Hello, you are using an old browser that's unsafe and no longer supported. Please consider updating your browser to a newer version, or downloading a modern browser.
Hello, you are using an old browser that's unsafe and no longer supported. Please consider updating your browser to a newer version, or downloading a modern browser.
We have represented students and faculty in colleges and universities throughout the United States in disciplinary matters, in litigation, and in providing strategic advice.
See Our Experience Contact UsStudents and faculty members throughout the country have sought out the Clark Hill team for advice, to navigate complicated disciplinary processes, or to vindicate their rights in court. Hear why.
We successfully obtained a preliminary injunction against Brown University to reinstate our client—a male division 1 athlete—after our client was accused and found responsible for sexual assault and suspended by the university following a fundamentally flawed disciplinary process. The lawsuit filed in the District Court for the District of Rhode Island pointed out substantial improper conduct by the university and its third-party investigator, including that the investigator fabricated alleged admissions by our client, suppressed exonerating medical evidence, and imposed a unilateral gag order on our client that prevented him from speaking with and identifying potential witnesses – a restriction that was not placed on his female accuser. After hearing argument from the parties, the court ordered the university to set aside our client’s suspension, and further ordered the university to reinstate our client as a student in good community standing with all the rights and privileges to continue his studies and participation in athletics pending the outcome of the litigation. The case remains ongoing.
View the Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief
We sued Swarthmore College in federal court on behalf of a student expelled in the wake of a disciplinary proceeding following allegations of sexual misconduct. The college vacated its judiciary panel’s findings and sanction after additional information became available that both parties believed raised questions about the impartiality of the panel that heard our client’s case and the fairness of the hearing process. The case settled. Doe v. Swarthmore College, No. 2:14-cv-000532 (E.D. Pa.).
We achieved a favorable settlement for a student who was expelled shortly before the end of his senior year. His college concluded our client had participated in livestreaming a consensual sexual encounter between two other students, even though the alleged female victim told the college he was not involved. The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights found the college in violation of Title IX, concluding it had not provided our client with essential procedural protections and had not followed the safeguards provided for in its own disciplinary policies and procedures. Faced with a potential federal lawsuit, the college agreed to make a substantial monetary payment, vacate the finding of responsibility and sanctions against our client, and give him a clean record.
We represented a male student against a public university alleging denial of the student’s due process rights, in large part because the university delayed close to a year in initiating a disciplinary hearing to address a misconduct claim against the student, a delay that resulted in the departure from campus of key witnesses. The student had completed his coursework and earned his degree, yet the university withheld his degree as it had not completed its disciplinary process. Our Title IX team argued that the delay violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. The case settled on confidential terms after argument on our client’s motion for preliminary injunction and the university’s motion to dismiss.
