Scott McMillan San Diego Attorney Law School Fraud

COMMITTEE OF BAR EXAMINERS
OPEN SESSION AGENDA ITEM
AGENDA ITEM: June 2018 – O- 400
DATE: June 15, 2018
TO: Subcommittee on Educational Standards
FROM: Natalie Leonard, Program Manager, Educational Standards
SUBJECT: McMillan Academy of Law – Inspection Report from the Issued
Notice of Noncompliance
SUMMARY
This memorandum recommends that the Committee of Bar Examiners (Committee)
issue a notice to withdraw the registration of McMillan Academy of Law (MAOL) based
upon the findings at the school’s five-year periodic inspection conducted in May 2017
(Attachment A), the Notice of Noncompliance issued to MAOL in December 2017
(Attachment B), and the findings from the Supplemental Inspection conducted on May
9, 2018. (Attachment C). The Supplemental Inspection showed that while some issues
identified in the Notice of Noncompliance were resolved, other issues remained, new
issues were identified, and compliance is unlikely in the future.
BACKGROUND
MAOL is located in La Mesa, California. It was first registered as an unaccredited law
school in 2007.
Over the years, MAOL has been cited for multiple issues of noncompliance with the
Rules and Guidelines. In 2008, the school received its first Notice of Noncompliance.
In 2012, the school’s first five-year periodic inspection identified enough noncompliance
that a supplemental inspection was required. In May 2017, the school’s most recent
five-year periodic inspection resulted in the issuance of a Notice of Noncompliance.
That triggered the most recent supplemental inspection, which observed not only
continued noncompliance, but also new instances of noncompliance. Several issues of
noncompliance have been noted in more than one inspection (e.g., failure to maintain
an updated law library).
In 2008, the school received its first Notice of Noncompliance after it failed to post the
required disclosure that all unaccredited law schools must include in their literature,
website, and enrollment agreements. When the school did not respond to the State
Bar’s informal courtesy letter asking the school to correct the error, a Notice of
Noncompliance was issued.
P a g e | 1

In 2012, at MAOL’s first five-year periodic inspection, the inspector identified 14
mandatory recommendations that needed to be addressed in order to bring the school
into compliance with the Rules and Guidelines. These recommendations included
updating outdated or incorrect literature (similar to an issue that was raised in the 2008
Notice of Noncompliance) and bringing the library up-to-date. Due to the volume of the
areas of noncompliance, the Committee ordered a follow-up inspection to ensure that
the recommendations were addressed appropriately. After that follow-up inspection in
2013, the Committee extended MAOL’s registration through 2017.
During that period from 2013-2017 following the inspection, MAOL did not enroll any
students, maintain its library, or update its literature.
The school’s second and most recent five-year periodic inspection took place in May
2017. The inspector identified five material areas of noncompliance involving many of
the Guidelines. These issues included outdated communications, incorrect disclosures,
and an outdated library – all issues which were identified as problems requiring
correction in the previous inspection. In addition, many areas of compliance were
difficult to assess due to the long term lack of students, faculty, and classes.
Based on the findings summarized in the five-year periodic Inspection Report, the
Committee issued a Notice of Noncompliance to MAOL in December 2017.
MAOL responded to the Notice of Noncompliance (Attachment D) as required by Rule
4.261. Upon receipt and consideration of that response, the Committee directed that a
further inspection of the law school be conducted within 90 days to determine whether
the response should be deemed satisfactory, or, if the Committee determined that
MAOL was not or not likely to be compliant, whether to recommend probation or
withdrawal of its registration. The follow-up inspection took place on May 9, 2018.
Rule 4.263 provides that “[i]f the Committee believes that the inspection report
demonstrates that the law school is not or is not likely to be in compliance with these
rules, the Committee will notify the law school that it recommends probation or
withdrawal of registration.” If the Committee recommends probation or withdrawal of
registration, the school may request a hearing under Rules 4.265-4.269.
The school’s current status, as documented in the most recent Supplemental Periodic
Inspection Report, is discussed below.
DISCUSSION
The follow-up inspection conducted on May 9, 2018 needed to be broader than many
follow-up inspections. The inspector evaluated MAOL’s progress as to the items
identified in the December 2017 Notice of Noncompliance, and also re-inspected much
of the school as a whole because during the May 2017 visit, the school did not have any
students, classes, or faculty other than the Dean, and had not had any students,
classes, or faculty since 2013. Ultimately, though it proved more challenging than
P a g e | 2

