Community Standards Code and Honor Code

The University of Detroit Mercy School of Law Community Standards Code articulates the Law School’s expectation that all students will respect the rights of all members of the Detroit Mercy Law community to enhance the educational environment. The Community Standards Code establishes a commitment to fostering an environment that recognizes the personal, ethical, psychological, social, and spiritual potential of all students. All members of the Detroit Mercy Law community are expected to read this Code and adhere their conduct to it.

This Community Standards Code sets forth the Law School’s standards of conduct with respect to student conduct that falls outside the purview of the Law School’s Honor Code. This Code also sets forth the procedures to be followed when there is an allegation that the Community Standards Code has been violated. This Code is designed to address any alleged violation in a fair and expeditious manner.

The Community Standards Code is based on the expectation that all students, and other members of the Law School Community, treat all members of the Community with dignity, respect, fairness, and civility and to behave in a responsible manner at all times both in and outside of the classroom. Conduct that violates this expectation includes:

1. Disorderly conduct including:

   1) Obstruction or interfering with the reprimand, discipline, or apprehension of another person involved in the commission of an offense under the conduct code or any other School policy or regulation.

   2) Intentional disruption or obstruction of teaching, research, administration, student conduct procedure, public service functions, or other law school functions by any means.

2. Behavior, language, physical abuse, or threat of physical abuse to any member of the Detroit Mercy Law Community on law school premises or at law school-sponsored or -supervised functions that endangers the health, safety, or well-being of any person or group.

3. Refusal to comply with reasonable directions of law school officers (instructional and administrative) acting in performance of their duties.

4. Theft of or intentional damage to property of the law school, of a member of the law school community, or to the campus.

5. Actions constituting violations of law on the law school premises or at a law school function.

6. A criminal conviction.

7. Knowingly making false accusations against a member of the Detroit Mercy Law community.

8. Unsanctioned possession or use of School equipment, materials, or keys or the unauthorized entry, exit, occupancy of, or use of any School room, building, or facility.

9. Illegal possession, consumption, distribution, or furnishing of alcohol or other drugs on School property, of the holding of an event in which any of these occur.

10. Harassment, lewd or offensive behavior toward any member of the Detroit Mercy Law community.

11. Possessing, using, or storing firearms, explosive, or weapons on School-controlled property or at School events or programs.

12. Violations of published administrative policies.

13. Sexual misconduct as defined by the University’s Sexual Misconduct Policy.

14. Sexually harassing another person in violation of the University’s Sexual Harassment Policy.

15. Acts of retaliation – words, actions, or written communication that imply or state another individual of the Detroit Mercy Law community will be harmed or harassed for participating in the Community Standards or Honor Code procedure.

1. Reporting
   All members of the Detroit Mercy Law community have an affirmative duty to report known or suspected violations of the Detroit Mercy Law’s Community Standards. Other than reports of sexual harassment or misconduct, reports must be made in person or in writing to the Assistant Dean for Student and Administrative Services (ADSAS). The ADSAS will determine whether, if the allegations occurred as reported, they would constitute a violation of the Detroit Mercy Law’s Community Standards. If the allegations would not constitute a violation, then the ADSAS will inform the reporting party that no further action will be taken. If the allegations would constitute a violation, then the ADSAS will determine whether the alleged misconduct would constitute a minor violation, which could be resolved through an education conference with an administrator, or if it would constitute a major violation that would require a more formal review process.
   
