Apply Now
Request Info

Professionalism oath

Incoming students take a professionalism oath at the beginning of their law school careers. The oath guides the aspirations and conduct of students during their time at Washburn Law.

I understand that my legal reputation started on my first day of law school. I solemnly vow to uphold the Honor Code of Washburn University School of Law and the values expressed in the Pillars of Professionalism. I promise to prepare diligently for my classes in order to develop the competency and character that will be expected of me from those who trustingly seek my aid in time of need.
I will check my official email regularly and respond to communications promptly, accurately, and courteously. I understand that my actions and words, including those shown on social media, now reflect on Washburn Law and the legal profession. I will strive to promote an atmosphere of collegiality with my peers that will carry forward in my professional career. I will treat myself and others with respect.
All this I do affirm with sincerity and resolve.

Adopted 5/11/1988.

Amended 11/18/1993; 6/9/1998; 9/15/2008; 7/3/2017; 9/12/2017; 10/21/2021; 5/9/2023.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

General Principles
Part I. Conduct Subject To Sanctions
Part II. Sanctions
Part III. Reports To Bar Authorities
Part IV. Rules Of Procedure For Disposition Of Honor Code Complaints
Part V. Emergency Suspension Pending Disposition Of Honor Code Complaint
Part VI. Definitions
Part VII. Independent Library Rules

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

The Honor Code of Washburn University School of Law calls for a commitment by students to adhere to the highest degree of professional integrity. The Honor Code is based on the fundamental principles of mutual trust and respect. Each student who joins the law school community affirms, by the student's acceptance of a position in the community, this commitment to integrity, trust and respect. Each student is presumed not to have violated this commitment unless and until proven otherwise.

Students at the law school benefit from the Honor Code because teaching and learning flourish best in an environment where mutual trust and respect form the bedrock of relationships within the community. A history and continued expectation of mutual trust and respect helps maintain a community in which all students can maximize their intellectual and academic potential. The Honor Code reminds all members of the law school community that success obtained through dishonest or unprofessional means is no success at all.

Moreover, attendance at the Washburn University School of Law is every student's first step toward becoming a member of the legal profession. Essential to the well-being of the legal profession is the presence of a sense of honor, ethical integrity, and mutual respect among its members. The Honor Code is therefore an integral part of proper and complete professional training.

The Honor Code furthers the goal of the law school to serve the public and the profession by producing attorneys dedicated to promoting justice, excellence, and respect for the law. It also furthers the goal of assuring the safety of individuals, the protection of property, and the continuity of the educational process.

The success of the Honor Code depends upon the diligence with which members of the law school community ensure that they, as well as others, uphold the letter and spirit of the Honor Code. All suspected violations of the Honor Code should be reported to the appropriate faculty member or the Associate Dean so that appropriate action can be taken.

IMPROPER CONDUCT,
SANCTIONS AND PROCEDURE

PART I. CONDUCT SUBJECT TO SANCTIONS

  1. Conduct committed on campus, in academic activities, or during University sponsored activities. The following conduct, if committed by a law student while on University property or while engaged or participating in academic activities or any University sponsored activity, will subject the student to action under this code:
    1. Academic improprieties. Academic impropriety in all its forms, in course work, on examinations, or in other academically related activities, including but not limited to:
      1. Cheating.
      2. Copying from another student.
      3. Using unauthorized materials.
      4. Collaborating with another person without authorization from the supervising professor.
      5. Falsifying attendance records, or otherwise impersonating another or allowing another to impersonate oneself in class attendance, coursework, or an exam.
      6. Plagiarism in any academic endeavor. Academic integrity requires that all ideas and words be credited to their original source. Plagiarism means representing the words or ideas of another as one's own. The misrepresentation need not be intentional; even inadvertent conduct constitutes plagiarism. Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:
        1. Quoting without citation or without appropriate punctuation, including quotation marks;
        2. Paraphrasing without appropriate attribution;
        3. Misrepresenting another's analysis, synthesis, organization, or compilation of sources as one's own; or
        4. Using Internet sources without appropriate attribution, on the same basis as any other source.
      7. Submitting the same or substantially similar work for more than one course, unless authorized to do so by the professors teaching the courses.
      8. Knowingly obtaining, using, buying, selling or soliciting in whole or in part the contents of an unreleased examination.
      9. Improper or unauthorized recording or distribution of class discussions or materials, including:
        1. recording by any means any class or any portion of a class without the express consent of the professor;
        2. creating a copy of any portion of a class recording; or
        3. distributing any recording of a class or portion of a class by any means.
        4. A "recording" is defined as any method of memorializing a class session beyond note-taking. The definition encompasses audio and video memorialization, taking screenshots or photos, or otherwise copying or duplicating materials.
      10. Intentionally causing a disadvantage to other students.
      11. Generative AI Interim Policy. The rapid advance and dissemination of artificial intelligence (AI) bring significant opportunities and challenges for legal education and the practice of law. In particular, “Generative AI” systems (such as the recent GPT releases) have the capacity to synthesize information, answer questions, and produce human-like prose. While the responsible use of this technology may positively enhance or augment learning opportunities and productivity, the overuse or abuse of this technology can undermine student learning and risks other harms, including exposure to or production of biased content, privacy infractions, intellectual property violations, and loss of trust (e.g., authenticity). The potential implications for students and lawyers are vast and highly unsettled. But there is little to no doubt that generative AI will be part of every lawyer’s future—whether using it, representing clients who do, or shaping norms around it.