expected to determine the number of students enrolled in May 2018, but there were
some students present and a faculty member had been retained. This allowed the
inspector to review student files, classes and examinations.
MAOL’s May 2017 five-year periodic inspection identified the following five areas of
noncompliance, communicated to MAOL in the Notice of Noncompliance issued on
December 2, 2017:
• Guidelines 2.3(A) – 2.3(E) (Honesty in Communications), related to the failure to
communicate in an accurate, honest, and forthright manner.
• Guidelines 2.9(B)(4) – 2.9(B)(6) (Fairness in Academic Standards and Student
Assessment), related to the failure to maintain current and accurate means to
assess students.
• Guidelines 5.1 – 5.2 (Academic Program and Criteria for Compliance), related to
the failure to maintain a current, qualitatively sound program of legal instruction.
• Guidelines 5.2(J), 8.1 and 8.2 (Adequacy of the Law School’s Finances), related
to the lack of auditable income and funds needed to provide a long-term and
sound program of legal education.
• Guidelines 6.1 – 6.6 (Library Resources), related to the failure to maintain a
complete and updated hardcopy library.
Though some progress had been made, MAOL has only achieved full compliance with
regard to the need to update the library area. In addition, the most recent inspection
uncovered substantial new instances of noncompliance.
The status of each of the areas identified in the Notice of Noncompliance is summarized
below and full detail is included in the attached Supplemental Inspection Report.
Compliance Issues Relating to Guidelines 2.3(A)-(E), Honesty in Communications.
Additional communication issues – not related to the findings in the December 2017
inspection – came to the attention of the Bar even before the supplemental inspection
began. Under Guidelines 9.1(O)(2)(A) and (B), a law school must submit an Admission
Certification within 60 days of the beginning of any academic period in which it has
admitted a new student. More than four weeks after the required 60 day response
deadline, and after many reminders from the State Bar, MAOL submitted an Admissions
Certification identifying two enrolled students, and making an error as to the status of
one of them.
After the May 2017, the school was advised that it must update its Annual Student
Disclosure. The May 2018 inspection found that, though partially corrected, the title
portion of the disclosure contained an error, and there was at least one material error in
the disclosure. It stated that three students had enrolled in the 2017-2018 school year,
when only two applications were found in the file and only two students had been listed
in the Certification referenced above. The Dean could not explain the discrepancy.
P a g e | 3

Compliance Issues Relating to Guidelines 2.9(B)(4)-2.9(B)(6), Fairness in Academic
Standards and Assessment
With only two to three students in a class, the anonymous grading contemplated under
2.9(B)(5) may not be possible. In addition, new issues of compliance were observed
related to the substance of the sample examination provided to the inspector. The
essay questions in the sample examination provided were sourced from past First Year
Law Students’ Examination questions, which is not allowed under Guideline 5.15. The
multiple-choice questions were copied from a commercial book that some students
could have seen in advance, disadvantaging other students in violation of Guideline
5.17. Under these facts, it was impossible to know whether the students had learned
the law or if they had simply happened to access the public materials. The Dean
indicated that he was unaware of this noncompliance, calling into question the oversight
exercised over his single faculty member. The inspector did observe real teaching
during the class, but the Rules and Guidelines require more.
Additionally, the inspector identified a number of troubling practices related to the
school’s Admissions policy that appeared to be out of compliance with the requirements
of Guidelines 5.26-5.33. The student admission files did not appear to contain the
required documents necessary to fully evaluate the students so that the law school
would admit “only those applicants who reasonably appear to be qualified to study law
and reasonably appear to be likely to succeed in that study.” Thus it was unclear
whether and to what extent MAOL was complying with those Guidelines. This came
further into question because, while the consultant was onsite, one of the Dean’s law
clients applied, was admitted, and began law school that evening.
Moreover, one of the two students admitted to begin study in January was classified as
a regular student, but it appears that the student had not met some of the mandatory
requirements for admission. If true, this student will not be able to claim credit for any
study undertaken at MAOL. Since MAOL’s registration as an unaccredited law school
in 2007, it has admitted approximately fifteen students, but none have advanced to the
second year of law study at MAOL. A more rigorous admissions process is required by
the Guidelines and warranted by past performance.
Compliance Issues Relating to Guidelines 5.1-5.2, Academic Program and Criteria for
Compliance.
While the school used standard texts, syllabi were skeletal and insufficient to notify
students of assignments and grading criteria.
Compliance Issues Relating to Guidelines 5.2(J), 8.1 and 8.2, Adequacy of the Law
School’s Finances.
The school has not had any auditable income in many years. The current students are
not paying any tuition or fees, and many of the previous students were not charged
tuition. Dean McMillan indicated that he hopes that the current students’ success will
P a g e | 4