   Reports of sexual harassment or misconduct need not be received by the ADSAS in order to trigger further process; rather, a report to a responsible employee will suffice to trigger further process for sexual harassment or misconduct complaints.
   
   i.  Minor Violations
   Minor violations are those that can typically be resolved through an educational conference with  an administrator. When the ADSAS determines that alleged misconduct would constitute a minor violation, he will notify the Associate Dean for Student Affairs (ADSA) of the allegation. The ADSA may affirm the violation as a minor violation or may determine that it is a major violation. If the ADSA affirms the violation as minor, the ADSAS and the ADSA will determine whether an informal investigation is required, will conduct such investigation, and will meet with the student to address the allegation. Typically, when a student commits a minor violation of Detroit Mercy Law’s Community Standards, no formal charges will be filed, nor will a record of a violation be placed into a student’s file. Following the meeting with the ADSA or ADSAS, a student is expected to modify his or her behavior so that it upholds Detroit Mercy Law’s Community Standards. Repeated minor violations could be the basis for the adjudication process, described below. The ADSAS will keep an internal record of minor violations and their resolutions.
   
   ii.  Major Violations
   When the ADSA determines that the alleged conduct would constitution a major violation of Detroit Mercy Law’s Community Standards, he will notify the ADSA of his determination. The investigation and adjudication process outlined below will follow.
   
    b.       Investigation
   Upon notification from the ADSAS alleging a violation of the Community Standards Code, the ADSA, or his or her designee, shall appoint an administrator or faculty member to serve as an Investigator. The Investigator will conduct an investigation to determine whether credible evidence supports the charge of a violation of Detroit Mercy Law’s Community Standards. At the conclusion of the investigation, the investigator will issue a report which will contain:
        a. Statement of the allegations and the relevant Community Standards at issue;
        b. Review of the steps taken in the investigation; and
        c. A determination of whether credible evidence supports the charge, and if so, a description of the   evidence.
   
   Absent good cause, the investigator's report should be completed no more than 10 school days after the ADSA receives notification of an alleged violation. The investigator will submit his or her report to the ADSA.
   
   If the investigator does not find credible evidence to support the charge, no further action will be taken, but the ADSA will keep the report with names redacted for the duration of the academic year.
   
   c.     Community Standards Resolution Hearing Process
   Upon receipt of the investigator's report in which a finding of credible evidence is made, the ADSA shall set a hearing date, which shall be within 10 to 15 school days after the student facing charges response is due, as described below.
   
   The ADSA will present the student facing charges with a description of the charge(s), a copy of the Investigator's Report, as well as a Community Standards Resolution Hearing date. Within 5 school days, the student facing charges must either admit responsibility for the Community Standards violation, or contest the report. The student facing charges must submit his or her response in writing to the ADSA. Failure to submit a written response will be deemed an admission of responsibility.
   
   In cases of alleged sexual harassment and/or sexual misconduct, the ADSA will also present the Complainant with a copy of the Investigator’s Report, and when applicable, a copy of the description of the charges and the Community Standards Resolution Hearing Date. The
   
   Complainant may make a written response to the documents, which should be submitted within 5 school days of receipt.
   
   If the matter moves to the Community Standards Resolution Hearing, the ADSA, or his or her designee, shall hold a Community Standards Resolution Hearing within the time frame prescribed above. The ADSA, or his or her designee, shall serve as the Hearing Officer. The Resolution Hearing is a non-adversarial proceeding in which formal rules of evidence are inapplicable. The Hearing Officer decides what documentary evidence to request, what witnesses to call, and what questions to present in order to conduct a thorough examination of the facts of the charged violation. The Hearing Officer has final authority to ensure an orderly and complete hearing. The Hearing Officer shall consider the Investigation Report, the student’s written response, and the oral testimony of the student facing charges, should he or she choose to testify. The Hearing Officer may call additional witnesses, review documentary evidence, and ask relevant questions in order to conduct a complete hearing.
   
   A student facing charges may request witnesses to testify on his or her behalf. Victims and complainants may also request witnesses to attend and testify. The Hearing Officer must be notified of a request for witness(es) not less than two school days in advance of the Resolution Hearing. The Hearing Officer may impose reasonable limits on the number of witnesses called, as well as the scope and duration of the witness statements. Witnesses are typically asked to comment only on the event(s) pertinent to the charges, not the character of the charged student.
   
