by Richardson R. Lynn**

      The care and feeding of ABA/AALS Site Inspection Teams becomes critical every seven years in the life of a law school.2

      The care and feeding of ABA/AALS Site Inspection Teams becomes critical every seven years in the life of a law school.[1]  Because of the annual turnover in our ranks, many deans have yet to experience the unique combination of terror and fatigue that is a site inspection.[2]  For the purposes of this essay, we will not dwell on the benefits to the legal profession and society that flow from regulating law schools,[3] much less propose lessening the regulatory detail or argue that a ten year cycle makes more sense, equally self-evident propositions.   Nor will we discuss the self-unfulfilling circular flight pattern of schools seeking provisional approval.[4]  If your school is facing an inspection in the next two years, there is still time to plan for a successful team visit; don=t worry, I=ll tell you when to panic.  If your school faces an inspection during this academic year, panic.

        Deans who have not served on a site inspection team should volunteer immediately.  I have learned a great deal every time,[5] including the number of good ideas I steal and the number of other ideas that the visit casts into doubt.  I almost feel guilty while on campus because the value of the visit to me seems to outweigh whatever benefit I can give the school.  When writing my sections of the report later, I no longer feel guilty.  

A Self Study That Sings

      About two years before the site inspection, the dean should call a faculty meeting to discuss the upcoming inspection, briefly review the ABA and AALS expectations, suggest that everyone re-read (or read for the first time) the ABA Standards for the Accreditation of Law Schools and the AALS By-Laws, identify any issues that the inspection team or their report may identify, especially if they can be addressed promptly, and propose how and when the self study should be written.[6] While the Dean should take the leading role in writing vision statements and strategic academic plans (while ensuring that there is faculty buy-in), the self study must be primarily a faculty document.  This does not mean that the faculty must write the document as a committee of the whole--a concept that will derail anyone=s train of thought--but that there is ample opportunity for faculty input, discussion, and approval of the final draft.  The dean should convince the faculty that drafting, reviewing, and approving a self study is not an onerous chore, but an exciting chance for self-reflection, vision, and honesty about the institution.  All deans are so persuasive.

      There are basically two models for self study authorship:  appoint a small faculty committee to gather information from various law school and university offices and write the first draft or appoint a respected faculty member who can write and is capable of meeting a deadline.  The committee will always be slower and less organized than a good professor, but the faculty culture and the availability of a willing, competent individual may determine which model you choose.  Whether a committee or an individual, the drafter should begin work at least one year before the inspection.  The drafter must have the reports and letters from the ABA and AALS that followed the last inspection, the most recent reports and letters from the ABA about foreign programs or LL.M. offerings, copies of the Standards and By-Laws, law school budget and university financial information, and any recent strategic academic plan or other documents about the law school=s aspirations.   The drafter should then seek current data from law school and university offices to include in the report, interview deans and directors about their roles and responsibilities, interview faculty committee chairs, and discuss issues in the self study with as many faculty members as possible while the first official draft is being written.  (The first official draft likely will represent multiple drafts by the drafter.)  

      The first draft should be delivered to the faculty for its initial review at least six months before the inspection, with copies to key university and law school administrators.  After the first wave of discussion and correction of facts, the faculty should begin the process of approval.  That may start at the level of faculty committees, with a revised self study presented to the entire faculty, or it may be a series of faculty meetings devoted to discrete portions of the self study.  Consistency of style and readability does matter; substantive corrections or additions approved by the faculty should be written by the drafter so that the document is not disjointed.  

      The final draft of the self study, after ample time for input from the faculty and the central university, should be approved by the faculty at least three months before the site inspection.  That allows sufficient time for printing,[7] assembling the exhibits, publications, and other material that accompany the self study.  The resulting box of paper is sent to the ABA , AALS, and the seven site inspection team members. 

      During the process of writing the self study, you may discover that the law school does not comply with a Standard or By-Law, perhaps because they were amended in the past seven years.  While the dean should be aware of such changes and continuously ensure that the law school complies, it could happen.  If at all possible, take the time and spend the resources to eliminate the issue before the self study is finalized.  A school will not be sanctioned for years of non-compliance if, at the time of the site inspection, the school is in compliance, intends to remain in compliance, and appears to be able, financially or otherwise, to remain in compliance.

