students would refer to and rely on those
statistics, Defendants noneth less, intentionally or negligently, assembled, published and circulated the Employment In ormation, even though it was incomplete, false or materially misleading, and omitted the tr e facts which would have enabled Plaintiffs to make a reasoned and informed decision as to wh ther or not to enroll in JMLS. 38. JMLS had an
ligation to report certain data to the ABA and NALP. That
obligation included a responsi ility to provide more than the minimum data required by those organizations, in order to ensur that what it did provide was not incomplete, false or materially misleading. 39. Nevertheless, h ever limited its obligation to the ABA and NALP might have
been, JMLS had a separate obli ation to the public to ensure that any Employment Information it chose to publish in other place , such as its website and own publications, was not incomplete, false or materially misleading.
JMLS had no
ligation to report its graduate employment ,knowing
News, but JMLS did so anyw
full well that the information it disclosed would be Accordingly, it had a duty to make
disseminated to the public, inc uding prospective students.
sure that the information it pro .ded was not incomplete, false or materially misleading. 41. Even if JMLS .d not initially have any obligation to disclose the Employment luntarily providing that information, it assumed and incurred a Information was not incomplete, false or
Information to the public, by
special duty to make sure th t the Employment materially misleading. 42. The Employme t Information
through the data clearinghouse prospective students. information. 43.
is the only school-specific information available to Plaintiffs and and prospective students have no choice but to rely upon the
JMLS, as a law chool, is an integral part of our legal system, and the first place
in which incipient lawyers are i culcated not only with legal principles but legal ethics. As such, it is almost inconceivable that prospective student would even contemplate that a bulwark of
the legal profession would eve publish information that was false, incomplete and/or materially misleading. A student would expect to be able to rely on the accuracy of such information, It would not be reasonable for a Thus, Plaintiffs
unlike promotional material fr m, e.g., a department store.
student to think there was a ne d to make an effort to verify such information. reliance on the Employment In rmation was reasonable. 44. Once Plaintiffs
nrolled at JMLS and were choosing to continue their enrollment
each year thereafter, Plaintiffs were entitled to transparency and honesty from the school, and
JMLS was specially obligated
not to continue to provide them with employment information
that was incomplete, false and! r materially misleading. 45. The Lawyer D fendants who are lawyers licensed in Illinois (the "Lawyer
Defendants") have a duty to fol ow the Illinois Supreme Court's Rules of Professional Conduct. 46. Those Rules rea in part:
"Rule 4.1: Truthfulness n Statements to Others In the course of represe ting a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: (a) (b) make a false stat ment of material fact or law to a third person; or fail to disclose a material fact when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a cri nal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by R e 1.6."
"Rule 8.1: Bar Admissi n and Disciplinary Matters An applicant for admi sion to the bar, or a lawyer in connection with a bar admission application 0 in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not: (a) (b) knowingly make a false statement of material fact; or fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have isen in the matter, or knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority, excep that this Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protec ed by these Rules or by law."
"Rule 8:4: Misconduct It is professional misco duct for a lawyer to: (a) violate or attem t to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce other to do so, or to do so through the acts of another.
engage III c nduct misrepresentatio ."
47. The conduct of the Lawyer Defendants in participating in the preparation and dissemination of the Employm nt Information, or failing to prevent such dissemination, violated the foregoing Rules 4.1 and 8.4 as well as the spirit of the more limited Rule 8.1. 48. Plaintiffs are me bers of the public whom the Rules were intended to protect and
to whom the Lawyer Defendan owed a duty pursuant to those Rules. 49.
It was reasonabl for Plaintiffs to rely on the Employment Information approved
and disseminated by the Lawye Defendants. 50. The Lawyer De endants failed in their duty, and are responsible to redress any
injuries suffered by Plaintiffs t ereby. 51. In summary, D fendants knew and intended that Plaintiffs and other students
52. 53. 54.
Such reliance w s reasonable. Plaintiffs did rei on the Employment Information. Plaintiffs invest gated the Employment Information they received to the extent
reasonably necessary. 55. As a consequen e of such reliance, Plaintiffs enrolled in JMLS's JD program and for the required tuition, and in some cases took out tuition loans
paid tens of thousands of doll that will burden them for many 56.