attract paying students in the future. In the meantime, he has agreed to contribute
$20,000 per year to the school for five years to cover operating costs. As discussed in
the Supplemental Inspection report on page 7, annual costs, including rental payments
to Dean McMillan, are estimated to total approximately $20,000. It is unclear, however,
whether that estimate contains the funds needed to fully comply with the Rules and
Guidelines. No strategy tried to date has been adequate to provide the school with a
sustainable source of revenue.
Compliance Issues Relating to Guidelines 6.1 – 6.6, Library Resources
The failure to have an up-to-date library was first noted in the 2012 inspection. After
that inspection, updates were made. After that date, however, little to no updating
happened, and noncompliance as to this was again noted in the 2017 inspection.
Between 2017 and the May 2018 supplemental inspection, MAOL did make updates to
the library. According to the consultants, however, although most of the volumes had
been received and properly shelved at the time of the inspection, some of the newly
purchased books were still in their wrappers and not available on the shelves for
student use. Despite the requirement to maintain an updated library, regardless of the
level of student enrollment, the consultant has observed Dean McMillan “is unwilling to
maintain a compliant law library in the absence of enrolled students.” (May 2017
Inspection Report, page 10.)
The Rules and Guidelines for Unaccredited Law Schools and California Rule of Court
9.30(b) contemplate a consistent, complete and ongoing program of compliance and
instruction. Though MAOL has responded somewhat to communications from the State
Bar, MAOL does not appear to take preventive or corrective actions to ensure
compliance without prompting.
The school’s response to the many issues identified at its May 2017 inspection did not
begin after the inspection when they were identified to the school verbally, but rather
began only when the Notice of Noncompliance was issued six months later.
Each time the school has been inspected, the State Bar has found the school to be
clearly out of compliance with multiple Guidelines. The school, however, appears
satisfied to simply respond to deficiencies highlighted by the regulator, but then allow
those same or similar violations to recur, and new ones to develop through inaction or
lack of oversight. Comments from MAOL seem to provide further evidence of this
disregard for the Rules and Guidelines, as described below.
In 2008, when the school failed to follow the disclosure requirements plainly stated in
Guideline 2.3(D), Dean McMillan stated that he should not be fined for the violation
because the State Bar had not reminded him to do so.
In 2012, MAOL was cited for a violation because its library was not up-to-date. The
school updated the library that year, but then did not do so again until it received a
Notice of Noncompliance in 2017.
P a g e | 5

Most recently, MAOL’s disregard for the Rules and Guidelines has hurt students. First,
a student was likely admitted without the requisite credentials and that student will not
receive credit for work done this year as a result. Next, the students were given
examinations copied from public sources, perhaps advantaging students who had
accessed those public sources prior to the examination. Finally, the school does not
appear to be following its own stated admissions evaluation policy. If the Dean was not
aware of the applicable rules, this is problematic. If the Dean did not take steps to
ensure that his single faculty member did not violate the Rules and Guidelines, this is
problematic.
After eleven years of registration as an unaccredited law school, MAOL has not been
able to operate as a going concern and or to sustain compliance with the Rule of Court
9.30 and the Rules and Guidelines applicable to unaccredited law schools, though the
school has responded in many cases to admonishment from the State Bar. The
school’s delays and lack of oversight have hurt students in ways ranging from unfair
grading to waste of time through improper admissions. Ultimately, MAOL has not been
able to advance a student to the second year of law study at MAOL in over a decade.
And if were to advance a student in the future, there is no evidence that the school is
prepared to offer the courses, clinical options, or academic support that the Rules and
Guidelines require.
RECOMMENDATION
As provided by Rule 4.263: “If the Committee believes that the inspection report
demonstrates that the law school is not or is not likely to be in compliance with these
rules, the Committee will notify the law school that it recommends probation or
withdrawal of the registration.”
Here, because the law school is not in compliance with the Unaccredited Law School
Rules and Guidelines for Unaccredited Law School Rules, it has a history of
noncompliance, and it lacks evidence that it can consistently and proactively comply
with the rules, staff recommends that the Committee advise the school that it
recommends withdrawal of registration, effective January 1, 2019, and that the
Committee send a copy of the inspection report to the law school, as required by Rule
4.263.
PROPOSED MOTION
Should the Subcommittee agree with this recommendation, the following motion is
suggested:
Move that the Supplemental Inspection Report of the inspection of the
McMillian Academy of Law (MAOL), conducted on May 9, 2018, be
received and filed; that MAOL be sent a copy of the Supplemental
Inspection Report and informed that the Committee intends to
recommend withdrawal of its registration to offer the J.D. degree
effective January 1, 2019.
P a g e | 6

