Procedures Concerning Academic Requirements and Honor Standards Applicable to Students in the American Law and LL.M. Programs Sponsored by the Columbus School of Law of The Catholic University of America
And the Faculty of Law and Administration, Jagiellonian University

In 1981, Catholic University students and faculty jointly drafted an honor code for law students, which has been in operation since with periodic review and revision. Examinations and other course requirements are administered within the framework of trust of the school’s honor system. The current CUA Rules of Conduct for Law Students are patterned in many respects on the American Bar Association Model Rules of Conduct for Lawyers, upon which the U.S. state ethical codes for lawyers generally are based. In addition to setting the honor standards for the academic requirements of the law school, the CUA Rules of Professional Conduct are intended to prepare law students for participation in the self-regulated legal profession in which they will be required to comply with an analogous set of standards. The CUA Rules of Conduct play an educative function in familiarizing students with expectations that the American legal profession holds with regard to honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness to be a lawyer and the profession’s obligations for upholding these standards.

The following Honor Standards have been adapted from the CUA Student Rules of Conduct to provide the same type of framework of academic trust for administration of courses, assignments, and examinations for the JUCUA ALP and LL.M. programs. Violation of the rules in Section C of this document is grounds for sanction including the possibility of exclusion from the program. Students also may be excluded for failing to meet other requirements of the program, including failing to attend classes and failing to attain satisfactory grades in courses offered.

These Honor Standards apply to all students enrolled in the JUCUA-ALP, including LL.M. students. When LL.M. students are in residence at Catholic University in Washington D.C., provisions of the CUA Honor Code related to membership in the on-campus community apply as well. Any violation of such provisions by an LL.M. student will be considered under the procedure set forth in Section D of these Standards. LL.M. students living in CUA residence halls also will be subject to regulations concerning that residence. Jagiellonian students are subject to all rules and regulations of Jagiellonian University not inconsistent with these rules as well. Thus, academic dishonesty, which violates these Honor Standards, may result in a sanction from JU in addition to any sanction found by the CUA Director of the ALP under these rules.

A. Statement of Purpose

The following statement of purpose is patterned on a similar statement that precedes the CUA Rules of Conduct for Law Students. These Honor Standards require observance of high standards of personal integrity by each student and give notice of norms of conduct to be followed within the JUCUA ALP and LL.M. programs. They ensure the protection of the integrity of the academic program and allow imposition of sanctions on students who violate the Standards. The Honor Standards are intended to be administered and enforced through a process that avoids unnecessary formality while protecting the rights of the participants. The Honor Standards should be interpreted in a manner consistent with these purposes. All authority vested in the CUA Director of the ALP by these rules is delegated by the Dean of Columbus School of Law of The Catholic University of America. The Dean may designate someone other than the CUA ALP Director to exercise the functions indicated if the Dean so desires.

B. Terms for Verification of Attendance, Examination Administration, and Other Course Assignments

When invited to participate in the ALP on the basis of the score on the entrance exam, students will be asked to affirm that they can attend a minimum of eight weeks of classes upon dates posted and take the required examinations on the posted dates. When LL.M. students sign the Statement of Understanding submitted with their first tuition statement, they affirm that they will attend nine weeks of classes sufficient to receive nine credits in the program. Students must sign an attendance sheet in class each day.
A student who must miss an individual class day must give a written statement to the professor of the reason for missing the class.
Exams in many courses will be administered through submission on The West Education Network (TWEN). A time period during which the student can open and close the exam will be specified. Professors also may decide to give examinations during a regularly scheduled class period or to give some form of take-home examination to be submitted in a manner designated by the professor.

Students must assume that no materials or other people may be consulted during completion of an exam taken in-class or outside of class (including through TWEN or take-home questions distributed in advance) except as specifically authorized by the professor. Any class exam or written submission also must comport with commonly accepted definitions of plagiarism including representation of the words or ideas of another without designation by quotation marks, footnote, or other proper attribution.

It is the student’s responsibility to know when and how the exam will be administered. If an exam is given at a designated location and a student is late for the exam and must start late, generally the student will still have to turn in the exam at the appointed ending time. Only in exceptional circumstances will the student be given time to make up for the late starting time. The proctor may give a time-warning or two about how much time is left, but it is the student’s responsibility to keep track of the time whether the proctor gives such warning or not. When told to stop writing by the proctor, stop writing immediately.

Unless explicitly prohibited, students are permitted to talk with each other prior to the examination about reading assignments, to study together for the examination, and to work together to prepare for simulations or other oral presentations. Indeed, these types of group study are considered very beneficial in American legal education and are encouraged unless they conflict with a definition of unauthorized assistance given by the teacher for a particular assignment.

Each student has a responsibility to seek clarification of any perceived ambiguity in the statements in these rules or the teacher’s statements about what is permitted and forbidden in a course.