   A student facing charges may have one advisor present for the Resolution Hearing. A complainant in a sexual harassment or misconduct case may also have one advisor present for the Resolution Hearing. Finally, any other student who is required to attend a Resolution Hearing may request to have an advisor present. The Hearing Officer shall consider these requests on a case-by case basis. The Hearing Officer must be notified in writing at least two school days in advance of the Resolution Hearing if a student intends to bring an advisor to a Resolution Hearing. The advisor serves as a support person and is intended to be of direct assistance to the student before and during the Resolution Hearing. The student has the right to reasonably consult with the advisor during the Resolution Hearing, but the advisor shall not participate as an advocate or speak on behalf of the student.
   
   The student facing charges also has the right:
        a. To request the Hearing Officer ask further questions of a witness;
        b. To request the Hearing Officer call additional witnesses in the matter;
        c. To testify and submit relevant materials;
        d. To refuse to answer any incriminating question;
        e. To make an opening and closing statement; and
        f. To present mitigating testimony and/or evidence that would affect the sanctions imposed, should the student be found responsible for a violation.
   
   d.  Sanctions
   When a student is found responsible for the alleged Community Standards Violation, either by accepting responsibility following the investigation report or as a Resolution Hearing, the Hearing Officer shall determine the appropriate sanctions for the violation.
   
   The Hearing Officer may impose any sanctions that they deem appropriate to the Honor Code Violation. The following is a non-exhaustive list of potential sanctions which may be imposed:

• Written reprimand
• Probation, which includes a loss of any scholarship award, loss of present leadership positions, and a bar from seeking future leadership positions for the duration of the probation
• Ethical counseling / reflective exercise Loss of privileges
• Restitution
• No contact order
• Required leave of absence, with or without specific conditions that must be met in order for the student to return to the program
• Suspension for a defined period of time
• Suspension for an indeterminate period of time, with reinstatement contingent on the completion of specific requirements
• Expulsion with the opportunity to withdraw
• Expulsion
  The minimum sanction that will be imposed for any major violation of Community Standards is a written reprimand, which will be placed in the student's educational file.
  
  e.  Decision
  The Hearing Officer shall issue his or her decision in writing to the student facing charges within 10 school days of the Resolution Hearing. The decision shall contain findings of fact, findings of responsibility, and sanctions. The Resolution Hearing Process concludes with the delivery of the decision.
  
  f.     Appeal
  A student found responsible for a violation of the Detroit Mercy Law Community Standards is able to appeal a decision only after the conclusion of the Resolution Hearing Process. In addition, the Complainant in a case involving a violation of the sexual harassment and/or sexual misconduct policy may appeal a decision at the conclusion of the Resolution Hearing Process.
  
  The decision may be appealed on the following bases:
  
       i.   The finding of responsibility is based on finding of fact that are clearly erroneous;
  
       ii.  The finding of responsibility is based on an erroneous interpretation of the Detroit Mercy Law Community Standard(s), which resulted in prejudicial error;
  
       iii.  The recommended sanction is disproportionate in light of the violation of Detroit Mercy Law Community Standard(s);
  
       iv.  Departures from procedure in this process, which caused a prejudicial error.
  
  A student may submit a written appeal to the Dean of the School of Law within 10 school days of the receipt of the Resolution Hearing Decision. In no appeal is submitted, the matter is closed.
  
  Upon a review of the full written record, the Dean will issue his/her decision to uphold the Resolution Hearing Decision in full, uphold in part, or reverse. The Dean's decision will be issued within 10 school days of receipt of the student's appeal. The Dean's decision is final.
  
  g.  Record Keeping
  
  When a student is found responsible for a violation of Detroit Mercy Law Community Standard(s), a copy of the Investigation Report and the Resolution Hearing Decision will be forwarded to the Dean of the School of Law and included in the student’s educational file. When a student is found not responsible, a copy of the Investigation Report and Resolution Hearing Decision with names redacted will be kept in the ADSA’s files for the duration of the academic year.

The University of Detroit Mercy School of Law Honor Code articulates the Law School’s expectation that all students will meet the highest standards of personal and professional honor, integrity, and ethical conduct. The Honor Code reminds all members of the Law School of the necessity to act in a manner consistent with the standards of the legal profession to adhere to the highest degree of professional integrity. All members of the Law School community have a responsibility to read this Code and conform their conduct to it.