      How long should the self study be?  For most law schools, something in the neighborhood of  75-100 single-spaced or printed pages is adequate.  Many self studies are longer because they revel in trivia, include matters reflecting committee compromises, or are simply verbose.  The annual and site inspection Questionnaires that the law school completes includes detailed statistics; the self study need not repeat them.  If the team needs to know more about a particular topic (e.g., how does the library work at a cellular level), they can ask during the visit or in follow-up questions afterwards while writing their report.  In addition to the Questionnaires, numerous exhibits, publications, and copies of other documents are necessary to support the self study.  A reference to an exhibit is sufficient, rather than a detailed synopsis.  So long as it satisfies the Standards, there is no reason why the self study cannot be readable and interesting.

      How candid should the self study be?  Obviously, it must not contain false or misleading information, but every school has blemishes that need not be discussed graphically in the self study.  There is no guarantee of confidentiality when it passes through so many hands,[8] for one thing, and then there=s defamation.  Probably every member of every site team has learned negative facts about a school during the visit, understood why those matters weren=t in the self study, and never mentioned them in the report.  The dirty linen may involve feuds, within or without the law school, unfortunate personalities, scandal in the student body, faculty, or staff, or weird pending litigation.  It may highlight an underlying problem that is clear from the self study, or furnish the personal background for decisions.  Or, it may just be interesting gossip.  

      At the same time, do not paper over every controversy or dispute about the recent history or direction of the law school.  A faculty divided over important law school matters or a principled conflict between law school needs and university priorities should be fairly portrayed.  A dean who manipulates every part of the process that is manipulable might receive a virtually perfect report, but that school will get no helpful advice from the visiting team, nor pressure from the accreditors that might convince the central university to improve law school conditions.  The dean knows better than anyone if there is non-compliance or marginal compliance with the Standards and that it usually results from financial constraints.  While today=s university presidents are not intimidated by a negative ABA or AALS report, an honest, but sympathetic report may help accelerate improvements in the law school.

Preparing for the Visit

      Depending on the circumstances, the Consultant=s office may consult[9] with the dean about the proposed chair of the team or the team members.  My impression is that this does not happen in every case and the practice may vary somewhat over time.  The dean has no official role in the naming of team members, but if the dean knows of issues at the law school suggesting particular expertise that should be represented on the team, contacting the Consultant=s office with a request for certain kinds of team members is appropriate.  The Consultant=s staff will inform you of the composition of the team well in advance of the visit.  You or someone on your faculty will know almost all of them, with the possible exception of the university administrator or lawyer/judge and then you will know someone who knows them.  If a team member has a possible conflict of interest, the dean should notify the Consultant=s office; the Consultant=s office will wish to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

      You will work with the chair of the team to schedule the date of the visit; the Consultant=s office will only specify that it is a fall or spring visit.  Make it neither too early in the semester to give a complete picture, nor so late in the semester that everyone is consumed with preparing for finals.  Avoid spring break, as well as the days just before and after it when a quorum of students and faculty is iffy.  Check the schedules of the president and provost to be sure they are available when the team is present.  If yours is an independent law school, ensure that the chair of the board of trustees is available and, perhaps, chairs of trustee committees.  While you are looking at calendars, schedule a short vacation for yourself after the team leaves.

      Your assistant should offer to arrange flights[10] for the team.  You will provide housing.  The hotel should be as nice as possible as close as possible to the campus.   Keep the team happy by putting them in hotels that turn down covers and place mints on pillows and keep them from driving far to and from school.  Driving takes time and energy better devoted to visiting classes and eating in fine restaurants.  Driving is also one of the leading causes of car wrecks, a huge distraction during the visit.   Remember that every member of the site inspection team is equal, but the chair is more equal.  Reserve a hotel suite for the chair with a large table or conference room for team meetings.

