XIII.    Policy on Misconduct

Section Contents

1. TITLE I: PREAMBLE AND SCOPE
2. TITLE II: STUDENT MISCONDUCT
   1. PART A: ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT
   2. PART B - NON-ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT
3. TITLE III - PROCEDURES FOR ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT
4. TITLE IV - PROCEDURE FOR NON-ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT

Adopted 4/1994; amended 4/1998; 2/1999; 9/2006; 10/2006; 10/2011.

TITLE I: PREAMBLE AND SCOPE

§ 101. Preamble

Academic misconduct violates fundamental norms of legal education, the legal profession, and the development of citizen-lawyers. Academic misconduct compromises the quality and reduces the effectiveness of the educational mission. Academic misconduct also disadvantages those who play by the rules. For example, measures of academic performance are used by prospective employers and others to compare students. Academic misconduct is inconsistent with standards of the legal profession which require honesty, candor, and fair play.

In addition to avoiding academic misconduct, law students are expected to conduct themselves ethically and responsibly as members of a community of learning. In part, this ideal requires students to avoid dishonest conduct aimed at achieving unfair advantages outside the academic setting, as with employers. Moreover, students should conduct themselves in a manner that respects the rights of all individuals in the law school community to exercise fully their freedom to teach, learn, work and express their views without undue interference by others.

While enrolled in the College of Law, students are bound by a variety of University policies aimed at preserving the integrity of the educational mission of the University of Iowa. These are typically compiled annually in a University publication available to students and entitled Policies and Regulations Affecting Students. Students interested in the rationale behind such rules should consult the explanations accompanying University regulations. In addition, the College of Law has adopted the following regulations, which apply general University norms more specifically to the College of Law setting.

The sanctions that may be imposed by the College of Law for academic or non-academic misconduct reflect the seriousness of its individual and collective harm. It should be emphasized, however, that these sanctions may be slight in comparison to the direct and indirect adverse effects that academic misconduct may have in a range of future settings. Good moral character is required for admission to the bar, and both academic and non-academic misconduct may be a matter of substantial concern to boards of bar examiners. More generally, lawyers are held to high standards of integrity across the full spectrum of their professional activities, and academic or non-academic misconduct while a student may cast a shadow upon an otherwise unblemished personal reputation. Law students who aspire to become lawyers and respected members of society should endeavor to develop a personal sense of honesty and integrity and avoid involvement in any kind of misconduct.

§ 102. Scope

These regulations apply to all students enrolled on a full-time, part-time, or visiting basis in the University of Iowa College of Law, or who are enrolled in any course or other program for which the University of Iowa College of Law awards academic credit.

§ 103 Honor Pledge

As a condition for matriculation at the College of Law, each student shall execute a written pledge that (a) the student has read the rules on academic and non-academic misconduct in the College of Law student handbook; (b) on the basis of that reading, the student understands the standards of ethical conduct contained in those rules; (c) the student pledges to comply with those ethical standards; and (d) the student understands the potential sanctions for violation of the law school’s academic and non-academic misconduct rules.

Potential sanctions for violations of the law school’s academic and non-academic misconduct rules include, but are not limited to, a failing course grade, lowering of a course grade, community service, the production of an essay, deregistration, suspension, or expulsion from the College of Law. Students should be aware that the law school may be required to disclose to bar authorities any proceeding under this policy (regardless of its outcome) upon the execution of a written release by the student, which a bar committee may require as a condition for taking the bar exam.

TITLE II: STUDENT MISCONDUCT

§ 201. Culpable states of mind

In the absence of another express standard, a student shall be deemed to have violated any of the rules of conduct in this Title if the student knew, or a reasonable student would have known, that the student was performing the act being proscribed.

PART A: ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT

§ 202. Plagiarism

Submitting any plagiarized writing to an instructor or supervisor for academic or writing hours constitutes academic misconduct. Plagiarism is an objective offense and does not require any specific subjective intent. Plagiarism includes the following forms of conduct:

1. Quoting another’s words without placing those words in quotation marks and attributing the words to the original author.
2. Paraphrasing another’s words without attributing the words to the original author.
3. Expressing another’s specific ideas or specific analysis without attributing them to the original author.
4. Submitting another’s work as your own.