This Honor Code sets forth the Law School’s standards of conduct with respect to student integrity and honesty. The Code also provides for the formation of an Honor Code Council to oversee the administration of matters pertaining to this Honor Code. Acts that violate the Honor Code or acts that are otherwise academic in nature will be subject to the reporting and complaint resolution procedures set forth in the Honor Code. The Honor Code is designed to address alleged violations in a fair and expeditious manner.

The Honor Code prohibits any conduct pertaining to academic or other University matters that demonstrates fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or the giving or taking of unfair advantage over other students or the attempt to give or take an unfair advantage over other students. Conduct that violates the Honor Code includes, but is not limited to, the following: 

1. Using unauthorized assistance or material or the giving of unauthorized assistance or material in the carrying out of an academic assignment. This includes, but is not limited to, the use of papers produced by another individual or service in whole or in part;
2. Engaging in misconduct related to examinations including:
   1. Invading the security for preparation or storage of an examination;
   2. Consulting materials not authorized by the instructor during an examination;
   3. Giving, receiving, or attempting to give or receive any assistance on an examination;
   4. Discussing an examination with another student who is taking a deferred examination or with anyone else when that discussion is likely to endanger the security of examination questions;
   5. Retaining examination materials after the collection of those materials by Law School personnel; and  vi.  Failure to follow any examination instructions, including but not limited to, failure to stop writing an examination when the time allotted for writing the examination has elapsed.    
3. Submitting plagiarized work. Plagiarism is the "act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts, or passages of his [or her] writing of ideas, or the language of the same, and passing them off as a product of one's own mind." Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed.);
4. Submitting work for academic credit, or in fulfillment of an academic requirement, when the work duplicates, in whole or in substantial part, work for which one has received or is currently receiving academic credit at this Law School or any other academic institution;
5. Submitting work for academic credit, or in fulfillment of an academic requirement, when the work duplicates, in whole or in substantial part, work that was previously completed or is currently being performed in a paid or unpaid employment setting;
6. Unfairly restricting the access of other students to academic resources;
7. Making a false statement or representation regarding any academic matter, including falsifying or altering materials related to course registration or grades and falsifying any official academic report form;
8. Falsifying or attempting to falsify class attendance records for oneself or another student;
9. Interfering with the administration of any matters pertaining to a violation of this Code;  
10. Aiding, abetting, or attempting any violation of this Code; and
11. Retaliating against any individual for participating in the Honor Code process.

1. Membership on the Honor Council

Because the integrity of the institution depends upon the honest and forthright behavior of its members, the Honor Council is comprised of both student and faculty members.  The composition is as follows:  

7 Full-Time Faculty Members, appointed for 3 year staggered terms  
5 to 8 Student Members, to be elected from the following divisions:  
2L Day  
2L Dual  
3L Day  
3L Dual            

Elections will be overseen by the Associate Dean for Student Affairs, in consultation with the Student Bar Association.  Students will be elected in the Fall term, and their term shall run from the second Friday of the Fall Term to the second Friday of the subsequent Fall Term, with the exception of graduating students, whose them shall end upon their graduation.  

In order to be eligible for membership on the Honor Council, students must be in good academic standing, may not have been found responsible for a prior Honor Code violation, and must attend a mandatory training once elected.

The Dean shall appoint one faculty member of the council to serve as the Faculty Chair.

     b. Training for Honor Council Members

All members of the Detroit Mercy Law community are strongly encouraged to report known or suspected violations of the Honor Code.  Reports should be made in person or in writing to the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs (ADAA).  Upon receipt of a report of misconduct, the ADAA will first determine whether, if the allegations occurred as reported, they would constitute a violation of the Honor Code.  If they would not constitute a violation, then the ADAA will inform the reporting party that no further action will be taken.  If the allegations would constitute a violation, then the ADAA will submit the report to the faculty chair of the Honor Council.

          b. Investigation

Upon receipt of a report from the ADAA alleging a violation of the Honor Code, the Faculty Chair of the Honor Council, or his or her designee, shall appoint a faculty member of the Honor Council to serve as an Investigator. The Faculty Chair also shall contact the student(s) who is alleged to have violated the Honor Code, and inform the student(s) that the student(s) is alleged to have violated the Honor Code, inform the student of the specific violation(s), and tell the student that the allegations are being investigated.   