As a consequen e of such reliance, Plaintiffs graduated with a J.D. degree from
JMLS with near-term and lifeti e job prospects that are, statistically, less than they would have
been had they obtained a degr e from JMLS with the employment numbers JMLS claimed to represent. 57. JMLS inflated i employment statistics by a percentage to be determined in this
litigation. ("X percent") 58. Those inflated tatistics purported to be a reasonable projection by JMLS of
Plaintiffs' post-graduate empl yment prospects if he or she enrolled at JMLS rather than elsewhere. 59. To the extent th statistics were inflated by X percent, the advantages to Plaintiffs
and the value of the tuition and fees they paid to JMLS was reduced by X percent. Accordingly, JMLS charged for X, but the PI intiffs did not receive X. 60. (a) (b) Therefore, Plain iffs were damaged at least in the amounts of: X percent of the mount they paid to JMLS, and a statistically d terminable amount of the lifetime income they would have been
expected to earn after graduati g from JMLS if JMLS's post-graduation employment statistics had been those that JMLS had epresented in the Employment Information, less the statistically determinable amount of the I fetime income they would now be expected to earn, having graduated from JMLS, based u on JMLS's true post-graduation employment statistics.
That Law Schools Have Published ment Statistics For Man Years. 11, it has become commonly known that the law school industry statistics of its graduates at least since 2000.
has misrepresented employme
who have concluded that t
vast majority of law schools in the United States have
misrepresented or distorted the employment data they report to (a) prospective students and (b)
63. There is an inc ntive to manufacture or distort employment data because that which is
data, in turn, is a significant fa tor in the computation of a school's a significant fact in an applican 's choice of a law school. 64.
us. News ranking,
The reported mi representations by law schools include falsely implying (a) that
graduates employed outside t e legal industry in non-lawyer capacities were "employed" as lawyers and (b) falsely claimi "employed full time." that graduates who have temporary work or contract work are
One su h article is "Served: how law schools completely misrepresent
their job numbers," The New
epublic, April 25, 2011, by Paul Campos, a Professor at the
University of Colorado Law S hool. Professor Campos concluded, "When we take temporary employment into account, it a pears that approximately 45 percent of 2010 graduates of this particular top-50 law school ha real legal jobs nine months after graduation." 65. Campos also no ed that while NALP collects information from graduates about
whether their jobs are full-time or part-time, it does not reveal this information in its published
figures. Nor does NALP provi
employment informationfor graduates of specific schools.
Other well-resp cted professors have similarly criticized law school practices. drew P. Morriss, What Law School Rankings Don't Say About Henderson is a Professor of Law at the University
See William D. Henderson and
Costly Choices, Nat'l L. J. (Ap '1 16,2008).
of Indiana Law School. Morris Likewise, two professors investigating whether at
is a Professor of Law at the University of Alabama Law School. Law School published deans and administrators a law review article criminal acts by
disseminating what is widely a knowledged to be false employment data. See, Cloud, Morgan
and Shepherd, George
SSRN :http:ssrn.com/a sgract+ 1 90746 or http://dx.doi.orgl10.2139/ssrn.1990746. 67. Experts on the legal industry have concluded that law schools distort their
employment information to (a) induce students to enroll, and (b) to move up in the rankings. See e.g., A Way Fo
ard: Transparency at American Law Schools, forthcoming Pace
Law Review, by Kyle P. McE ee and Patrick 1. Lynch; Law Deans In Jail, Morgan Cloud and
George Shepherd, SSRN 1990 46 (March 2012) (concluding that law schools have published false or misleading statistics). McEntee and Lynch also argue that it requires a great deal of statistics provided by
industry knowledge and statist cal analysis to penetrate the employment law schools. McEntee and Lyn h explain: Though on the surface sorting past outcomes number of issues. Thes the graduate; it does employer .... But unless school graduates go on (Page 29). 68. The possible
e employment type categories seem to do a good job of or [the prospective students], close inspection reveals a classifications reflect the type of employer that employs ot reflect the type of job the graduate has with the hey know how to look, reasonable readers assume law 0 be lawyers and that this is what these categories show.