COMMENTS

1. The prohibition on plagiarism applies to papers at any stage of preparation (i.e., including drafts) once they are submitted to an instructor or supervisor for review.
2. While plagiarism does not require intent, the presence or absence of intent may be relevant to the appropriate sanction. If lack of intent is to be considered in determining an appropriate sanction, the burden to show the lack of intent is on the person charged with plagiarism.
3. There is no minimum number of words that can be borrowed from another without attribution. A unique phrase of as few as two or three words may require quotation marks and attribution. As a general rule, however, any string of seven words or more should always be placed in quotation marks and attributed. When any doubt exists, attribution should be provided.
4. The prohibition on expressing the ideas of another without attribution calls for the exercise of judgment in its application. Obviously, certain ideas are in the public domain, so to speak, and require no attribution. Where, however, a writer uses a particular argument or adopts a rhetorically specific idea from another person, the source should be credited even when no direct quotations are used. In case of doubt, students should err on the side of attribution.
5. The prohibition on plagiarism applies to any paper submitted in circumstances involving any eventual possibility of academic or writing hours. This includes, but is not limited to, writing assignments, moot court briefs, seminar papers, papers for student-edited journals, exercises for student-run academic programs, clinical written work (both in-house and externship programs) and independent study papers.
6. Avoiding plagiarism fulfills one of a student’s basic ethical obligations in conducting academic work. Taken most literally, however, avoiding plagiarism is unlikely to fulfill most faculty members’ expectations as to the level of independent thought worthy of research hours. Students may avoid plagiarism, and yet be denied course hours for papers consisting entirely of even properly annotated paraphrases of other people’s work, if those paraphrases appear with but minimal alterations in other authors’ analytic structures and arguments.

§ 203. Dishonesty on writing assignments

1. A student shall not engage in unauthorized collaboration or use unauthorized materials or methods in completing a writing assignment.
2. A student shall not submit any work or portion thereof for hours in more than one class or program unless the student makes full disclosure to, and obtains the prior written consent of all persons to whom the work is being submitted for credit.

COMMENTS

1. In imposing limits on class assignments or exams instructors employ their best judgments about those conditions which result in the greatest educational benefit from the academic exercise. Sometimes those constraints are similar to those that exist in the legal profession; sometimes they are not. Thus, some instructors may permit collaboration with others or the use of outside materials on a given assignment. Other instructors may prohibit consultation with class members or others or any recourse to other materials as the condition for an assignment. Violating those proscriptions diminishes the quality of the student’s educational experience while simultaneously providing the student with an unfair advantage in completing the assignment.
2. It is a student’s obligation to be aware of the rules, instructions, or directives communicated to the class by the instructor. Instructors should inform students in writing concerning the degree of allowed collaboration, permissible use of outside materials, and other regulations governing the completion of a writing assignment.
3. When an instructor permits it, it is not cheating to seek the non-substantive assistance of professionals within the College of Law who are available to assist in the development of students’ research and writing skills. These include, for example, the Director of the Writing Center and her staff, and research librarians (for the location of relevant materials).

§ 204. Cheating on exams

Cheating on exams constitutes academic misconduct. Cheating on exams includes:

1. Using materials during an exam that the instructor does not permit to be used.
2. Attempting to obtain or provide assistance during an exam, for example, by looking at another’s exam materials or by communicating with another.
3. Obtaining information from any source about the contents of a regular or make-up exam in advance of the exam.
4. Providing improper assistance to another by communicating the contents of an exam or answers to another when the provider knows or should have known that such communication is occurring.
5. Violating exam instructions in a material way that could reasonably be expected to give the student an unfair advantage.

COMMENTS

1. The prohibition on use of improper materials during an exam assumes that no materials are permitted unless they are expressly authorized by an instructor. Thus, if the instructor provides no information about materials permitted to be used during an exam, nothing may be used. In situations involving any uncertainties, students are responsible for asking the instructor if the use of particular materials will be permitted during the exam.
2. The prohibition on obtaining advance information about the content of an exam does not extend to any information provided by the instructor.
3. Although the prohibition on providing improper assistance encompasses only knowing misconduct, students should exercise caution about discussing the contents of exams in public settings when the possibility exists that others may be taking the exam at a later date.