The Investigator will conduct an investigation to identify facts and evidence relevant to the allegations.   At the conclusion of the investigation, the Investigator will issue a report which will contain:

1. Statement of the allegations and the relevant portions of the Honor Code at issue; ii.
2. Review of the steps taken in the investigation; iii.
3. A description of facts and evidence identified.
4. A recommendation as to whether or not a hearing panel should be convened; and
5. If the recommendation is to convene a hearing, the proposed sanction to be imposed, absent any mitigating or aggravating evidence which might be presented or disclosed at a hearing.

In making the recommendation as to whether or not a hearing panel should be convened, the Investigator may consider the strength of the evidence, the severity of the allegation(s), and the likely workload involved with further process.  However, the Investigator may not, in any circumstance, recommend a hearing unless, in his or her judgment, the allegation is supported by a preponderance of evidence.   

Absent good cause, as determined by the Faculty Chair of the Honor Council, the investigator's report should be completed no more than ten (10) school days after the receipt of the report from the ADAA.  The investigator will submit his or her report to the Faculty Chair of the Honor Council.  If the Investigator does not recommend a hearing, no further action will be taken, but a report with names redacted will be kept in the Honor Council file for the duration of the academic year.  

If the Investigator recommends a hearing, the Faculty Chair shall contact the student against whom the allegations are directed to set up a meeting.  At this meeting, the Faculty Chair will present the Investigator’s report to the student and will describe the student’s obligation to respond to the report. The ADSA or his or her designee may also attend this meeting.  The Investigator’s report will be provided only to the Honor Council Faculty Chair, the Associate Dean for Student Affairs, the student alleged to have violated the Honor Code, and members of the Hearing Panel, if a hearing is scheduled.   

Within five (5) school days of receipt of the Investigator’s report, the student facing charges must communicate that the student (a) admits responsibility for the Honor Code violation and accepts the recommended sanction; (b) accepts responsibility, but rejects the recommended sanction, or (c) denies responsibility. The student facing charges must submit his or her decision in writing to the Faculty Chair of the Honor Council. If the student contests the report, or accepts the report but contests the recommended sanction and wishes to present mitigating evidence, he or she will have an opportunity to do so via a written statement to the Honor Council Panel, which is submitted at least five (5) school days in advance of the hearing, as described below.  The student need not submit these arguments or evidence as part of his or her initial response to the Investigator’s report.

Failure of a student to respond in a timely fashion to any communications from the Faculty Chair of the Honor Council will be presented to the Honor Council Hearing Panel at the hearing stage.   

After the student facing charges submits his or her response to the Faculty Chair, the matter will move to the hearing phase if it is not resolved by the student accepting both responsibility and the recommended sanction. The Faculty Chair appoints three members of the Honor Council to serve on the Honor Council Hearing Panel, described below, and sets the hearing date, following the timeline described below. When a student facing charges accepts responsibility for the Honor Code violation but rejects the recommended sanction, the matter will be heard by an Honor Council Hearing Panel for sanctioning purposes only, as described below.   

If the student facing charges contests responsibility, then the matter will move to the Honor Council Hearing Panel, which will both hear the case and impose sanctions, as appropriate. 

          c. Honor Council Hearing

The Honor Council Hearing will take place 10 - 15 school days after the response of the student facing charges to the Investigator's report is due.    

The Honor Council Hearing Panel (HCHP) will be composed of three members selected from the Honor Council: one faculty member and two student members.  The Faculty Chair of the Honor Council, or his or her designee, is responsible for appointing members to the HCHP.  The faculty member serving on the HCHP will be responsible for chairing the panel.  