other law schools
unforthcoming in the submissi n and presentation of employment information about their own graduates in no way justifies
exonerates JMLS from its own deliberate or negligent actions in
disseminating its own incomple e, false or materially misleading information.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
This action is b ought and may properly be maintained as a class action pursuant
to 735 ILCS 5/2-801. Plaintiff: bring this action, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, as representative mem ers of the following proposed class (the "Class"):
All persons who are ei er presently enrolled in The John Marshall Law School to obtain a JD degree, or tained such a degree, during the period from 2006 to the present. 70. For the followi g reasons, this action fulfills the standards and requirements as
outlined by 735 ILCS 5/2-801. A. 71. The Parties are Numerous The proposed and Easily Ascertainable
ass is so numerous that it is manifestly impracticable to bring h the exact number and identities of the Class is unknown at this hrough appropriate discovery, and likely contain thousands of The number and
them all before the court. Tho time, they can be ascertained people, as approximately
400 students graduate from JMLS each year.
identities of other Class mem ers may be determined from Defendants'
records and files, and
potential Class members may e sily be notified about the pendency of this action. B. 72. Common Ques .ons of Law and Facts Predominate This action pre ents questions of law and facts common to the Class, including,
but not limited to, the followin : (a) Whether the E ployment Information provided by Defendants was incomplete,
false or materially misleading; (b) Business Practices Act; (c) Whether conduct constituted fraud and! or negligent ts' conduct violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
misrepresentation; (d) Whether the La er Defendants have a separate or additional liability on account
of violations of the Illinois Sup erne Court's Rules of Professional responsibility;
Whether Plainti s and members of the Class are entitled to recover restitution of
a portion of tuition monies and xpenses paid to JMLS as a result of Defendants' conduct; (t) Whether Plainti s and members of the Class are entitled to recover the difference they statistically were likely to have earned after graduation had I formation been correct, and (ii) the lifetime amounts they
between (i) the lifetime amoun the erroneous Employment
statistically are likely to earn b sed on JMLS's actual employment statistics. (g) Whether Plainti s and members of the Class are entitled to recover additional ts' conduct;
damages as a result of Defend (h)
Whether Plainti f and Class members are entitled to an award of reasonable
attorneys' fees, pre-judgment i terest and costs of this suit; (i) Whether Defen ants should be required to retain independent, non-related thirdost-graduate employment data and salary information;
parties to audit and verify their G)
Whether Defen ants should be enjoined from continuing to make incomplete, presentations regarding JMLS's post-graduate employment data
false or materially misleading and salary information; (k)
Whether Defen ants engaged in any act, practice or course of business which
operated or would operate as a raud or deceit upon prospective students; and (1) Whether Defen ants made any untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to in order to make their statements to students and prospective
state a material fact necessar students not misleading. C. 73.
Plaintiffs' Clai s Are Typical of the Class Plaintiffs' clai are typical of the claims, and of the members of the Class,
because all members were da aged in the same manner as a result of the incomplete, false or
materially misleading Emplo
ent Information provided by Defendants.
interests of the representative P aintiffs are co-extensive with the interests of each Class member, and all have a common right of ecovery based upon the same facts. D. 74. The Class Repr sentatives Can Adequately Represent the Class Plaintiffs are dequate representatives of the Class because Plaintiffs are
members of the Class and the r interests do not conflict with the interests of the Class. The interests of the Class will be :6 . rly and adequately protected by Plaintiffs and their undersigned counsel, who are competent an experienced in the prosecution of class action litigation. E. 75. A Class Action rovides a Substantial Benefit to the Courts and Litigants
If Class member are required to bring separate actions, courts throughout Illinois
would be confronted by a multi licity of lawsuits, burdening the court system while creating the risk of inconsistent rulings and ontradictory judgments. In contrast to proceeding on a case-bycase basis, in which inconsiste t results would magnify the delay and expense to all parties and the court system, this class acti n will present far fewer management difficulties while providing unitary adjudication, economie of scale and comprehensive supervision by a single court. 76. Members of th Class almost invariably lack the means to pay attorneys to Given the complexity of the issues presented here,
prosecute their claims indivi ually.
individual claims are not suffic ently sizeable to attract the interests of highly able and dedicated attorneys who will prosecute em on a contingency basis. Only by aggregating claims can
Plaintiffs gain the leverage nee ssary to pursue a just and global resolution of the issues raised in this Amended Complaint. 77. Plaintiffs and pu ative class members demand a jury trial for all issues so triable.
Plainti fs, on behalf of themselves and the Class, pray for an Order
certifying the Class and appoin .ng Plaintiffs and their counsel of record to represent the Class. COUNT I OF THE ILLINOIS CONSUMER EPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES GAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 78. Plaintiffs inco orate by reference FRAUD ACT
each and every allegation
Paragraphs 1 - 77 above as if fu ly stated herein. 79. Defendants' acti ns constitute unlawful, unfair, deceptive and fraudulent acts and onsumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS
practices as defined by Illinois 505, et seq. 80.