C. Violations

The following conduct violates these Honor Standards:

1. For Examinations Submitted Through the West Education Network (TWEN)

a. Communication with any other person about the substance of the examination question and its answer prior to its submission during the time window for which the exam is available on TWEN (except for questions to the professor or JU administrators with regard to clarification of exam procedure or concerns about an error in the question);

b. Communication with any other person that is anyway related to the substance of the course or the examination during the time window for which the exam is available on TWEN;

c. Submission of an answer that is in any part the work of another student. (This does not include group study for the course prior to the examination unless specifically limited by the professor in some way.) In submitting an answer, the student represents that the answer is the student’s own answer;

d. A student who provides oral or written assistance to another student who may still complete the exam in the future commits a violation of these rules. In other words, violations are not limited to student who receive and use unauthorized assistance, but also extend to the student who provides such assistance;

e. Consultation of any materials (including any type of internet search) other than those that the professor has approved during the preparation of the answer;

2. For All On-Site Examinations:

a. Communication with anyone other than the proctor during the examination;

b. Observation of the examination paper of any other student in an on-site with an intent to look at the other student’s answers;

c. Knowingly allowing another student to observe one’s answers; or

d. Failing to return the paper with the exam questions even if it did not require writing answers upon it.

3. For On-Site Closed Book Examinations:

a. Consultation of any materials other than the Polish-English dictionary. (Students whose first language is not Polish may provide a comparable dictionary for translation to English, which the proctor will maintain in the same manner as the Polish-English dictionaries on site.)

4. For On-Site Examinations For Which the Teacher Has Provided that Other Materials May be Consulted:

a. Consultation of materials other than those specified by the teacher as permissible for consultation.

5. For Take-Home Examination or Other Written Submissions Aside From On-Site Examinations:

a. Quotation or representation of the ideas of another as one’s own without quotation marks, footnotes, or other attribution that would be deemed necessary to avoid common definitions of plagiarism. Teachers have the responsibility to define with specificity what types of consultation with others and what materials may be consulted with regard to take-home examinations and other written submissions. Consultation other than that explicitly permitted is a violation.

6. For Oral Presentations or Other Non-Written Assignments:

a. Teachers have the responsibility to define with specificity what types of consultation with others and what materials may be consulted with regard to non-written assignments. Consultation beyond that explicitly permitted is a violation.

7. For Verification of Class or Exam Attendance:

a. Signing a name other than one’s own to the attendance sheet; or

b. Making an untruthful or misleading written statement about the reason for missing a class or exam.

8. For Use of WestLaw Numbers

a. Using numbers in a manner inconsistent with the guidelines on permitted use provided in the required American Legal Research course.
D. Procedure For Allegation of a Violation and Consideration of Allegations
If an exam proctor observes what appears to be a violation of Paragraph C, 1-4, above, during an examination, the proctor must submit to the administrative office of the JUCUA-ALP, a written statement of what the proctor observed as soon after the examination as possible. An ALP or LL.M. student, teacher, or administrator who believes there has been a violation of any of the rules above may submit a written statement of the basis for their belief to the administrative office of the JUCUA-ALP or to the CUA Director of the ALP. Such statement should be made in a timely manner after knowledge of the possible violation. All written statements of possible violation must be signed by the person making the statement.

If the CUA Director of the ALP deems the statement to constitute a possible violation of these rules, the student implicated will be given a copy of the written statement with notice of the time within which the student may submit any written response. Unless the student requests a right to be heard orally, the CUA Director of the ALP or the Director’s designate, after consultation with the JU ALP Director, will make a finding on the violation based on the written submissions and determine what consequence is appropriate. In addition to the student’s own written submission, the student may submit written statements by others who claim personal information of the incident, but all such written submissions must be made within the time frame specified by the CUA Director of the ALP.

If a student requests to be heard orally, the CUA director will hear from the student, and anyone else the Director deems appropriate, telephonically or in a face-to-face hearing before the director or a person designated by the Director to make a report and recommendation to the Director.
E. Consequences Upon Finding of a Violation

The finding of the Director of the ALP of a violation will be final and not subject to review. Possible consequences of a violation are: a failing grade on the assignment or examination; a failing grade on the assignment or examination; a failing grade in the course; exclusion from the program; referral to the Jagiellonian University disciplinary process for possible further action. If the violation is found to be a purposeful or knowing one, with intent to deceive or otherwise cheat regarding an academic responsibility, the presumptive sanction will be exclusion from the program (ALP or LL.M.) in which the student is enrolled. No tuition in the LL.M. program will be refunded in the event of such a disciplinary exclusion. No student removed from the ALP for such a disciplinary exclusion will be allowed to apply for admission to the program in a future year. In any instance of violation, the JU Director of the ALP will be notified of the sanction for ALP students and the JU Director of the LL.M. program will be notified of the sanction for LL.M. students for a determination whether any additional consequences within JU are appropriate.