The HCHP may take one of two forms: either a full hearing (both conduct and sanctions) or a sanctioning hearing only.  A full hearing will be held when the student facing charges contests responsibility as set forth in the Investigator's Report, while a sanctioning hearing will be held when the student facing charges accepts responsibility for the Honor Code violation found in the Investigator's report, but does not accept the recommended sanction. For either type of hearing, the student facing charges will have the opportunity to submit a written statement to the HCHP no later than five (5) school days in advance of the hearing. The student’s written statement should be signed and submitted by the student, not by an advisor or other representative.  The student also will have an opportunity to designate witnesses and provide evidence not previously considered, no later than five school days before the hearing.   A student may request an adjournment of the hearing for up to ten (10) school days, which adjournment shall be liberally granted.  

In advance of a hearing the HCHP will review the Investigator's report and the response of the student facing charges. The HCHP may request documents, call witnesses to testify at the hearing, and otherwise prepare for the hearing.  The HCHP will convene in person or telephonically to prepare for the hearing, including preparing questions for witnesses.  The Faculty Chair will convey to the student the names of the witnesses requested to testify and any evidence provided to the panel, which was not considered by the Investigator.  

A full hearing consists of both a Conduct Hearing and a Sanctions Hearing.   

          i. Conduct Hearing

The Conduct Hearing is a non-adversarial, proceeding in which formal rules of evidence are inapplicable.  The HCHP decides what documentary evidence to request, what witnesses to call, and what questions to present in order to conduct a thorough examination of the facts of the charged violation.  The Chair of the HCHP has final authority to ensure an orderly and complete hearing.

The student facing charges shall have the right to have one personal representative, including a family member, student, friend, or retained counsel, attend the hearing with them.  The student has the right to reasonably consult with that person during the hearing, but the person shall not participate as an advocate or speak on behalf of the student facing charges.

The student facing charges also has the right:

1. To request the HCHP to ask further questions of a witness and to provide specific questions;
2. To request the HCHP call additional witnesses in the matter;
3. To testify and submit relevant materials;              
4. To refuse to answer any question; and                             
5. To make an opening and closing statement.

At the conclusion of the Conduct Hearing, the HCHP will adjourn to deliberate on a finding of responsibility. The panel will deliberate in person and decide, within three (3) school days, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard of proof, whether the student is responsible or not responsible for the alleged Honor Code violation.

Once the HCHP has reached its decision, the HCPC will reconvene with the student within five (5) school days after the conclusion of the hearing. The HCHP will meet with the student and inform the student of the HCP’s  finding.  The HCHP must individually address every violation of the Honor Code put forward by the Investigator, including those where the HCHP has made a finding of no responsibility.  If the HCHP finds the student not responsible on all allegations, the process will conclude. If the HCHP finds the student responsible              on any of the allegations, the student may accept the recommended sanction from the Investigator’s report  within five (5) school days. If the student does not accept the Investigator’s recommended sanction, a Sanctions Hearing will be scheduled within five (5) days of the student’s decision.  If a student wishes to accept the sanction recommended by the Investigator, there will be no Sanctions Hearing and the process will conclude, in which case the student has the right to appeal the finding of responsibility, but not the sanction.  

          ii.  Sanctions Hearing

When an HCHP finds a student responsible for an alleged Honor Code violation and the student does not agree with the Investigator’s  recommended sanction, or when a student admits responsibility but does not agree with the proposed sanction, the HCHP shall determine the appropriate sanction, or combination of sanctions, for the violation.  

At the Sanctions Hearing, the student facing charges will have the opportunity to present any mitigating evidence or testimony relevant to the HCHP's decision.  The student may decline to appear at the hearing and provide mitigating evidence in writing.  The Sanctions Hearing shall not be a venue for the student facing charges to appeal the findings of the Investigation Report or the Conduct Hearing.   