McMILLAN ACADEMY OF LAW
PERIODIC INSPECTION REPORT
Inspection conducted: May 9, 2017
Inspection conducted
Pursuant to Rule 4.244 of the
Unaccredited Law School Rules
Sally Perring, Educational Standards Consultant
Office of Admissions, The State Bar of California
ATTACHMENT A

Report on the Periodic Inspection of
McMillan Academy of Law
4670 Nebo Drive, Suite 200
La Mesa, CA 91941
A registered, unaccredited fixed-facility law school.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary:
A five-year periodic inspection of the McMillan Academy of Law (MAOL) was conducted
on May 9, 2017. The law school was last visited in September 2013 for an interim
inspection, which was conducted to confirm that it had addressed several issues of
noncompliance confirmed during its initial periodic inspection conducted on behalf of the
Committee of Bar Examiners (Committee) in May 2012. This inspection was conducted
by Sally Perring, an educational standards consultant (Consultant) to the Office of
Admissions.
MAOL is owned by Scott McMillian, a licensed California attorney, who operates the law
school from his law offices in La Mesa, a suburb of San Diego. Initially registered in
2007, the law school opened in 2009 but has enrolled very few students, with its most
recent student attending classes in 2013. Since 2007, only three students have ever
completed its first-year curriculum to become eligible to take the First-Year Law
Students’ Examination and none have ever graduated.
In the absence of any students, classes have not been held at MAOL since 2013, and
its program of legal education has been dormant for over four years. As a result, the
inspection confirmed that MAOL is noncompliant with several material requirements: 1)
its law library is out of date and not compliant since none of the mandatory hardcopy
legal authorities have been updated since 2014; 2) in the absence of any tuition income,
the long-term financial viability of the law school, should it enroll any students, appears
questionable; and 3) all of its written student materials and its website contain outdated,
noncompliant and misleading information to prospective applicants and students.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this Periodic Inspection Report be received and filed; that, due
to the issues of noncompliance as noted in each of the recommended, mandatory
actions listed below and discussed in the inspection report, the Committee issue MAOL
a Notice of Noncompliance pursuant to Rule 4.260 of the Unaccredited Law School
Rules.
2

Recommended Mandatory Actions:
1. To comply with Guideline 2.3(C), the law school must review, revise and delete
from all of its materials, both hardcopy and electronic, any and all references to
the Bureau of Postsecondary, Private Education (BPPE) and the Student Tuition
Recovery Fund (STRF), as each is noted in its program of legal education.
2. To comply with Guideline 2.3(D), the law school must review, revise and correct
all information and data reported on its written Disclosure Statement required by
Rule 4.241 and its Information Report Form required by Business and
Professions Code, sec. 6061.7(a).
3. To comply with Guideline 2.9(B)(4), the law school must review and revise all of
its materials, hardcopy and electronic, to ensure that all correctly and consistently
state the number of quarter units (114) needed to earn a Juris Doctor degree.
4. To comply with Guidelines 2.9(B)(4) and 2.9(B)(6), the law school must review
and revise all of its materials, hardcopy and electronic, to ensure that all contain
a consistent grading scale and description of academic good standing.
5. To comply with Guideline 4.11(A), the law school must designate an individual as
its Registrar and inform the Committee of Bar Examiners accordingly.
6. To comply with Guideline 6.2 and Rule 9.30(b)(6) of the California Rules of
Court, the law school must maintain a law library such that contains all
mandatory hardcopy legal authorities that are complete, current and updated.
7. To comply with Guideline 8.1, the law school must confirm that, as a separate
corporate entity, it has and will maintain sufficient capital and cash resources to
ensure its current and future financial viability needed to support its program of
legal education and each of its current and future financial obligations.
Recommended Suggested Actions:
1. Pursuant to Guideline 1.9, the law school should incorporate into its materials,
both hardcopy and electronic, that it is compliant with all requirements set out in
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) relevant to its facilities and operations.
2. Pursuant to Guidelines 4.8 and 4.9, the law school should incorporate a copy of
its current instructor evaluation policy in its Faculty Handbook.
3. Pursuant to Guidelines 9.1(A-D) and 9.1(E-F), the law school should separate
and maintain all required information, transcripts and materials needed to be
placed into its student files from materials relating to its courses and classes.
3