Plaintiffs and ea h member of the Class are consumers within the meaning of the
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (the "Act"). 81. JMLS's offer d sale of its JD course program in conduct involving trade or and JMLS's offer and sale of its JD course program constituted
commerce as defined by the A
the sale of merchandise within t e meaning of the Act. 82. Defendants kno ingly and intentionally made false representations and omissions
of material facts, with the inten to deceive and fraudulently induce reliance by Plaintiffs and the members of the Class. These nature, and include, without materially misleading Employ lse representations and omissions were uniform and identical in imitation, the following: Providing the incomplete, false or
ent Information to the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class
and to various third-party data clearinghouses and publications, such as the ABA, NALP and
Plaintiffs enroll d and continued to enroll at JMLS for the purpose of securing full-time, p rmanent employment in the legal profession. Defendants'
upon graduation misrepresentations
and omissio s in the Employment Information were material to the decisions
of Plaintiffs and the members 84.
the Class to enroll and attend JMLS. and material
Defendants mad and disseminated those material misrepresentations
omissions in the Employment of the putative Class rely upon 85.
formation with the intent that the Plaintiffs and other members em.
As a result of D fendants' wrongful actions, Plaintiffs and other members of the
Class were damaged in that the enrolled and remained enrolled at JMLS's JD program and paid tens of thousands of dollars in paid. 86. Plaintiffs were, t all relevant times, ignorant of the true facts and did not know ation was incomplete, false or materially misleading. reasonable way to ascertain that the Employment Information ition and other expenses, which they would not have otherwise
that that the Employment Info 87. Plaintiffs had n
was incomplete, false or materi lly misleading. 88. 89. Had Plaintiffs kn wn, they would never have enrolled at JMLS. The Defendants actions constitute unfair business practices occurnng in the
course of conduct involving tr de because the actions were deceptive, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, substantially inju ious, and operated to the competitive disadvantage of other law schools, deceived the public, and were not outweighed consumers or competition. by any countervailing benefits to
The Defendants actions were unfair and deceptive because they have caused ial harm, which was not harm that consumers themselves could
Plaintiffs and the Class subst have reasonably avoided. 91. The unlawful,
fair, deceptive and fraudulent acts and practices have directly,
foreseeably and proximately ca sed damage to Plaintiffs and other members of the Class. 92. The Defendants' acts and practices have misled and deceived the general public in islead and deceive the general public into the future, by, among
the past, and will continue to
other things, causing them to ap ly to and enroll at JMLS under false pretenses. WHEREFORE, Plaintif s, on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, pray for relief and judgment against Def ndants JMLS and Does 1 through 20 as follows: A. For preliminary d permanent relief enjoining Defendants, their agents, servants,
employees and all persons ac ng in concert with them from continuing to engage in their unlawful recruitment program d manipulation of post-graduate employment data and salary , unlawful and lor fraudulent business practices alleged above and that may yet be discovered i the prosecution of this action;
For certification fthe Class; For compensator damages in an amount to be determined after discovery;
E. F. For statutory da ages and attorneys' fees as provided in the Act; For injunctive r lief ordering that JMLS retain unrelated, independent third-
parties to audit and verify post- aduate employment data and salary information; G. H. For attorneys' fe s and expenses pursuant to all applicable laws; For prejudgment nterest; and
For such other
d further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. COUNT II FRAUD GAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
93. herein. 94.
Plaintiffs incorp rate by reference paragraphs 1 through 77 as if fully set forth
Defendants pub I shed and disseminated to the Plaintiffs, the other members ofthe ment Information.
