AALS Statement of Good Practices on Impartiality and Propriety in the Process of AALS Membership Review

I. Impartiality and Propriety
a. Those who have significant responsibility in the process leading to and continuing membership in the Association of American Law Schools serve a vital and quasi-judicial function in the legal system of the United States. It is important to the fair and effective functioning of the system of membership review and to the maintenance of public and professional respect for that system that those who participate in it act impartially and avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

b. One who has significant responsibility in this system or who has had significant responsibility in this system within a period of two years past, as enumerated in paragraph “d” below, should not serve as a consultant to a law school in any matter relating to membership in the Association of American Law Schools.

c. This restriction applies to service as consultant whether or not that service is for compensation. It does not apply to informal advice which an advisor renders (1) without fee, (2) informally, and (3) which he or she discloses fully to the other members of the membership body on which he or she serves or has served. The restriction also does not apply to the routine or official advice and assistance which is rendered by members of a site evaluation team or hearing commission, by the Executive Director of the Association of American Law Schools, or by persons acting on behalf of the Executive Director, or (4) by any other person acting in the normal course of his or her employment.

d. This restriction applies to:

1. members of the Membership Review Committee and the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure of the Association of American Law Schools;
2. the President and members of the Executive Committee of the Association of American Law Schools;
3. members of the professional staff of the Association of American Law Schools, except as provided in paragraph “c” above;
4. a member of a site evaluation team or hearing commission accepting appointment as a consultant to a law school that he or she has inspected or conducted hearings on, within two years after the site evaluation or while the Association still has under consideration matters developed by the site evaluation, whichever is the longer.

e. The Executive Director of the Association of American Law Schools or other person acting on behalf of the Association of American Law Schools may not acquiesce in the appointment as consultant on readiness of any person who by this statement should not accept appointment as a school’s consultant.

f. Service as a consultant for a law school does not disqualify a person from any of the offices or committees in paragraph “d.” However, the officer or committee member should recuse himself or herself from participation in discussion, formal or informal, of the affairs of a school for which he or she has served as consultant or employee and from taking part in any vote with respect to its status.

g. A person who has served as a consultant or employee of a law school within two years prior to assuming a significant responsibility in the membership review process should decline to participate in the determination of the membership status of the school with which he or she previously served.

h. The Executive Director of the Association of American Law Schools shall bring this regulation to the attention of persons who are nominated for or appointed to any of the positions enumerated in paragraph “d” above and to all persons who are holding these positions or who have held them within two years past, at the time the regulation becomes effective.

II. Conflicts of Interest
a. The Association of American Law Schools endeavors to avoid any conflict of interest or perceived conflict of interest arising because a person involved in the membership review process has an associational interest in the law school or law school program under review by the Membership Review or Executive Committees. If a member of the Membership Review or Executive Committees is a dean or a regular faculty member of a law school under review, a former dean or former faculty member (for a period of 10 years following the termination of faculty status with that law school), or a graduate of the law school under review, she or he will not vote on the consideration of that school. A dean or a regular faculty member of a law school under review, a former dean or former faculty member (for a period of 10 years following the termination of faculty status with that law school), or a graduate of the law school will not serve on a site evaluation team for that law school.
Any member of the Membership Review or Executive Committees may recuse himself or herself from voting and/or deliberation on any law school or law school program without the necessity of stating a reason. Committee members who have served on site evaluation teams for a school under review may participate in the committee’s discussion, but shall recuse themselves during the voting. Committee members also shall recuse themselves from voting on matters relating to schools competing with schools at which committee members are currently employed.

Adopted by the AALS Executive Committee, January 6, 1998.