Introduction:
As noted, at the time of the inspection, MAOL had no enrolled students and its program
of legal education was dormant. Given the lack of students or any current classes being
taught, the inspection of MAOL was problematic since a number of critical elements of
its program of legal operation, such as the quality of its classroom instruction and the
educational backgrounds of its faculty and enrolled students were not subject to review.
Conduct of Site Visit:
During the inspection, the Consultant met with both Dean McMillan and Associate Dean
Michelle Volk to discuss the current and former status of the law school. The
Consultant then viewed the law library space used as a classroom and reviewed all
available student and faculty files and records and its most-recent financial statements.
The Consultant also reviewed copies of past final examinations, student answers, and
final grades issued by the faculty. At the end of the inspection, the Consultant met
again with Deans McMillan and Volk to conduct a comprehensive exit interview.
(A) Lawful Operation. The law school must operate in compliance with all
applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. (Guideline 1.9)
MAOL appears to be compliant with all applicable local, state and federal laws. MAOL
operates as a for-profit corporation and, as such, it is in good standing with the Office of
the California Secretary of State. Dean McMillan is its only director and shareholder.
The school has a current business license issued by the City of La Mesa.
MAOL’s policies regarding student privacy and confidentiality are appropriate with all
such information either password protected or placed in a locked file accessible only by
appropriate personnel. While its accommodation policy is adequately stated, the law
school should better assess its legal obligations under the American with Disabilities Act
to provide reasonable access since it is located on a second floor and is accessible only
by stairs, which may preclude students with impaired mobility from attending classes.
(B) Integrity. The law school must demonstrate integrity in all of its programs,
operations, and other affairs. (Guidelines 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.8 - 2.12)
The law school complies with most but not all of the above-referenced Guidelines. It
has a compliant tuition refund policy and it informs students of the deadlines governing
a full or partial tuition refund. MAOL’s financial safeguards appear sufficient for the
operation of this small school to prevent fraud and it has a student honor code that
notifies students who may be subject to non-academic discipline and provides them with
compliant due process in the event they receive any such discipline.
While generally compliant with all required academic policies, the law school’s written
materials are ambiguous in their description of at least two required policies. In
response to a recommendation made in the last periodic inspection report, MAOL’s
4

modified its use of a quarter system to ensure that its students are required to attend
class for the mandatory minimum of 270 hours of annual classroom study. Previously,
inconsistencies existed as to the number of classroom hours students needed to attend
to earn a unit of credit. MAOL now expressly requires that 114 quarter units are
needed to graduate and that each unit requires no less than 10 hours of class time. Its
catalog, student handbook and website should again be reviewed to ensure that all prior
statements of what constitutes a unit of credit and the number of credits required for
graduation have been deleted, and that the J.D. degree graduation requirement of 114
quarter units be stated in a clear, concise and consistent manner.
The law school’s grading system and its standard for academic good standing are also
ambiguous. The law school issues examination grades using a numeric scale of 0-100,
with 70 being the lowest passing grade. It then converts that grade into a 4.0 scale,
with 2.0 being described as a minimally-passing which is then converted and posted in
letter scale of A through F on each student‘s transcripts. Adding to the confusion and
ambiguity is that, in discussing academic probation and disqualification, the current
MAOL catalog notes that a grade of 2.20 is a minimally-acceptable, passing grade.
Given it past use of different grade scales, it is recommended that the law school review
and revise all of its hardcopy and electronic materials to confirm its use of single grading
scale so that, as described and used, students will be consistently informed as to its
grading standards, good standing, as well as to academic probation and disqualification.
Each of its other academic policies, including pass/fail policies, grade review, course
repetition policies are clearly stated and are compliant with the Guidelines. Students
are informed of the basis for their final grades in the syllabus for each course.
While all mandatory disclosures are found in MAOL’s catalog, student handbook,
application form, enrollment agreement, and disclosure statement, a review of all such
disclosure statements confirmed that each is not entirely consistent with the information
or data being reported. In particular, there are minor inconsistencies between the data
reported in the disclosure statement required by Rule 4.241 (last updated in 2013) with
the data found on the MAOL website and its Information Disclosure Form as is now
required by Business and Professions Code, sec. 6061.7(a).
To eliminate such inconsistencies, the law school should review and revise each printed
disclosure notice to ensure that all contain the same accurate data and that the posted
versions of these documents also contain the same accurate data.
In addition to these minor discrepancies, the MAOL website was found to contain a
significant amount of irrelevant, outdated and inaccurate information. Such information
is found on the “student disclosures” posted on the Admissions page of the website
where information and disclosures relating to the Bureau of Postsecondary Private
Education (BPPE) and its Student Tuition Recovery Fund (STRF) are still posted.
5

