Cooley Loses Defamation Case Against Law Firm And Secures Ruling Affirming That It Misrepresented Data

Cooley_logo_blueWe have been following the highly dubious litigation of cross claims between Thomas M. Cooley Law School and Kurzon Strauss and some bloggers.  The law school filed a defamation claims against the firm and bloggers who criticized the institution’s portrayal of its graduates’ employment statistics.  United States District Judge Robert J. Jonker has now dismissed the case. However, in a rather curious lesson for its students, Cooley is pledging to continue the litigation with an appeal.

The dispute was triggered by the law firm’s solicitation of information in preparing for a class action lawsuit against law schools. Here is the posting from the court decision below:

It is undisputed that on June 8, 2011, Mr. Anziska posted the following statement on the
website “JD Underground,” hosted at

My firm is currently conducting a broad, wide-ranging investigation of a number of law schools for blatantly manipulating their post-graduate employment data and salary information. These schools are preying on the blithe ignorance of naive, clueless 22-year-olds who have absolutely no idea what a terrible investment obtaining a JD degree is. Perhaps one of the worst offenders is the Thomas Cooley School of Law, which grossly inflates its post-graduate employment data and salary information. More ominously, there are reports that there [sic] students are defaulting on loans at an astounding 41 percent, and that the school is currently being
investigated by the DOE for failing to adequately disclose its students’ true default rates. Unfortunately, the ABA has proven to be absolutely toothless in regulating these schools and stamping out these dubious practices, and most likely schools like Thomas Cooley will continue to defraud unwitting students unless held civilly accountable. If you have any relevant information or know of anyone who has attended Thomas Cooley feel free to contact me at

Obviously, all correspondences will be kept strictly confidential.

(Compl., docket # 1-1, at ¶ 8; Anziska aff., docket # 202, at ¶ 15.)

The law school responded with a cease and desist letter alleging defamation and the law firm (while threatening its own defamation action for the letter) issued the following retraction:

It has been brought to this firm’s attention that a post on this site on June 8, 2011 entitled, “Investigating the Thomas Cooley School of Law” contained certain allegations which may have been couched as fact regarding employment and default data. These statements are hereby retracted. Moreover, representatives of Thomas Cooley Law School have informed us that published reports regarding Thomas Cooley Law School’s student loan default rate and of an investigation by the Federal Department of Education are incorrect. Therefore, we retract those statements as well.

However, the law firm posted a draft complaint with largely the same allegations. The posted draft oddly read PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL” at the top and bottom of each page of the Draft Complaint despite being posted publicly. It alleged that Cooley “blatantly misrepresent[s] and manipulat[e]s its employment statistics to prospective students, employing the type of ‘Enron-style’ accounting techniques that would leave most for-profit companies facing the long barrel of a government indictment and the prospect of paying a substantial criminal fine[;].” It further stated

My firm is currently conducting a broad, wide-ranging investigation of a number of law schools for purportedly manipulating their post-graduate employment data and salary information. Among the many schools we are investigating is the Thomas M. Cooley Law School which claims that 76 percent of its graduates have allegedly secured employment within nine months of graduation. If you have any relevant information or know of anyone who has attended Thomas Cooley feel free to contact me at Obviously, all correspondences will be strictly confidential. Thanks in advance.

(Id. at Ex. B and F; Anziska aff. at Ex. 26.) Cooley then filed a complaint alleging six claims of defamation; tortious interference with business relations; breach of contract; and false light against Defendants.

Jonker ruled that the law school constitutes a limited public figure and thus subject to the higher constitutional standard for defamation. As such the law school would need to prove actual malice either in the knowledge of falsity of the factual statements or a reckless disregard of the truth. Yet, Jonker found a clear effort to research the allegations by the law firm before publication. The real bite however comes after the court dismisses much of the comments as hyperbole. But it then adds:

“Further, the statement that “Cooley grossly inflates its graduates’ reported mean salaries” may not merely be protected hyperbole, but actually substantially true. MacDonald v. Thomas M. Cooley Law School, 880 F. Supp. 2d 785, 794 (W.D. Mich. 2012)
(finding that the average starting salary for all graduates specified in Cooley’s 2010 Employment Report “does not represent the average starting salary for ‘all’ graduates; nor does it even represent the graduates’ average starting salary for whom Cooley knew the employment status. Standing alone, the representation is objectively untrue.”); MacDonald v. Thomas M. Cooley Law School, 724
F.3d 654 (6th Cir. 2013) (“We agree with the district court that this statistic is ‘objectively untrue.’”).”

Thus, in suing the law firm and bloggers, Cooley succeeded in securing an opinion finding that the allegations of inflated figures and misrepresentation are true. Now, Cooley will appeal and potentially add an appellate finding against the school. It is the type of logic that makes Las Vegas what it is today.

Here is the opinion: Opinion_Granting_SJ_Motion

19 thoughts on “Cooley Loses Defamation Case Against Law Firm And Secures Ruling Affirming That It Misrepresented Data”

  1. I wonder why the DOE allows Cooley to disburse federally backed loan money, if the case documents inaccurate figures?

  2. Abraham Lincoln was a great trial and appellate lawyer and he never attended any law school. In those days one was an apprentice under a lawyer and “read for the law”. We need to adopt apprenticeships as a pre requisite for taking the bar or getting admitted to practice. Law school only does so much, even with clinical courses. Some people are advocating two years of law school and a year of apprentice work under a law firm or agency.

    The Cooley, Treatise On Constitutional Limitations (sp) used to be available in my law school library 40 years ago. In my prior life as a human.

  3. Jack Mehoff:

    Thomas Cooley was a 19th century judge and legal scholar. He was at one time a justice on the Michigan Supreme Court. He did write a famous treatise on tort law, and I have a copy of his Treatise on Constitutional Limitations.

    In all seriousness, there is nothing wrong with the law school (it is in Michigan), and it is certainly not the only school to play games with employment statistics on its graduates.

  4. I recall that there is a torts book authored by a Thomas Cooley back in the late 1800s. From Michigan. Is this school in Michigan?

  5. But at least Cooley graduates can find consolation in knowing that the spirit of the law lies in the heart of men.

  6. I never heard of Thomas Cooley Law School. A Cooley is one who carries goods on his back for his master.

  7. Thomas Cooley’s litigation strategy suggests at least one explanation for the difficulties encountered by its graduates in securing legal employment.

  8. This reminds me somewhat of the Chris Kyle / Jesse Ventura mess.

    After Chris Kyle, a decorated navy seal, was murdered, Ventura continued his defamation suit against Chris’ widow, claiming he had to restore his reputation, (that is by going after widows of combat veterans)

  9. KUDOs to the Judge and the Law firm.

    It is absolutely – WONDERFUL – to see the law & courts work the way it was meant to function.


  10. Perhaps the jig is up for Cooley, but they’re trying to slow down the process with years of litigation.

  11. Yea, for the judge! Law schools seem to have been manipulating data on these issues for years according to published press reports; now one has the honor of confirmation by a federal judge of their manipulation. Congrats!

  12. It is extremely difficult to win defamation cases, especially one involving a public figure. The Thomas Cooley law school deserves criticism for what it does, a lot of criticism. The lawsuit was almost certainly about silencing its critics more than trying to recover damages. It could well have been classified as a SLAPP lawsuit.

Comments are closed.