4. As a matter of good practice, the faculty has adopted certain guidelines for itself regarding exams. Under such guidelines, in the absence of good cause:

   1. Instructors should inform students at least one week in advance of the exam of any materials that students will be permitted to use during the exam. This information should be in writing and should be posted on the instructor’s bulletin board or at some other accessible place in the law building.
   2. Instructors should avoid discussions of an exam with individual students that could give those students an unfair advantage. Any material discussion of a pending exam should be made available to all members of the class.

   Students should be aware, however, that a faculty member’s failure to follow these guidelines will not excuse an incident of cheating.

5. At the time of their request for a make-up exam, students shall be required to sign a statement that they will not seek or obtain any information about the exam from anyone who has already taken the exam. Furthermore, at the time the make-up exam is taken, students shall be required to sign a statement that they have not received any information about the exam from anyone who has already taken the exam.

§ 205. Falsification or misrepresentation

1. A student shall not falsify, forge, alter, or misuse any law school record or document.
2. A student shall not misrepresent any material fact to any College of Law official, staff member, or instructor, in order to gain an unfair academic advantage or a benefit or service to which the student would otherwise not be entitled.
3. A student shall not falsify material or misrepresent facts, cases, methods, or other material information in connection with academic or scholarly activities.

COMMENTS

1. Students should be aware that misrepresentation includes a calculated failure to correct a false statement, even if the statement was originally in good faith, when an opportunity exists for correction in order to avoid giving the student some unfair academic advantage.
2. The prohibition on falsifying or misrepresenting facts, cases, or methods is not intended to encompass honest and zealous advocacy. Our advocacy system contemplates that advocates will present and argue existing law and facts in the light most favorable to their clients. Code of Professional Responsibility EC 7-23.
3. For purposes of paragraph 205(b), student office holders responsible for the administration of co-curricular programs are deemed to be officials of the College of Law.

§ 205a. Misconduct in Clinical Practice

A violation of the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct (IRPC) committed by a law student in the course of legal work performed in the Clinical Law Programs shall constitute academic misconduct.

COMMENTS

1. Rule 31.15 (1) of the Iowa Rules of Court, Permitted Practice by Law Students, provides that “Law students enrolled in a reputable law school as defined by rule 31.8 and Iowa Code section 602.10102 and certified to the office of professional regulation by the dean of the school to have completed satisfactorily not less than the equivalent of three semesters of the work required by the school to qualify for the J.D. or LL.B. degree, may, under the following conditions, engage in the practice of law or appear as counsel in the trial or appellate courts of this state . . . “ (Emphasis added) Thus students engaged in clinic practice are practicing attorneys and may be subject to bar discipline for violations of the IRPC. In clinic orientation sessions and throughout their clinic work, students are made aware of their responsibility to follow the IRPC. A copy of the IRPC is made available to each clinic student at the beginning of his or her work in the clinic.
2. Clinic faculty members (and field supervisors in the case of externs) having direct supervisory responsibility over the work of clinic students must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the students’ work conforms to the demands of the IRPC (IRPC 32:5.1 (b)). At a minimum, supervisors share responsibility for violations of the IRPC committed by students if the supervisor knows of and orders or otherwise approves the violation (IRPC 32:5.1 (c)). In keeping with the spirit of these provisions of the IRPC, students who commit IRPC violations at the behest of or with the cooperation of a supervisor should be exempt from law school discipline attributable to the violations.
3. Where a student’s violation of the IRPC is not covered by Comment 2 immediately above, and where the student is solely or primarily responsible for the violation, the student shall be subject to law school discipline for academic misconduct. See IRPC 32:5.1, Comments 7 and 8, IRPC 32:5.2.

§ 206. Other unfair academic behavior

A student shall not engage in any conduct that a student knows or a reasonable student should know will unfairly advantage or disadvantage any student academically. An unfair academic advantage is an improper gain by a student in an academic endeavor to the detriment of other students or a benefit that would not have been available absent the improper conduct.