        To facilitate the Washburn Law community’s interaction with these technologies in anticipation of a more longstanding policy on their use, Washburn Law adopts this interim policy:
        1. Students shall not use the output of Generative AI for any graded or required course work or co-curricular activities, unless approved by the instructor or faculty advisor (Faculty) in accordance with paragraphs ii. and iii.
        2. Faculty members may develop more specific terms and conditions for the use of Generative AI in their courses or the co-curricular activities they supervise. They may, for instance, allow students to use Generative AI tools for graded or ungraded course-work or school-related activities, but only under certain conditions, disclosures, or supervision. Students may also be required or advised to avoid or mitigate the risk of harmful or unlawful uses, such as generating outputs that are biased or discriminatory, constitute privacy infractions, risk plagiarism, or violate licensing restrictions. Faculty may also choose to allow the use of some Generative AI tools but not others.
        3. Where there is any uncertainty regarding permissible uses of Generative AI tools for school-related work, students must consult with the appropriate Faculty member before engaging in the activity.
        4. A student's knowing or reckless disregard of this policy may be considered academic impropriety and trigger an honor code investigation.

      If a law student commits academic improprieties which are not discovered until after graduation, the student's graduation will not prevent prosecution for those improprieties. If, as a result of imposition of sanctions, the student no longer meets the requirements for graduation, the student's law degree will be withdrawn, as will any certifications to bar authorities.