      Rent the team a large[11] van so they can travel together to and from school and meals and so they will not be lost separately.  If they lose their way, you want them do it together.  Ask their counterparts on your faculty to meet each team member at the airport, e.g., the librarian meets the librarian, and convey them to the team hotel.  Make dinner reservations for the team in nice restaurants near the campus.[12]  In addition to the goodwill you earn by providing top-notch accommodations and dining, these people deserve to be treated well.  They spend approximately one week of their year on this visit, including the preparation and report writing.  For free.  Bury them in kindness.

      Select a room in the law school for the team to use as an office, snack bar, and retreat during the 2 2 days they are on campus.  The room should be centrally located, but not beside classrooms, offices, or other sources of noise pollution.  Or, where the team might fear being overheard.  The room should be large enough to accommodate the entire team easily with ample work space and with shelving or tables for extra copies of all the materials sent to the team, faculty publications, and the other information requested during the visit.  (Even if the team read the materials in advance of the visit, it is not practical to bring it all with them.)  There should be several computers with internet access in the room, as well as wiring for laptops, private phone lines, and other supplies:  pens, paper, and trinkets with the law school logo.  And, most importantly, the room should be supplied with fresh coffee, juices, soft drinks,[13] muffins, fruit, cookies, and other snacks.  All day long.[14]

      Finally, ensure that all professors are on campus during the two full days when the team is present.  The team will try to visit classes and speak with each of them at least once; those with committee or other duties may be contacted several times.  Prepare the law school directors and staff for the visit.  While they should be candid and helpful, if there is any doubt about the propriety or practicality of giving information to the team, or information in a certain form, tell them to check with the dean first.  If requested information cannot be compiled before the team leaves, it can be supplied later.

The Visit

      Typically, the visit begins with a tour of the law school and dinner with the dean and a few law school administrators.  This is a time to discuss any major issues raised by the self study and any changes in the law school or university since the self study was finalized.  The chair will outline the team=s goals for the visit, emphasizing that the team is only a fact-finding body and that its report will go to the Accreditation Committee for determinations about compliance with the Standards.  In the same way, the AALS summarian will report facts to the Membership Review Committee and the Executive Committee of the AALS.

      During the visit, the team will endeavor to visit all classes, meet with the faculty, individually and as a group, have entrance and exit interviews with the president and provost, meet with students, interview key staff members, and, depending on the schedule, attend a reception with alumni, board members, and local lawyers and judges.  The chair will deliver the same message about the purpose and limitations of the visit to each group.  The chair of the committee, as well as individual team members, may visit the deans= suite repeatedly to verify information, identify the proper faculty or staff person to ask about certain matters, and list additional information or statistics that would be helpful.[15]  Neither the dean, nor any associate deans should schedule any other meetings, or be off campus, while the team is on campus.

      On the last day of the visit, the team conducts exit interviews with the dean and president separately, unless the president wants the dean present.  If separate, the team tells the dean what it will tell the president, preventing surprise.  The team will briefly remind the president that its purpose was simply to find facts and then summarize the key facts, both good and less good.  The chair and the team will attempt to answer any questions, but will not debate its findings at that meeting.  Occasionally, a president will bluster or filibuster, but they are usually quite gracious and appreciative of the team=s work.

After the Whirlwind

      Following the brief vacation the dean is allowed, any follow-up requests for information from the team should be dealt with promptly.  The team=s report is due about 60 days after the visit ends and is then reviewed by the Consultant=s office and ABA general counsel for form, content, and compliance with the Consent Decree under which the accreditation process is operating.[16]  Thereafter, the law school receives a copy of the report and is given a chance to correct any errors or omissions in the report.  The report, together with the law school=s response, goes to the Accreditation Committee, which will determine whether the school complies with the Standards or whether it requires further information before making that determination.  Fully approved schools will be told that accreditation continues while the committee and the law school exchange letters, resolving and narrowing the issues.  The process can last for years following a site visit and, occasionally, remains open when the next visit takes place.

      When the first wave of letters and responses is completed, your law school is six and one-half years away from its next inspection.  Or, by my count, four and one-half years away from beginning the next self study.  Time flies when you=re having fun!