COMMENT

Academic misconduct is prohibited even if it occurs beyond the physical premises of the College of Law. For example, a student assigned to work on an interdisciplinary assignment for a College of Law course would be violating this section if the student hid relevant materials in any University of Iowa library for the purpose of depriving other students of fair access to those materials.

PART B - NON-ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT

§ 207. Falsification or misrepresentation

1. A student shall not falsify, forge, alter, or misuse any law school record or document. Nor shall any student falsify, forge, alter, or misuse any document in connection with an application for admission or financial aid.
2. A student shall not misrepresent any material fact regarding that student’s academic performance or status with regard to the College of Law or any College of Law program in order to gain an unfair professional advantage.

COMMENT

Students should be aware that misrepresentation includes a calculated failure to correct a false statement, even if not originally culpable, when an opportunity exists for correction in order to avoid giving the student some unfair professional advantage. Thus, for example, a student who knows at the time of a job interview that an earlier representation to the employer of the student’s class rank is no longer accurate is obliged to correct the inaccuracy.

§ 208. Misuse or misappropriation of property

1. A student shall not, without permission, damage, alter, or deface, or take the notes, books, papers, other academic materials, or other property of another member of the law school community.
2. A student shall not tear, mutilate, alter, write on, or otherwise deface or destroy College of Law library materials, or hide or conceal such materials.
3. A student shall not remove materials from the College of Law library without complying with library rules and regulations.

§ 209. Obstruction or disruption of facilities, services, or programs

No student shall obstruct or disrupt College of Law teaching, research, administration, disciplinary processes, or other functions or events, or obstruct or prevent access to College of Law programs, services or facilities by those entitled to use such programs, services or facilities.

§ 210. Interference with rights of others

No student shall engage in conduct prohibited by (a) the Policy on Sexual Harassment, The University of Iowa Policy Manual, Part II, Chapter 4.14; (b) Paragraph 10 of the General Regulations Applying to Students, The University of Iowa Policy Manual, Part IV, Chapter 1; or (c) the Policy on Violence, The University of Iowa Policy Manual, Part II, Chapter 10.5.

COMMENT

The University rules here incorporated by reference into the disciplinary code of the College of Law include the University’s prohibitions against assault; threat, physical or sexual abuse, harassment, endangerment, and damage to the personal property of another, in addition to the University’s ban on specified acts proscribed also by the Iowa Criminal Code.

§ 211. Other non-academic misconduct

A student shall not engage in any conduct that a student knows or reasonably should know will unfairly advantage or disadvantage any student professionally. Examples of such unfair professional advantages include improper gains in employment opportunities to the detriment of other students or in employment benefits that might not have been available absent the improper conduct.

TITLE III - PROCEDURES FOR ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT

§ 301. Applicability

These Procedures apply to any student academic misconduct as defined in sections 202-06 above.

COMMENT

Nothing in the College of Law’s Misconduct Policy affects a faculty member’s responsibility and authority to make academic judgments about the quality of student work. When student academic misconduct is believed to have occurred, it is often difficult to separate the effect of that misconduct on the student’s academic performance from the rest of the student’s academic performance. Insofar as it is possible to disentangle academic misconduct from the rest of the student’s academic performance, the faculty member should exercise reasonable judgment in good faith in the enforcement of the Misconduct Policy and otherwise remains free to exercise customary academic judgment in evaluating a student’s work.

§ 302. Decision-Makers

1. The Responsible Faculty Member is the faculty member who teaches the course or, as determined by the Dean, supervises or has primary responsibility for the activity in connection with which misconduct is alleged to have occurred.
   1. The Panel on Student Conduct (or Panel) shall consist of two faculty members and one student member.
   2. The faculty members shall be appointed by the Dean after consultation with the faculty; and the student member shall be appointed by the Dean after consultation with the officers of the Iowa Student Bar Association.
   3. Each faculty member shall be appointed for two years in alternating years (except one of the first two appointees shall be appointed for only one year); and faculty members shall not be appointed to consecutive terms.
   4. Each student member shall be appointed for one year and shall be a second year student at the beginning of the regular term for which appointed.
   5. If a case continues beyond the termination of a Panel Member’s term, that Panel member may continue to serve on the Panel until the case has been decided.
   6. If, for any reason, a Panel member does not serve the full term, the Dean, after consultation, shall appoint a successor, who, in the Dean’s discretion, shall be appointed to fill out the term of the predecessor or shall be appointed as an early appointment for the next regular term.
   7. After consultation with the officers of the Student Bar Association, the Dean shall also appoint a second-year student Alternate Member, who shall participate in the Panel’s investigation and deliberations but who shall have no vote except as a substitute for the regular Student Member when the regular Student Member is unable to vote.

