Under the draft proposal, all ABA-accredited schools would be subject to an annual website compliance review of the employment outcome data they post online to ensure that it is consistent with the information they report to the section.
But at least 10 schools a year would also be subject to a random review of the supporting data they would be required to maintain for the employment information they must report to the section. Schools with files found to be more than 2 percent “deficient” would have to verify the information they reported for a random sampling of at least 10 percent of their graduates. And, if 2 percent of that information is found to be unsupported, inaccurate or false, the school would be required to hire, at its own expense, an outside expert pre-approved by the ABA to verify the accuracy of its reported data.APPLY TO FACTS TIME. So let's say you have 150 law graduates every year. There are, like, 200 ABA-accredited law schools, so every year, you have a 5% chance of being subjected to the Russian Roulette of a "1st audit" at your supporting data. Of that 5%, if they have 2% of files "deficient," you do a "2nd audit" based on fifteen students. If 2% of those 15 students' data is unsupported, you get a "3rd audit" done by an outside professional, who may only be remotely connected to the law school industrial complex.
When people say the ABA is toothless, I have no idea what they're talking about. I mean, 2% of 10% is 0.2%, meaning unless you have 500 law students or more, you have to make sure every single student submits supported information or else you're screwed into getting a real audit if you were selected and failed audit level one and the errors are in the selected 10%.
Not that it ever existed, but any residual dishonesty is sure to cease immediately at the intimidating threat of actually having to pay for an audit in the small chance the dominoes fall the wrong way. BEWARE.