    2. Violations of laws, rules, or regulations.
      1. Violation of any federal, state, city or county law, ordinance or regulation.
      2. Violation of the lawful and authorized rules and regulations for the operation or administration of student residence facilities, Student Union facilities, or other University facilities or University activities.
    3. Violations involving University documents or records. Improperly using, destroying, forging, or altering University documents or records.
    4. Misconduct involving University functions or access to the University.
      1. Disrupting or interfering with the orderly conduct or operation of any University activity or facility, failing to obey the lawful instruction of the person in charge of such activity or facility or preventing others from freely engaging in the activity or using the facility.
      2. Interfering with or denying free access to or egress from, or use of the University buildings, facilities, streets or other property.
      3. Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or misappropriation of property that causes harm to a registered or sponsored student organization.
    5. Conduct that threatens, endangers, or harms any person or property.
      1. Interfering with, injuring, damaging, destroying or taking without lawful authorization any property belonging to other persons or the University.
      2. Employing force or violence, or the threat of force or violence against any person.
      3. Possessing any operable firearm or explosive material or device on University property or at a University-sponsored activity, except as allowed by Kansas law or Washburn University Policies, Regulations, and Procedures concerning firearms.
      4. Engaging in any act which threatens the life or safety of a person or persons.
  2. Conduct committed anywhere. The following conduct may subject the law student to action under this code whether or not it occurs on University property or in connection with a University activity:
    1. Intentional harm to or harassment of students or employees. Intentional harm to any student or employee of the University, or intentional harassment of any student or employee of the University of sufficient severity, persistence, or pervasiveness that the conduct creates a hostile environment for the victim.
    2. Misrepresentations, forged, falsified or altered information.
      1. Supplying forged, falsified or altered information while seeking employment, educational or professional opportunities or financial aid.
      2. Intentional misrepresentation of Law School academic or enrollment status, or involvement in extracurricular activities.
    3. Violations of other professional standards. Knowing violations of the standards of the Rules Relating to Discipline of Attorneys Adopted by the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas.
    4. Aiding or encouraging violations of this Honor Code. Aiding, encouraging, promoting or soliciting the doing of any prohibited conduct.
    5. Abuse or Obstruction of the Honor Code Process.
      1. Engaging in conduct intended to obstruct access to potential evidence, or to alter, destroy, or conceal potential evidence connected with an Honor Code investigation or proceeding.
      2. Filing a frivolous complaint of an Honor Code violation with the intent to harass another student. A frivolous complaint is one without basis in fact.
      3. Attempting to intimidate or deter complainants, witnesses, or other participants in an Honor Code investigation or proceeding.
      4. Preventing the discovery of prohibited conduct.
    6. Convictions. Conviction of any violation of federal, state, city, or county law, ordinance or regulation.
    7. Academic misconduct at another institution or program.
      1. Acts which would be a violation of I. A. if committed at the Washburn University School of Law, but which were committed while enrolled at another academic institution.
      2. A determination of academic misconduct by any other institution or program.
  3. Conduct during the admissions process. The following conduct, if committed by an applicant to the Law School, and not discovered or disclosed until after the applicant's matriculation as a law student, will subject the student to action under this code:
    1. Forging, falsifying or altering documents or records submitted in connection with the student's application for admission to the Law School;
    2. Submitting false information in response to questions on the student's Law School application or questions from admissions officers asked in connection with the student's Law School application;
    3. Failing to provide information or providing incomplete information in response to questions on the student's Law School application or questions from admissions officers asked in connection with the student's Law School application if the omitted information would have been material to the decision of the Law School Admissions Committee regarding the student's application.
The conduct described above, if discovered or disclosed prior to the applicant's matriculation as a law student, will be reviewed by the Admissions Committee, which will determine whether the applicant's conduct should preclude admission to the Law School. The Admissions Committee, where appropriate, will also forward information concerning the applicant's conduct to the Law School Data Assembly Service.

PART II. SANCTIONS

  1. Mitigating and Aggravating Factors Relevant to the Imposition of Sanctions. This Honor Code does not require the imposition of any particular sanction or range of sanctions for any of the types of misconduct described in Part I. Thus, for any misconduct under this Honor Code, the full range of sanctions described below are available. What sanction or sanctions are appropriate in a particular case will depend on the circumstances of that case. In addition, the following factors may be relevant as mitigating or aggravating factors in determining what sanctions are appropriate.
    1. Conscientious Admissions. A student who voluntarily admits misconduct before gaining any knowledge that someone else may suspect that student of an Honor Code violation, shall be entitled to have this admission considered as a mitigating factor relevant to the determination of appropriate sanctions. A student who has the courage and integrity to come forth with a good-faith admission has reaffirmed a personal commitment to honor.