COMMENT

When a member continues beyond the term to complete a case into the term of a successor, there may be four or five panelists eligible to serve at the same time, but newly appointed panelists will not actually participate in a case that has continued from the previous term and on which a panelist has continued to serve beyond his or her appointed term.

§ 303. Alternative decision-making channels

A complaint alleging student misconduct will proceed to decision through one of the following decision-making channels:

1. The complaint may be referred to the Panel at the discretion of the Responsible Faculty Member without any preliminary evaluation of the complaint by the Responsible Faculty Member.
2. The complaint shall be referred to the Panel if, based on the nature and seriousness of the alleged misconduct (as indicated by the complaint, any evidence accompanying the complaint, and a brief preliminary investigation if any is conducted by the Responsible Faculty Member), it appears that the sanction is likely to be more serious than grade lowering and/or course deregistration.
3. The complaint, if not referred to the Panel under subsection 3a, shall be retained by the Responsible Faculty Member if, based on the nature and seriousness of the alleged misconduct (as indicated by the complaint, any evidence accompanying the complaint, and a brief preliminary investigation if any is conducted by the Responsible Faculty Member), it appears that the sanction is likely to be no more serious than grade lowering and/or course deregistration.
4. If, at any point during a proceeding under subsection 3c, the Responsible Faculty Member concludes that a sanction more severe than what is permitted under subsection 3c will be appropriate, at that point the complaint shall be treated as a complaint requiring referral to the Panel under subsection 3b, and the complaint shall be referred to the Panel forthwith.

COMMENT

The option under subsection 3a is available for a faculty member who would be the Responsible Faculty Member but who prefers not to evaluate the merits of a complaint related to alleged misconduct in that faculty member’s course or area of academic responsibility.

§ 304. Initiation of complaint and initial procedures

1. Any student, faculty member, or administrator of the Iowa College of Law may initiate a complaint, in writing, alleging student academic misconduct with the Dean of Students or with the Responsible Faculty Member. A complaint initially received by the Dean of Students shall be referred forthwith to the Responsible Faculty Member for appropriate action under these procedures.
2. If the Responsible Faculty Member wishes to exercise discretion under subsection 3a, the complaint shall be referred to the Panel forthwith.

§ 305. Evaluation of the complaint

The Responsible Faculty Member or the Panel having initial responsibility to evaluate the complaint shall promptly determine whether the complaint (with any accompanying evidence) provides adequate grounds for proceeding under the Misconduct Policy.

1. In evaluating the complaint, the Responsible Faculty Member (or, in a case coming within subsection 303(a), the Panel) may determine that, because of the minimal or technical nature of the misconduct or other mitigating considerations, the misconduct should be treated pedagogically without invoking the procedures otherwise applicable under the Misconduct Policy.
2. If it is concluded that there are inadequate grounds to justify proceeding or if the misconduct is treated as a pedagogical matter under subsection 305(a), the Dean of Students shall be notified and the matter shall be deemed closed.

COMMENTS

1. The authorization in subsection 305(a) to treat the misconduct pedagogically means that any action taken by the Responsible Faculty Member as a result of academic misconduct should be treated as an integral part of the teaching function.
2. Because the applicability of subsection 305(a) depends on a judgment that any misconduct is minimal or technical or otherwise subject to mitigating considerations, an appropriate resulting sanction, if any, would be commensurately minor in severity.
3. A judgment by the Responsible Faculty Member that action under section 305(a) is appropriate entails a conclusion that the student’s action does not reflect adversely upon the student’s character or integrity or eventual fitness to practice law.

