Below is a brief overview of the Honor Code, with a description of its basic structure and operation. By its design and existence, the Code gives notice that students at WCL have entered a professional school that adheres to the high standards of the legal profession and enforces those standards in the same self-regulating manner as the profession.
The full text of the Honor Code of American University, Washington College of Law is reproduced in the Washington College of Law ("WCL") Catalog and can be downloaded by clicking HERE. Incorporated into the Honor Code is the American University Student Code of Conduct.
Basic Structure and Operation
The Code is modeled on the process used by a court of general jurisdiction to resolve disputes with the exception that all members of the law school community have an affirmative obligation to report facts which establish reasonable grounds to believe a violation of the Code has occur- ed. Failure to do so and to assist the Honor Code Committee (all full-time faculty members and students appointed by the Student Bar Association) in determining formally if a violation has occurred are specific violations of the Code. Reports of possible violation are investigated by a prosecution team consisting of a faculty prosecutor appointed by the Dean and a student prosecu- tor appointed by the President of the Student Bar Association. If the prosecution team concludes that clear and convincing evidence exits to support a prima facie case of violation (one which resolves any and all conflicting factual inferences in favor of the prosecution), the team may elect to proceed in two ways.
First, it may elect not to formally charge a student with a violation if he or she agrees to accept and abide by sanctions deemed appropriate to the violation by the team. In this situation, no report of the violation is made to any court or bar examining authority inquiring of the law school about the student's character and fitness to practice law. Second, it may elect to formally charge a student with a violation and either proceed to a negotiated resolution approved by the Dean, or ask the Dean to appoint a panel of the Honor Code Committee (3 faculty members and 2 students) to hear and determine the matter. The panel may be appointed initially or later if efforts to reach a negotiated resolution fail. In either case, the fact that a student was formally charged with a violation means that notice of this fact and the outcome of the proceeding (negotiated resolution or hearing) are always reported to any court or bar examining authority inquiring of the school about the student's character and fitness to practice law. There is no right of appeal from any negotiated resolution of a charge of violation of the Code.
Hearings before a panel of the Honor Code Committee are conducted in an adversarial manner. The prosecution team presents its case through witnesses, documents, and other forms of evidence, and the student presents her or his case in the same manner. Students are permitted to be represented by legal counsel at the hearing stage. The normal rules of evidence are suspended except for common law and constitutional privileges. If the panel determines that a violation of the Code has occurred, it must recommend to the Dean the sanctions it believes should be imposed. A graduated scheme of sanctions is available, ranging from an oral reprimand not made a permanent part of a student's record to expulsion, with several stages between these two extremes. The Dean may accept the panel's sanctions recommendations or reduce them, but cannot increase them. A student found to have violated the Code by a panel of the Honor Code Committee may appeal the finding of violation to the Standards, Evaluation, and Grievance Committee, and the recommended sanctions to the Dean. If the ultimate outcome of the proceedings is a finding of violation, notice of that outcome is published in the Docket (the school's official, legal newspaper) without revealing the student's name. If the ultimate outcome is a finding of no violation, the student may have a notice to this effect placed in the Docket.
Activity Prohibited by the Code
The Code defines what constitutes academic dishonesty and prohibits it. The Code also incorporates the non-academic, or conduct, sections of the American University Code of Conduct and the American Bar Association Model Code of Professional Responsibility. There are, then, academic, conduct, and ethical violations of the Code. Academic violations include familiar matters such as cheating on exams, plagiarism, interfering with the "broadest possible access to library resources." Conduct violations include harassment, failure to abide by any university or law school policy, and adjudicated violations of local criminal law occurring on campus. Ethical violations include acts of misrepresentation such as those made to secure admission to the school, on resumes submitted when seeking employment, and when seeking financial aid. Ethical violations can also occur off-campus in professional work settings and educational settings (externships, for example).
Conclusion
The success of the Code in fostering the development of appropriate standards of behavior rests from several sources: knowledge and understanding of the code, its reason for being; affirmative embracing of the Code as the standard of academic, personal, and ethical conduct; and the commitment to implement the Code by example, by counseling compliance when appropriate, and, when necessary, reporting possible violations.