      Any student interested in making a conscientious admission should contact the Associate Dean immediately. After discussing the matter with the Associate Dean, the student should prepare a written statement fully acknowledging any and all misconduct. The statement should include a clause attesting to the fact that the student admitted the acts before being approached by anyone concerning the matter.
    2. Other Admissions. Even an admission of wrongdoing made after a student has been accused of misconduct may have some mitigating value. The post-accusation admission shows an acceptance of the wrongful nature of the student's conduct. However, a post-accusation admission is not as strong a mitigating factor as a conscientious admission of wrongdoing because it is not clear that the student would have ever admitted the wrongdoing were it not for the accusation that as been made.
    3. Intentional vs. Negligent Conduct. Some conduct described in this Honor Code is only sanctionable if it is done intentionally. Other conduct is sanctionable whether or not done intentionally. However, even in circumstances in which intent is not required, the fact that conduct is intentional is an aggravating factor that may justify the imposition of more serious sanctions. Conversely, the fact that conduct is negligent may be a mitigating factor justifying the imposition of less serious sanctions.
    4. Degree of Harm or Seriousness of Offense. The degree of harm to others and the seriousness of the conduct are relevant factors in determining sanctions.
    5. Nexus to Professional Standards. The nexus between the student's conduct and the question of character and fitness of the student to practice law is a relevant factor in determining sanctions.
    6. Prior Misconduct. Prior convictions under this or other Honor Codes shall be considered aggravating factors in determining sanctions.
    7. Discriminatory Motive. If a student, in engaging in conduct found to be in violation of this Honor Code, is also found to have intentionally directed the conduct towards a person or group because of the race, color, religion, age, national origin, ancestry, disability, gender, sexual orientation, marital or parental status of the targeted person or group, that discriminatory motive is an aggravating factor in determining sanctions.
  2. Possible Sanctions. The following sanctions may be imposed for violations of this Honor Code.
    1. Expulsion from the Law School;
    2. Suspension with the opportunity to apply to the Admissions Committee for readmission after a specified period of time;
    3. Suspension for a definite period of time;
    4. Partial or total revocation or suspension of scholarship assistance;
    5. Probation for a definite period of time under specified terms or conditions with consequences specified for noncompliance;
    6. Removal from any student governmental office or position in any Law School sponsored activity or organization or from any other University sponsored position of trust, responsibility or interest;
    7. Denial of the privilege of participation in any Law School or University sponsored extracurricular or athletic activity or organization for a definite period of time;
    8. Written warning or reprimand;
    9. Verbal warning;
    10. Prohibiting or restricting access to and/or use of Law School or University facilities or services;
    11. Monetary or other restitution;
    12. For misconduct related to course work, sanctions may also include:
      1. Change of grade in a course;
      2. Withdrawal of academic credit in a course; or
      3. Receiving no credit for an academic work product, with or without an opportunity to redo the product;
    13. For violations of the Residence Hall Behavior Code, sanctions provided therein or by this Code.
    14. For violations involving academic improprieties described in the last paragraph of I. A. 1., withdrawal of a previously conferred law degree is an additional possible sanction.
The sanctions of expulsion, suspension and probation are inconsistent and shall not be imposed concurrently. Any suspension will be considered a total suspension from all Law School classes and activities unless it is expressly limited to specified classes or activities. The sanctions of suspension and probation may be subject to conditions.

PART III. REPORTS TO BAR AUTHORITIES

  1. Every finding of an Honor Code violation will be reported by the Dean to any board of bar examiners or equivalent bar investigative authorities for any bar to which the student applies. The student shall have a right to submit a statement to the Dean's Office for inclusion in the report.
  2. If, at the conclusion of a proceeding finding an Honor Code violation, the Dean finds clear evidence that the violation does not cast doubt on the character or fitness of the student for the practice of law because of the insubstantial nature of the student's conduct or the lack of dishonest motive or intent, the Dean will inform the student of that finding and make that finding part of any report of the violation to bar authorities. The student should be warned that most bar applications will require the student to report any sanctions imposed on the student by educational institutions, whether or not the sanctions were for conduct suggesting unfitness for the practice of law.