Class, and the public the Empl 95. 96. not misleading. 97. 98. materially The Employmen Defendants misleading, kne
The statements i the Employment Information were statements of fact. Defendants had duty to ensure that the Employment Information was true and
Information was incomplete, false or materially misleading. that the Employment Information was incomplete, Information false or might be
or wi lfully ignored that the Employment
incomplete, false or materially 99.
isleading and intentionally chose not to verify it. Information believe
Defendants inte ded that the recipients of the Employment
that it was true and rely on it i making decisions as to whether or not to enroll at JMLS and for other purposes. 100. Plaintiffs and
her recipients had no reasonable
way to determine
Employment Information was i complete, false or materially misleading. 101. Plaintiffs did r asonably rely and act on the Employment Information and
enrolled at JMLS. 102. The incomplete, alse or materially misleading Employment Information directly,
foreseeably and proximately ca sed damage to Plaintiffs and other members of the Class. 24
The Defendants' acts and practices have misled and deceived the general public in islead and deceive the general public into the future, by, among
the past, and will continue to
other things, causing students t apply to and enroll at JMLS under false pretenses. WHEREFORE, Plainti s, on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, pray for relief and judgment against De ndants JMLS and Does 1 through 20 as follows:
nd permanent relief enjoining Defendants, their agents, servants,
employees and all persons ac ing in concert with them from continuing to engage in their unlawful recruitment program d manipulation of post-graduate employment data and salary
information, and all other unf r, unlawful and lor fraudulent business practices alleged above and that may yet be discovered n the prosecution of this action; B. C. D. E. For certification f the Class; For compensato For punitive d For injunctive lief ordering that JMLS retain unrelated, independent thirddamages in an amount to be determined after discovery;
parties to audit and verify post- raduate employment data and salary information; F. G. H. For attorneys' fe s and expenses pursuant to all applicable laws; For prejudgment interest; and For such other d further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. COUNT III
IGENT MISREPRESENTATION GAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Plaintiffs incorp rate by reference paragraphs 1 through 77 of this Complaint as if
fully set forth herein.
Defendants publ shed and disseminated to the Plaintiffs, the other members of the ment Information.
Class, and the public the Empl 106. 107. 108. not misleading 109.
The statements i the Employment Information were statements of fact. The Employme Defendants had Information was incomplete, false and materially misleading. duty to ensure that the Employment Information was true and
In addition, De ndants owed Plaintiffs a duty, arising out of the ABA Rules,
arising from Defendants' posi on of superior knowledge and sole access to information, and arising from JMLS' s special n ture as a highly respected law school, to provide complete and accurate employment statistics. 110. In addition, the efendants occupy a fiduciary position as educators, and owe a
heightened duty of care to Plai iffs and members of the Class to act in good faith and engage in fair dealings. 111. Likewise, by vi e of the fact that many staff members and faculty of JMLS are
attorneys and members of t e Illinois Bar, they have certain ethical obligations and responsibilities to Plaintiffs and 112. embers of the Class.
Defendants bre ched these heightened duties of care by publishing and
disseminating the incomplete, f se and materially misleading Employment Information. 113. Defendants inte ed that the recipients of the Employment Information believe aking decisions as to whether or not to enroll at JMLS and for
that it was true and rely on it in other purposes. 114.
Plaintiffs and ot er recipients had no reasonable way to determine that the
Employment Information was in omplete, false or materially misleading.
Plaintiffs did re y and act on the Employment
and enrolled and
continued to be enrolled at JM 116. The incomplete, alse or materially misleading Employment Information directly,
foreseeably and proximately ca sed damage to Plaintiffs and other members of the Class. 117. The Defendants' acts and practices have misled and deceived the general public in islead and deceive the general public into the future, by, among
the past, and will continue to
other things, causing students to apply to and enroll at JMLS under false pretenses. WHEREFORE, Plaintif s, on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, pray for
relief and judgment against Def ndants JMLS and Does 1 through 20 as follows: A. For preliminary nd permanent relief enjoining Defendants, their agents, servants,
employees and all persons ac ng in concert with them from continuing to engage in their unlawful recruitment program d manipulation of post-graduate employment data and salary
information, and all other unfair unlawful and/or fraudulent business practices alleged above and that may yet be discovered in th prosecution of this action; B. C. D. For certification For compensato fthe Class; damages in an amount to be determined after discovery; independent third-
For injunctive r lief ordering that JMLS retain unrelated,
parties to audit and verify postE. F.
aduate employment data and salary information;
For attorneys' fe s and expenses pursuant to all applicable laws; For prejudgment nterest; and
COUNT IV FRAUD ST THE LAWYER DEFENDANTS 27
118. herein. 119.
Plaintiffs incorp rate by reference paragraphs 1 through 77 as if fully set forth
The Lawyer De ndants, pursuant to common law and especially pursuant to the
Illinois Supreme Court Rules duty to the Plaintiffs. 120.
