Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law v. American Bar Association (TV1)

Filing 29

RESPONSE in Opposition re 22 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer , Motion to Dismiss, or other Responsive Motion or Pleading filed by Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law. (Watson, Robert)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
LINCOLN MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY,
DUNCAN SCHOOL OF LAW,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:11-CV-608
Judge Varlan
Magistrate Judge Shirley

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Duncan School of Law (“DSOL”) in this response requests that this Court deny
Defendant American Bar Association’s (“ABA”) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to
Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. #22). Such an extension of time is truly inappropriate in this case.
The actions by the ABA in this case have placed DSOL in an emergency situation of an urgent
nature. DSOL is not capable of enduring an unnecessary extension by the ABA.
As a result of the ABA’s arbitrary and capricious decision denying DSOL provisional
approval and its premature public announcement of this decision -- in violation of the ABA’s
own rules -- DSOL is damaged on a daily and continuing basis. As DSOL counsel made known
to this Court during the hearing of January 6, 2012, the very existence of DSOL is threatened.
The effect of the ABA’s actions upon DSOL’s reputation adversely affects the ability of DSOL
to attract and maintain students, faculty and funding. This harm being endured by DSOL began
immediately upon the ABA’s decision of December 20, 2011 and is ongoing.
This is currently the time period, November through February, in which applicants are
applying to law school. Tens of thousands of applicants are deciding where to apply and DSOL
1

137802.00601/50416326v.1 

is being rejected summarily based solely upon the ABA’s actions. DSOL is not receiving the
benefit accruing to approved law schools which are readily made known to prospective students
by the Law School Admission Council. DSOL faculty are not able to participate in academic
events restricted to professors at approved law schools. DSOL students may not apply for
scholarships and employment restricted to students at approved law schools. The public interest
is best served if this case is promptly resolved rather than extended.
The ABA is readily able to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint by the proper deadline of
January 18, 2012. The ABA has long been apprised of the issues involved in this case. DSOL
presented its positions in this matter very early in the process of the ABA Council’s review of its
Accreditation Committee’s recommendation with respect to DSOL’s accreditation. Beginning
with the Hearing Brief, filed as Exhibit A to DSOL’s Complaint, DSOL submitted its positions
in great detail to the ABA’s Council prior to its meeting of December 2, 2011 on the issue of
DSOL’s accreditation.
Perhaps more importantly, the ABA presents nothing in support of its request for an
extension of time other than the length of DSOL’s Complaint. (Doc. #23, p. 1) One is hard put to
imagine how this contention could be deemed sound or of merit when the ABA itself offered its
Declaration of Hulett H. Askew (Doc. #20) which numbered 115 paragraphs and 41 pages in this
Court’s consideration of DSOL’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. #2). The
ABA served this declaration upon DSOL on January 3, 2011 and DSOL was readily able to
acknowledge and respond to this declaration in the course of the hearing on DSOL’s motion for a
temporary restraining order before this Court on January 6, 2012. Indeed, the ABA had no fewer
than six lawyers present at the hearing on January 6.

2

137802.00601/50416326v.1 

DSOL asks that this Court deny the ABA’s request for an extension of time in light of the
emergency conditions in which DSOL finds itself. The difficulties being endured by DSOL as a
result of the ABA’s actions would only be further compounded if an organization such as the
ABA, with its depth of resources, were permitted additional time to respond in this matter.
RESPECTFULLY submitted this 10th day of January, 2012.
LINCOLN MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY
DUNCAN SCHOOL OF LAW
By: /s/Robert H. Watson, Jr., BPR No. 1702
ROBERT H. WATSON, JR.
WATSON, ROACH, BATSON
ROWELL & LAUDERBACK, P.L.C.
Attorneys at Law
1500 Riverview Tower
900 South Gay Street
P.O. Box 131
Knoxville, TN 37901-0131
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail] 

By: /s/Michael L. Cioffi, Ohio Bar No. 0031098
MICHAEL L. CIOFFI
BLANK ROME LLP
1700 PNC Center
201 East Fifth Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

3

137802.00601/50416326v.1 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on Tuesday, January 10, 2012, a copy of the foregoing was filed
electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the Court’s electronic filing
system to all parties indicated on the electronic filing receipt. All other parties will be served by
certified U.S. mail, return receipt requested. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s
electronic filing system:
Howard H. Vogel
Jeffrey R. Thompson
P. Alexander Vogel
O’NEIL, PARKER & WILLIAMSON, PLLC
7610 Gleason Drive, Suite 200
Knoxville, Tennessee 37919

Michael L. Cioffi
Blank Rome LLP
1700 PNC Center
201 East Fifth Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202

Patricia J. Larson
Stephanie Ann Giggetts
American Bar Association
321 North Clark Street
Chicago, Illinois 60654

Michael P. Doss
Linda R. Friedlieb
Anne E. Rea
Sidley Austin LLP
One South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603

Dated January 10, 2012.
/s/Robert H. Watson, Jr., BPR No. 1702
ROBERT H. WATSON, JR.
Attorney for Plaintiff
WATSON, ROACH, BATSON,
ROWELL & LAUDERBACK, P.L.C.
Attorneys at Law
1500 Riverview Tower
900 South Gay Street
P.O. Box 131
Knoxville, Tennessee 37901-0131
[phone]

4

137802.00601/50416326v.1