PART IV. RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR DISPOSITION OF HONOR CODE COMPLAINTS

  1. Appointment of the Honor Code Committee, faculty advisor, presiding officer, and prosecutor; duties; recusals.
    1. The Honor Code Committee shall be composed of five (5) student members. Graduated students shall be replaced by first- or second-year students, appointed by the President of the Washburn Student Bar Association (WSBA). There shall be at least one representative of each of the three sections (A, B, and J) among the five members. One student alternate shall also be appointed. The WSBA President shall also fill any vacancies. All appointments must be approved by the Associate Dean. A non-voting faculty advisor shall be appointed for a one-year term by the Dean from among full-time faculty of the Law School. The Dean may renew the appointment of the faculty advisor for successive terms. The first time during an academic year that the committee is convened, its first order of business shall be to select a chair from among its five full members.
    2. Whenever the Dean is informed by the Honor Code investigator of a decision to prosecute a student under the Honor Code, the Dean shall appoint a faculty member to prosecute the case before the Honor Code Committee. The person appointed to prosecute the case may be the investigator on the case, but cannot be the faculty advisor to the Honor Code Committee. The Dean shall also, at this time, appoint a presiding officer for the Honor Code hearing. The presiding officer may be a faculty member, lawyer or judge who does not have a conflict of interest concerning the subject matter of the proceeding or any participants in the proceeding.
    3. Duties.
      1. Presiding Officer. The presiding officer will preside over the actual Honor Code hearing, make rulings on evidentiary objections, and assure that the hearing is conducted in a manner that is orderly, expeditious, fair, and consistent with these rules and the purpose of the hearing.
      2. Honor Code Committee. The Honor Code Committee will decide all prehearing matters, and, at the hearing, will decide all questions of law and fact relating to the guilt or innocence of the accused, and sanctions to be recommended to the Dean, other than evidentiary issues decided by the presiding officer.
      3. Faculty Advisor. When requested by the Honor Code Committee, the faculty advisor shall give advice to the Committee regarding any matters before the Committee and shall be present at Committee meetings.
    4. If the alleged Honor Code violation personally involves the Dean, Associate Dean or a member of the Honor Code Committee, that person shall recuse him or herself. Any person involved in an Honor Code proceeding in an investigative, prosecutorial, or decision-making capacity, may recuse him or herself. The accused may request in writing that any such person consider recusing him or herself. The accused shall state the specific facts supporting the request. In the event the Dean recuses him or herself, the most senior disinterested faculty member shall serve in the capacity of the Dean for the proceeding. In the event that the presiding officer or a faculty member other than the Dean recuses him or herself, the Dean shall appoint a replacement for that presiding officer or faculty member.
  2. Time Limits. Any time limits within this Code may be altered for good cause.
  3. Investigation.
    1. Any person having direct knowledge or information concerning a possible violation of this Honor Code shall report the matter within a reasonable time to the Associate Dean of the Law School, or on matters related to course work, to the faculty member responsible for the course, or on matters related to use of library facilities and property, to the Director of the Law Library.
    2. Within two (2) business days of the report of a possible violation, the person to whom the violation is reported (hereafter investigator) shall make a preliminary determination, based on the facts alleged by the reporting party, whether to proceed with an investigation.
      1. If the investigator, after consultation with the Associate Dean (unless the investigator is the Associate Dean), determines that the facts alleged by the reporting party do not warrant an Honor Code proceeding, she/he shall so find and the matter shall be terminated.
      2. If the investigator determines the acts alleged by the reporting party do warrant an Honor Code proceeding, she/he shall initiate a preliminary investigation of the alleged violation.
    3. The preliminary investigation shall be completed within ten (10) business days after the initial report of the possible violation. Upon completion of the preliminary investigation, the investigator shall make a determination whether there is sufficient evidence to support an Honor Code prosecution.
      1. If the investigator, after consultation with the Associate Dean (unless the investigator is the Associate Dean), determines that the evidence does not warrant prosecution, she/he shall inform the accused and the reporting party in writing and proceedings shall be terminated.
      2. The investigator shall informally interview the accused during the preliminary investigation.
        1. (1) If the accused admits the charges during the interview, the investigator shall consult with the Associate Dean regarding the appropriate sanction (unless the investigator is the Associate Dean) and then advise the accused of the sanction(s) the investigator deems appropriate.
        2. (2) If the accused agrees, the sanction(s) shall be imposed.