Professional Conduct ("Rules") 4.1, 8.1 and 8.4, owed a special
This duty was n t to Plaintiffs as clients of the Lawyer Defendants, but as "third
persons" within the meaning of he Rules. 121. Plaintiffs relied on the Employment Information published by lawyers
representing a reputable law sc 122. In intentionally willfully committing the actions alleged, the Lawyer
Defendants violated that duty 123. The incomplete, alse or materially misleading Employment Information directly,
foreseeably and proximately ca sed damage to Plaintiffs and other members of the Class. 124. The Lawyer Deft ndants' acts and practices have misled and deceived the general
public in the past, and will conti ue to mislead and deceive the general public into the future, by, among other things, causing stu ents to apply to and enroll at JMLS under false pretenses. WHEREFORE, Plaintif , on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, pray for
relief and judgment against the A. For preliminary d permanent relief enjoining the Lawyer Defendants 's unlawful recruitment program and manipulation salary information, and all other unfair, unlawful from
continuing to engage graduate employment
of postand lor
fraudulent business practices all ged above and that may yet be discovered in the prosecution of this action; 28
B. C. D. E. F.
For certification For compensato
f the Class; damages in an amount to be determined after discovery;
For attorneys' fe s and expenses pursuant to all applicable laws; For prejudgment interest; and For such other d further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. COUNT V IGENT MISREPRESENTATION ST THE LAWYER DEFENDANTS
Plaintiffs incorp rate by reference paragraphs 1 through 77 of this Complaint as if
fully set forth herein. 126. The Lawyer Def ndants, pursuant to common law and especially pursuant to the
Illinois Supreme Court Rules duty to the Plaintiffs. 127.
Professional Conduct ("Rules") 4.1, 8.1 and 8.4, owed a special
This duty was n
to Plaintiffs as clients of the Lawyer Defendants, but as "third e Rules. easonably rely on the Employment Information published by
persons" within the meaning of 128. Plaintiffs could
lawyers representing a reputable law school. 129. In negligently c itting the actions alleged, the Lawyer Defendants violated
that duty and those Rules. l30. The incomplete, alse or materially misleading Employment Information directly,
foreseeably and proximately cau ed damage to Plaintiffs and other members of the Class.
The Lawyer Def
dants' acts and practices have misled and deceived the general
public in the past, and will conti ue to mislead and deceive the general public into the future, by,
among other things, causing P .ntiffs and prospective students to apply to and enroll at JMLS under false pretenses. WHEREFORE, Plainti s, on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, pray for awyer Defendants as follows: and permanent relief enjoining the Lawyer Defendants from
relief and judgment against the
continuing to engage in 1M graduate employment data
's unlawful recruitment program and manipulation
salary information, and all other unfair, unlawful
of postand lor
fraudulent business practices al eged above and that may yet be discovered in the prosecution of this action; B. C. D. E. F. For certification For compensato fthe Class; damages in an amount to be determined after discovery;
For attorneys' fe s and expenses pursuant to all applicable laws; For prejudgment interest; and For such other a d further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted,
DATED: May 24.2012
~7f~~ One of Plaintiffs'
Edward X. Clinton Sr., ARDC Edward X. Clinton Jr., ARDC The Clinton Law Firm
o. 0462578 o. 6206773
111 West Washington St.
Suite 1437 Chicago, Ill. 60602 Phone: 312/357-1515 David Anziska The Law Offices of David An .ska 30
305 Broadway, 9th FI. New York, NY 10007 Phone (212) 822-1496 Facsimile (212) 822~1437 Jesse Strauss Strauss Law, PLLC 305 Broadway, 9th Fl. New York, NY 10007 Phone (212) 822~1496 Facsimile (212) 822-1437
Counselfor Plaintiffs. individu lly and for all others similarly situ ted
Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all causes of action so triable. Dated: May 24, 2012 Respectfully submitted,
THE CLINTON LAW FIRM By:
Edward X. Clinton Sr. Edward X. Clinton Jr.