§ 306. Notice and initial decision

1. If the Responsible Faculty Member or the Panel having initial responsibility to evaluate the complaint concludes that there are adequate grounds to proceed, the Responsible Faculty Member or Panel will promptly give the student alleged to have engaged in misconduct a copy of the complaint and inform the student, in writing:
   1. of the specific provision or provisions in the College of Law Misconduct Policy alleged to have been violated, and
   2. of the location of this Policy (in the Student Handbook or otherwise). The student’s participation in and exercise of any rights under these Procedures will not entail any loss of the student’s rights under the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act.
2. A copy of the complaint and the written information shall be given to the Dean of Students at the same time that it is given to the student. If the Dean of Students finds that the conduct identified in the complaint may not be within the definition of academic misconduct in the University Code of Student Life (UCSL), the Dean of Students shall immediately forward a copy of the complaint to the University Vice-President for Student Life (VPSL).
3. On the basis of the complaint and any accompanying evidence and, if necessary, a brief preliminary investigation conducted in a manner determined at the discretion of the Responsible Faculty Member, the Responsible Faculty Member shall make an initial decision to retain the case and proceed under subsection 303(c) or refer it to the Panel under subsection 303(b).
   1. If the VPSL notifies the Dean of Students that the University will exercise its jurisdiction over the case under its Accountability Procedure, the Responsible Faculty Member or the Panel will be so informed by the Dean of Students and no further action will be taken under the College of Law procedures until the conclusion of the University’s proceeding.
   2. If the VPSL notifies the Dean of Students that the University will not exercise jurisdiction over the case (or does not respond within seven (7) business days of receipt of the copy of the complaint from the Dean of Students), the Responsible Faculty Member or the Panel will be so informed by the Dean of Students and the case will continue under these procedures. University of Iowa College of Law Faculty Meeting Minutes added (Feb. 18, 1999).
   3. When the University has exercised its jurisdiction and returned the case to the College of Law, the Dean of Students shall refer the case to the Panel for further action under section 311.

COMMENTS

1. Ordinarily, complaints involving misconduct in violation of sections 202, 203(a), and 204 of the College’s academic misconduct policy will not be subject to the notice requirement under section 306(b), because the misconduct identified in those sections is also identified as academic misconduct in the University Code of Student Life.
2. In making a determination whether the misconduct contained in a complaint may not be within the University definition of academic misconduct, the Dean of Students may consult with any persons the Dean of Students believes may be helpful in reaching that determination.
3. A decision by the Dean of Students to notify the VPSL does not suspend proceedings on the complaint in the College of Law. Proceedings should continue until the VPSL notifies the College that the University is exercising jurisdiction.

TITLE IV - PROCEDURE FOR NON-ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT

