Golden Gate University Law School Remains Closed After Court Ruling
Court Denies Request to Reopen Law School
Golden Gate University’s law school will not reopen following a recent court decision. A group of former students and alumni had sought an injunction to reverse the university’s decision, but California Superior Court Judge Richard Ulmer denied the request. The ruling suggests it is "unlikely" that the plaintiffs will succeed in securing a court order to reopen the historic law school, which was founded in 1901 and had been in operation for 123 years.University Responds to Court Decision
The university expressed satisfaction with the court’s ruling, stating that nearly all former law students have successfully transferred to other American Bar Association (ABA)-accredited institutions to complete their studies. Most of these students are now attending the University of San Francisco School of Law or Mitchell Hamline School of Law, both respected ABA-accredited programs.
Plaintiffs Allege Breach of Contract
The plaintiffs initially sued the university in February, citing a breach of contract. They claimed that the university’s decision to close the law school after the 2023-24 academic year was unjust, particularly as they were not given adequate warning or suitable transfer options. The decision to shut down was announced in November, with university officials attributing the closure to declining enrollment, poor bar exam pass rates, and a weak employment market for law graduates.
Broader Trend of Law School Closures
Golden Gate University’s law school is the latest in a string of closures among ABA-accredited institutions, with at least eight law schools shutting down in the past decade due to similar challenges. In California alone, two other law schools opted to relinquish their ABA accreditation and seek recognition from the State Bar of California instead.
Legal Obstacles and Future Proceedings
Potential for Monetary Damages
Despite the failure to reopen the school, the plaintiffs still have an opportunity to seek monetary damages for various claims, including breach of contract, unlawful business practices, and false advertising. Ryan Griffith, the lead attorney representing the plaintiffs, said that the lawsuit could still uncover more evidence during the discovery phase, which may strengthen their case. A hearing is scheduled for October 22 to determine whether the case will proceed.