The Clinton Law Firm
111 West Washington St. Suite 1437 Chicago, Ill. 60602 Phone: (312) 357-1515
David Anziska 305 Broadway, 9th Fl. New York, NY 10007 Office: (914) 216-3540 Fax: (212) 822-1407
The Law Offices of David An iska
Jesse Strauss 305 Broadway, 9th Fl. New York, NY 10007 Counsel for Plaintiffs, individually andfor all others similarly situated
Strauss Law PLLC
CAREERSER ~,rICES:Employment Statistics - CI ~ S5 of 2006
WHEN DID ~~HECLASS OF 2006 FIND I"'-'HEIR JOBS?
fBefore Graduation After Graduation-Before Bar Results IAfter Bar Results Total Employed a Year After Graduation
(348) 164 64
Percent (100) 47.1% 18.40/0 34.5%
(These numbers reflect the percentage of those reporting, not all graduates)
HOW DID 1 HE CLASS OF 2006 FIND frHEIR JOBS?
Fall OCI !SpringOCI Job Fairs fPrior Non-Summer Job [Job Posting Se1f~Initiated Contact Referral by FriendlRelative Commercial Internet Job Site Temporary Placement Agency Started Own Practice Other
28.3% 0.3% 2.0% 15.5% 15.20/0 21.8% 25.3% 2.9% 2.3% 3.7%
I I rI
I I I I
Ex hibit 1
900'Z~O SSV~~ ~H
0/09·0 %9·t 0/09·0
~J S 1 %L'68 I_E!J i %O·t J L L r %£"0 I I ,'-
ap_U_UI_lV_q_lR~OSI 11UJUa3ql-lONJSaM! ;)_'PU_U_IJV_-_P!____!W
.pnlau}) (uJua;) lIl-10N JS83:j
l,)fHOM 900" ~O SSV
AlILNIlO:> ~HL so SV
JS8J8JUI ollqndl olwepeovl ssauisnal dllfSlIJ810 IB!:Jlpnrl /./.9' $
96l'D$ 000'99$ NVI03W
IN.lIV~ 900Z ~O SSV~~ 'JIB ala LVHA\
Median . Salary $80,000
-------~-.---+--~-------------~ OOO'8t$I __ J+OO_'8t$_~~. _;I_saJ_a~J_;ul:,_:l:.:..lIq..:....n~dl
lNl:IV3 600Z :10 SSV1:l 3Hl ola 1VHM 600~ jO SSBIO 8:»9SII8IS luewlic Idw3 :S3011\M3S M33MVO
2010 John Marsh'all
2010 Graduate Em
uate Employment Statisti,cs
384 students were sent our
Of the 366 students whose data was available for
analysis, 331 identified being full-time degree program. This [egal, and non-legal.
nme months after graduation and5 had enrolled in an additional
t rate represents all types of employment: fun-time, part-time,
Education Required for
Of the 331 students who respon our graduates.
loyment in 2010
the following details the type of education required by employers of
60 (FT: 46/PT: '14)
,85 (FTe32IPT: 3)
2010 Graduate Employrn
Of the ,331 graduates
e (Fl: !S/PT; 1,)
It by Practice Setting
who identified i;~ ,""rnl!::pIV,~!:: as employed, the foJlowing details the percentage of
graduates in each practice area.
Law Firms: 51% Buslness: 22%
Government/Public Academia: 7%
2010 Graduate Employm
The map below details the geogra
ic areas in which 2010 graduates work.
Law Firm Employment by
Of the 168 graduates who reported empfoyers. t in a law firm setting, the following details the size .of their
17 (Avf;lrage: $53)056)
. (Average:: $116,6'87)'
9 (Average: $114,286)
1500+ Attorneys: 4 .Lnr.:llr'!:l"'O'
Of the 66 graduates who reported
Employment by Organization Type
•ployment in a govemment or publlclnterest-related nt. setting, the
following details the types of
14 (AvEllrage: $65,74~~
Of the 24 graduates who reported whlch they work.
ment in academia, the following details the type of institution in
Private PracticelLaw Firm
As:ve1rage Msed. ian a ary a ary
12 to 10 Attorneys
111 to 25 Attorneys
126 to 50 Attorneys
13 6 15 5
151 to 100 Attorneys
1101 to 250 Attomeys 1251 to 500 Attorneys
501 or More Attorneys
I $58,355 I 555,000 I 571,500 I $65,000 I 573,500 I $61,000
I 598,250 I $112,500
IFlrm Size Unknown
I 630/0) 1<18.1
Average Median Salary Salary
I $48,230 I$48,796 I $60,538 1$60,000
I I $48,429 1$48,000
1$55,000 559,920 -I $62,000
Judicial Clerkship Federal
Ir-;-- $5l ,400 ..,
!s70,000 l$34,200 [Median Salary $24,000 Median
r-;- $3~,200 I~
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.