        3. (3) If the accused admits the charge(s) but disagrees with the sanction(s), the matter shall proceed to a hearing before the Honor Code Committee in the manner prescribed below, but for the sole purpose of recommending appropriate sanction(s).
        4. (4) If the accused denies or does not respond to the charge(s), the preliminary investigation shall continue to completion.
      3. If the investigator determines that there is sufficient evidence to support a prosecution, she/he shall notify the accused and the Dean of the Law School in writing of the decision to prosecute and the specific charge(s) that will be prosecuted.
  4. Prehearing Procedure.
    1. Upon being informed of the decision to prosecute, or of a student's disagreement with the proposed sanction(s), the Dean shall notify the Honor Code Committee and the faculty advisor of the pendency of the prosecution.
    2. Upon receipt of notice of the pending prosecution, the Chair of the Honor Code Committee shall set a date and time for a hearing on the charges. The date set shall be no more than fifteen (15) business days after notice of the decision to prosecute was given to the accused, and the accused and the prosecutor shall be given at least seven (7) business days written notice of the hearing.
    3. No discovery shall be permitted except as follows:
      1. At least five (5) business days prior to the hearing, the prosecutor shall furnish the accused with a list of the witnesses who will be called to testify by the prosecutor, summaries of the substance of their testimony, and copies of any documents that will be introduced in evidence by the prosecution.
      2. At least three (3) business days prior to the hearing, the accused shall furnish the prosecutor with a list of the witnesses who will testify for the accused, summaries of the substance of their testimony, copies of any documents that will be introduced in evidence by the accused, and the name, address and telephone number of any person who will be acting as counsel for the accused during the hearing.
      3. Only witnesses identified by the list of either the prosecutor or the accused shall be permitted to testify unless the Committee for good cause permits otherwise.
    4. All prehearing motions shall be submitted in writing. The Honor Code Committee may set deadlines for such motions or other matters.
    5. Continuance of a scheduled hearing is disfavored except on valid showing of extreme circumstances requiring the hearing to be continued.
  5. Hearing.
    1. Unless the accused waives a closed hearing, the only persons permitted to attend will be the accused, his/her counsel, the Honor Code Committee, the faculty advisor, the prosecutor, the presiding officer, and witnesses. Witnesses may be sequestered at the discretion of the Committee.
    2. The presiding officer shall have the right to exclude testimony irrelevant to the charge(s) being prosecuted. Where the substance of proffered testimony is not disputed, written summaries may be accepted in lieu of oral testimony.
    3. The hearing shall be conducted with as much informality as is consistent with the purpose of the inquiry. Formal rules of evidence and procedure shall not apply. The presiding officer, however, shall have the right to exclude evidence which is not relevant.
    4. The hearing shall be recorded in its entirety.
    5. The accused shall have the right to the assistance of any person including retained counsel.
    6. The accused shall have the right to confront and cross-examine any witnesses who testify against the accused.
    7. The accused shall have the right to remain silent and no adverse inferences shall be drawn therefrom. The accused shall be presumed innocent until guilt is proven by clear and convincing evidence.
  6. Determination of Guilt or Innocence and Imposition of Sanctions.
    1. The Committee, as soon as practicable after termination of the hearing, shall deliberate to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.
      1. A determination of guilt by the Committee requires a concurrence of three (3) out of five (5) members of the Committee.
      2. If a determination of guilt is not made, all concerned parties shall be notified in writing and the proceedings shall terminate.
      3. If a determination of guilt is made, the Committee shall recommend the appropriate sanction(s) in writing to the Dean. If the Committee makes a determination of guilt, but cannot unanimously agree on the sanction(s), it shall report its finding of guilt and its diverse recommendations on the sanction(s) to the Dean. The Committee shall furnish copies of its report and recommendations(s) to the accused and the prosecutor.
    2. Two (2) business days after the Committee's report and recommendation(s) are issued, the Dean shall give the prosecutor and accused an opportunity to present arguments in writing about the appropriate sanction(s). After giving due weight to the Committee's recommendation(s) and the arguments of the accused and prosecutor, the Dean shall impose the sanction(s) she/he deems appropriate.
  7. Confidentiality. During an investigation, the investigator and prosecutor have a duty to use reasonable care to maintain the confidentiality of the proceedings, to the extent consistent with their duties. Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph and in PART III, information gained by anyone as a result of participation in the procedures set out in PART IV is confidential and shall not be disclosed to other law students or members of the general public.