Information and disclosures relating to the BPPE and STRF were once relevant and
appropriate when MAOL offered a joint J.D. Masters of Business of Administration
degree for which it had been granted degree granting authority to issue by the BPPE.
MAOL, however, no longer offers the joint MBA degree since, under current California
law, the BPPE no longer has the authority to grant MAOL any non-J.D. degree-granting
authority since the law school is an unaccredited entity.
Under Guideline 2.3(C), MAOL has an obligation to communicate with prospective
students and applicants in an honest and forthright manner. To be compliant with this
requirement, the law school must promptly review and remove from its website and
delete from its written materials all information that refers to the BPPE or STRF, since
all such information is now irrelevant and potentially misleading.
(C) Governance. The law school must be governed, organized, and
administered so as to provide a sound educational program. (Guidelines 3.1)
Dean McMillan serves compliantly as MAOL’s part-time dean and administrator. He
earned his Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics at the University of California at San Diego
in 1988 and, in 1999, received his Juris Doctor degree from Western Sierra School of
Law, an unaccredited, registered fixed-facility school in San Diego. Dean McMillan was
admitted to the State Bar of California in February 2001. He teaches Contracts at the
law school and is clearly dedicated to MAOL’s stated mission of offering a challenging
program to students able to attend law school part time. While the current demands of
being Dean and professor are minimal in the absence of students, he seems capable of
handling his academic duties in conjunction with his private practice.
Assistant Dean Michelle Volk also serves the law school in a part time capacity. She is
also a licensed California attorney. Ms. Volk received her Bachelor’s degree from
University of California at San Diego and her Juris Doctorate from California Western
School of Law, an A.B.A. approved law school. Ms. Volk taught Torts the last time the
course was offered, but indicated she did not plan on teaching again in the near future.
She appears knowledgeable about the maintenance of student records and, at one time
was the registrar for the school.
The only technical issue regarding the law school’s governance was the lack of who
currently is designated its registrar; the self-study indicated the registrar was “to be
determined.” The law school is required to have a registrar who is responsible for all
recordkeeping requirements of the Guidelines. At the time of the prior site visit, Ms.
Volk was designated Registrar. However, for at least the last two years Dean McMillan
has signed the law school’s Annual Compliance Report as both Dean and Registrar. In
light of such ambiguity, MAOL must confirm who currently acts as its registrar such that
the Committee is kept fully and accurately informed. See, Guideline 4.11.
6