A. Claims of Non-Academic Misconduct

1. If a complaint of non-academic misconduct is received from any source, the faculty member or academic administrator exercising jurisdiction over the complaint under paragraph 2 below, shall promptly evaluate the complaint and determine whether the allegations in the complaint (with any accompanying evidence) provide adequate grounds for a proceeding under the law school’s non-academic misconduct policy. If it is concluded that there are inadequate grounds to justify a proceeding, the matter shall be deemed closed, and no record of the complaint will be maintained. If the faculty member or academic administrator concludes that there are adequate grounds to justify a proceeding, a preliminary investigation will be made.
2. If the complaint concerns acts or omissions in a specific course or student supervised program, the instructor in the course or faculty advisor of the program may elect to conduct the preliminary investigation. If the faculty member does not so elect, the matter will be investigated by the associate dean for student affairs, unless the Dean appoints another academic administrator to investigate the complaint. The student about whom the complaint was made will be informed, in writing, of the specific provision or provisions in the College of Law Misconduct Policy alleged to have been violated and of the location of the College’s Policy and Procedure governing such matters (in the Student Handbook or otherwise). In the subsequent course of these proceedings, the student shall have the right to be accompanied, assisted, and/or represented by any other person other than faculty members or administrators of the College of Law. If a complaint of non-academic misconduct is alleged to have occurred in a context other than a specific course or student supervised program, the matter will be investigated by the associate dean for student affairs or other academic administrator appointed by the dean. If the Dean of Students determines that the conduct alleged in the complaint may fall under the definition of non-academic misconduct in the University’s Code of Student Life, the Dean of Students will immediately consult with the University Vice-President for Student Life (VPSL) concerning the exercise of initial jurisdiction over the complaint. If that office elects to prosecute the complaint, jurisdiction over the complaint returns to the law school upon termination of the VPSL’s prosecution.
   1. If, as the result of the preliminary investigation, it is found that no probable cause exists to believe that prohibited acts or omissions occurred, the matter shall be deemed closed.
   2. If, as the result of the preliminary investigation, it is found that probable cause exists to believe that non-academic misconduct occurred, the investigator may propose a sanction to the student and indicate that a statement of the facts as found by the investigator will be placed in the student’s file. The student and her or his counsel may read such statement of facts before deciding whether to accept or reject the proposed sanction. (The investigator’s statement will not be placed in the student’s file if the student rejects the proposed sanction).
   3. If the student accepts the proposed sanction, the investigator forwards the statement and proposed sanction to the Dean. The Dean may approve the proposed disposition and act to implement it, or, in his or her discretion, the Dean may reject the proposal, in which case further proceedings are required, including consideration by the investigator of a different proposed sanction.
   4. If the investigator does not propose a sanction to the student, or if the student or the Dean rejects the proposed sanction, the Dean will refer the matter to the Panel on Student Conduct, which will investigate and resolve the complaint in a manner which accords due process taking into account the policy and spirit of section 311. After completing its proceedings, the Panel may determine that non-academic misconduct did not occur. If the Panel determines that non-academic misconduct did occur, it will file a report of its determination with the Dean and will recommend to the Dean what action or actions, if any, the College of Law should take. The recommended action, while not limited to the following, may include a failing course grade and suspension or expulsion from school. See Honor Pledge, Section 103 above.
   5. The Dean may implement the recommendations or, in his/her discretion, may refer the matter to the faculty for review of the Panel’s recommendations. The student may appeal the Panel’s recommendation to the full voting law faculty and shall have a right to be heard and represented by counsel before the faculty. If the student appeals the Panel’s recommendation to the faculty or the Dean refers the matter to the faculty, the faculty may approve, disapprove, or modify the Panel’s recommendations. Following a faculty review, at either the student’s or the Dean’s initiative, the Dean will implement the faculty recommendation.
   6. Notwithstanding the foregoing allocation of responsibilities, at her or his discretion the appropriate academic administrator may, with or without preliminary evaluation, refer to the Panel on Student Conduct any complaint of non-academic misconduct, in which event the Panel will investigate and resolve the matter according to the foregoing procedures.
   7. When a final decision under these Procedures has determined that a student has engaged in misconduct in violation of the law school’s Misconduct Policy, a Notice will also be submitted to the Dean. The Notice shall exclude all references that could identify any student charged with misconduct or any student named as a witness and shall contain only the provision(s) of the Misconduct Policy that was/were violated, a succinct description of the misconduct, and the sanction imposed, and a succinct summary of the evidence relied upon and the reason for the sanction. Subject to modification or reversal by the Dean and subject to the Dean’s determination that the Notice complies with legal requirements designed to protect students privacy, the Dean will post the Notice for informational purposes for a period of 60 days. The Notice will be kept in a permanent file in the Dean’s Office, and on reserve in the Law Library, where it will be available to all members of the law school community.

B. Oversight of Non-Academic Misconduct Cases

1. Within sixty days following the mid-May close of each academic year, the Dean of Students or another academic administrator with responsibility for handling complaints of non-academic misconduct under Section A of this rule shall report to the Academic Standards and Review Committee (ASRC) (or its successor in interest) (a) his or her disposition during the preceding academic year of all such complaints, including cases that are handled informally during student orientation as a result of student requests to amend their law school applications for failure to disclose all requested information, and (b) the disposition of all non-academic misconduct cases processed by the Panel on Student Conduct during the preceding academic year. The academic administrator’s report shall summarize all such claims and outcomes, and include for each case a brief narrative description of its facts and outcome, consistent with appropriate limitations to protect student privacy.
2. Upon its receipt of the academic administrator’s annual report, the (ASRC) shall transmit the report to the faculty.