The HCHP may impose any sanctions that the panel deems appropriate under the circumstances.  The following is a non-exhaustive list of potential sanctions which may be imposed:

• Written Reprimand  
• Honor Probation, which includes a loss of any scholarship award, loss of present leadership positions, and a bar from seeking future leadership positions for the duration of the probation  
• Ethical Counseling / Reflective exercise  
• Academic Sanctions, including losing credit for an assignment or losing credit for a course  
• Suspension for a defined period of time  
• Suspension for an indeterminate period of time, with reinstatement contingent on the completion of specific requirements  Expulsion with the opportunity to withdraw  
• Expulsion  

The minimum sanction that will be imposed for any Honor Code violation is a written reprimand, which will be placed in the student's educational file.  

A finding of a violation of the Honor Code may have collateral consequences not determined by the HCHP.  These include: (1) a loss of scholarship if the scholarship is conditional upon no violations of the Honor Code; and (2) mandatory reporting to the Character and Fitness Committee of the State Bar of Michigan, and/or other jurisdictions in which the student is seeking admission to the Bar, of the Honor Code violation and resulting sanction.  A student may be required to report allegations of a violation of the Honor Code, even without a finding of responsibility, in response to a question by the Character and Fitness (or similar) Committee in the jurisdiction in which the student is seeking Bar admission.      

          d. Extensions of Time

Extensions of time up to ten (10) additional school days may be granted for good cause, as determined by the Faculty Chair of the Honor Council.  Multiple extensions of time will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances, as determined by the Faculty Chair.  

           e. Decisions

The HCHP shall issue a written decision to the student facing charges within seven (7) school days of the conclusion of the hearing.  The decision issued after a Conduct Hearing when the student then accepts the Investigator’s recommended sanction shall contain a finding regarding responsibility for each of the alleged Honor Code violations and a list of evidence considered and witnesses.  The decision will not contain any additional information.   If the student does not accept the Investigator’s recommendation, the report also will contain the sanction(s), if any. The decision issued after a Sanctions Hearing where the student accepted responsibility but rejected the Investigator’s proposed sanction will contain the sanction(s) for each of the allegations set forth by the Investigator to which the student did not agree.  The Honor Code process concludes with the delivery of the HCHP decision. 

          f. Appeal

A student facing charges is able to appeal a decision by the HCHP only after the conclusion of the Honor Council process (that is, after responsibility and sanction(s)).  

The HCHP's decision may be appealed on the following bases:

1. The finding of responsibility, when contested by the student, is based on findings of fact that are clearly erroneous;
2. The finding of responsibility, when contested by the student, is based on an erroneous interpretation of this Honor Code that resulted in prejudicial error;
3. The sanction, not agreed to by the student, is disproportionate in light of the violation of this Honor Code;
4. Departures from procedures detailed in this Honor Code caused a prejudicial error.

A student may submit a written appeal to the Dean of the School of Law within ten (10) school days of the receipt of the HCHP decision.   

Upon a review of the full written record, the Dean will issue his/her decision to uphold the HCHP in full, uphold in part, or reverse.  The Dean's decision will be issued within ten (10) school days of receipt of the student's appeal.  The Dean's decision is final.  

          g. Record Keeping

When a student is found responsible for an Honor Code Violation, a copy of the Investigation Report the HCHP decision, and the Dean’s decision, if applicable,  will be forwarded to the Dean of the School of Law and included in the student’s educational file.  When a student is found not responsible, a copy of the Investigation Report and Hearing Panel Decision (if a hearing was held) with names redacted will be kept in the Honor Council’s files for the duration of the academic year.  

          h. Reporting

On an annual basis, the Honor Council will report to the student body and faculty statistics of its proceedings as follows:

• Number of reports received by the ADAA of alleged Honor Code Violations  
• Number of completed Investigations  
• Number of findings of Responsible / Not Responsible  
• Description of the types of violations heard through the Honor Code process and the types of sanctions imposed
• Recommendations for strategies to improve the culture of integrity at the School of Law