    On the termination of an Honor Code proceeding, if no violation is found, the proceedings shall ordinarily remain confidential at the option of the accused. However, the Dean may elect to post a notice in the law school announcing that no violation was found when, in the Dean's judgment, a substantial segment of the student body is aware of the pendency of the Honor Code proceeding, and the Dean believes that not posting a notice will be detrimental to the accused and the law school community. The notice should briefly describe the charges made and the reasons for finding no violation, but shall not identify the accused by name.

    If a violation is found and a sanction is imposed, the Dean or the Associate Dean will post a notice in the law school which describes the nature of the violation and lists the sanction(s) imposed but which does not identify the violator by name. However, the committee or the person imposing the sanction may recommend and the Law School Dean, for good cause shown, may order that the violation and sanction(s) not be posted.

  8. Delay of Graduation. If an Honor Code investigation or proceeding is pending when a student is scheduled to graduate, the student's degree may be withheld until completion of the proceeding.

PART V. EMERGENCY SUSPENSION PENDING DISPOSITION OF HONOR CODE COMPLAINT

  1. In extreme and unusual circumstances the Associate Dean may suspend any student from the law school pending investigation and prosecution of an Honor Code complaint if he or she finds probable cause that the student engaged and will continue to engage in intentional conduct that:
    1. seriously disrupts or interferes with the operation of the University;
    2. seriously endangers the physical safety of other students or employees of the University; or
    3. inflicts serious emotional distress on other students or employees of the University.

    Before making a determination under this paragraph to suspend a student the Associate Dean shall make reasonable efforts to informally interview the accused student.

  2. The suspension may be imposed upon the student forthwith, and without affording the student a hearing. A written notice of the suspension and the reason therefor shall be given to the student within one (1) business day after the suspension has been imposed. An opportunity for an informal hearing shall be afforded the student as soon thereafter as practicable but in no event later than three (3) business days after the suspension has been imposed.
  3. The notice shall include:
    1. a written notice of the suspension and the reasons therefor;
    2. the time, date and place for an informal hearing;
    3. a statement that failure to attend the informal hearing will result in a waiver of the student's opportunity for the hearing;
    4. a copy of the Honor Code and Procedure for Law Students.
  4. Informal Hearing to Review Suspension
    1. The purpose of the informal hearing is to permit the student to present information relevant to the emergency suspension provisions of Part V, A, above.
    2. The Associate Dean shall be the hearing officer.
    3. The hearing shall be conducted with as much informality as is consistent with the purpose of the inquiry. Formal rules of evidence and procedure shall not apply. Evidence which is not relevant may be excluded.
    4. The hearing shall be recorded in its entirety.
    5. The student shall have the right to the assistance of any person, including retained counsel.
    6. The Associate Dean may question witnesses who appear.
  5. Within twenty four (24) hours of the informal hearing, the Associate Dean shall make a written report of the findings and results of the informal hearing. If the Associate Dean finds probable cause that return to school pending completion of the Honor Code complaint proceedings would seriously disrupt or interfere with the operation of the University, seriously endanger the physical safety of other students or employees of the University, or inflict serious emotional distress on other students or employees of the University, the suspension shall continue until the honor code complaint proceedings are concluded.
  6. A student suspended pending disposition of an honor code complaint shall have the right to an expedited hearing before the Honor Code Committee to be held not later than ten business days after the date of the written report of findings made pursuant to Part V, E, above.
  7. During the period of suspension, the student shall not enter the University campus other than to meet with officials in pre-arranged conferences concerning the complaint proceedings.
  8. If a student is fully exonerated after a hearing before the Honor Code Committee and, as a result of the suspension, (1) a professor determines that the student must be withdrawn from the professor's class because of excessive absences, or (2) the student decides to withdraw from a professor's class because of excessive absences, then the student will be entitled to receive a full refund of tuition for the class.
  9. The Associate Dean may recuse or be asked to recuse him or herself in the same manner provided in Part IV, A, 4, above.

PART VI. DEFINITIONS

  1. "Associate Dean" means either the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs or the Associate Dean for Student Affairs.
  2. "Business days" means days the University is open for business, whether or not classes are in session.
  3. "Intentional" or "intentionally" refers to conduct that is purposeful or consciously disregards what a reasonable person would understand to be a risk that the conduct is prohibited or will lead to a prohibited result. A person's intent may be inferred from the circumstances.
  4. "Knowing" or "knowingly" means actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person's knowledge may be inferred from the circumstances.

PART VII. INDEPENDENT LIBRARY RULES

Nothing in this Honor Code shall preclude the Director of the Library from prescribing and enforcing rules, independently of this Honor Code, regarding the use of library facilities and materials. However, if a sanction imposed on a student under independent library rules will have a substantial effect on the student's academic program, the student may appeal to the Dean in writing asking that the sanction be reduced or revoked. When it is unclear whether misconduct regarding the use of library facilities and materials should be prosecuted under this Honor Code or under independent library rules, the Director of the Library shall consult with the Associate Dean to determine the appropriate course of action.