(D) Dean and Faculty. The law school must have a competent dean or other
administrative head and a competent faculty that devotes adequate time to
administration, instruction, and student counseling. (Guidelines 4.1- 4.10)
The law school, as noted above, has a competent Dean and administrator in Dean
McMillan. From discussions during the site visit it is clear the Dean came to know each
of the prior students and would have provided personalized counselling to the students.
MAOL has adopted compliant policies regarding both academic freedom and faculty
evaluation. It is unclear, however, whether any member of the faculty has been
evaluated since classes have not been offered in the last four years. In the event
classes resume, it is recommended that the evaluation policy be incorporated into the
faculty handbook so faculty members are aware of relevant criteria.
While the faculty files reviewed during the inspection provided evidence of the
appropriate qualifications of all prior faculty members, without any current classes being
taught, it is not possible to make finding at this time that the MAOL faculty is competent.
If classes resume in the near future, it is assumed that both the Dean and the prior
faculty members would be available to teach again, although Assistant Dean Volk
confirmed that she will not teach again. The Dean will need to be proactive in
confirming that each instructor asked to return to teach at MAOL is competent should
classes resume.
(E) Educational Program. The law school must maintain a sound program of legal
education (Guidelines 5.1-5.16)
As described in its materials, MAOL seeks to offer a sound and compliant program of
legal education. The timing and content of its curriculum appears adequate to prepare
students to succeed first on the First-Year Law Students’ Examination (FYLSX), then
the California Bar Examination (CBX) and, ultimately, in practicing law. While the first-
year classes focus on subjects tested on the FYLSX, i.e. Torts, Contracts, and Criminal
Law, the entire curriculum offers the opportunity to take up to 20 units of elective
courses, in addition to all other bar-tested subjects, including Civil Procedure, Criminal
Procedure, Property, Business Associations, Agency and Partnership, Constitutional
Law, Evidence, Community Property, Professional Responsibility, Wills and Trusts, and
Remedies.
The curriculum includes 96 quarter units of required courses covering all CBX subjects,
legal analysis, research and writing and a CBX preparation course at the end of their
studies. The remainder of units required for graduation is in elective subjects, including
practice skills classes, such as Trial Practice, Advanced Research and Writing, and
Alternative Dispute Resolution. No clinical courses are available. Course descriptions
in the Catalog and syllabi reviewed by the Consultant were found to conform to typical
law school classes. Under the academic calendar posted in the catalog, students are
required to attend classes year-round, with short breaks between each of the four
quarters. Classes are scheduled for three, three-hour sessions and one, two-hour
7

session per week. A student would attend class over 300 hours per year, exceeding the
minimum requirement of the Rules and Guidelines of 270 hours.
A review of final examinations, students’ answers and faculty grading of its former
students confirmed that the form and content of such examinations were compliant in
demanding a proper understanding of the legal principles covered. While only three
MAOL students have ever taken the FYLSX, two have passed, one on the first attempt
the other on the second attempt. The unsuccessful student took the exam only once.
The student who passed on the second attempt was subsequently admitted to Thomas
Jefferson School of Law, though receiving no credit for her work at MAOL.
In the absence of a faculty or any enrolled students, a comprehensive evaluation of the
qualitative soundness and compliance of MAOL’s program of legal education is, at best,
difficult to assess since no actual class sessions were observed.
(F) Scholastic Standards. The law school must maintain sound scholastic
standards and must as soon as possible identify and exclude those students who
have demonstrated they are not qualified to continue. (Guidelines 5.17-5.25)
Other than the good standing ambiguities noted under Section (B) above, MAOL has
adopted compliant policies for the quarterly evaluation of students and a strict probation
policy to ensure the exclusion of all students found not to have the ability to succeed,
although the Consultant found no instance of a student ever being academically
excluded.
Either the inability to devote adequate time to their studies and attend classes or
scholastic inability would have been noted and probably discussed with the Dean or
other professor prior to withdrawal. Rather than wait for the inevitable probation or
exclusion, such students chose to cease attending. The school should consider having
students evaluate quarterly not just their professors, but the school and its program as
well. They should also arrange to hold an exit interview with, or a survey of, any student
withdrawing or failing to reenroll, to help evaluate whether appropriate adjustments to
the program or schedule might help retain otherwise competent students.
The students’ grades given four and five years ago, as reported by the law school,
reflected mostly C’s and B’s in substantive courses. Given the small class sizes, no
statistically significant comparison is possible. Exam questions, answers, and grades
given reviewed by the Consultant found the grading appropriate.
The law school maintains an attendance policy requiring 80% attendance in courses
conforms to Guideline requirements.
8

(G) Admissions. The law school must maintain a sound admissions policy. The
law school must not admit any student who is obviously unqualified or who does
not appear to have a reasonable prospect of completing the degree program.
(Guidelines 5.26-5.35)
The law school’s admission policies and procedures comply with the requirements of
the Guidelines. The law school requires either a bachelor’s degree, an associate’s
degree, or the minimal education of 60 qualifying units of undergraduate education
before an applicant is admitted. One student admitted in 2012 was never enrolled after
it was confirmed that she lacked adequate pre-law education since her degree in
paralegal studies was from a vocational school.
It also appears that MAOL has admitted only one special student since its opening in
2007. While MAOL has a compliant admissions policy regarding special students, no
such policy currently appears in its catalog or student handbook. If the law school
intends to again admit any such student, information regarding their potential admission
should be found in its Catalog to inform any such potential applicants.
The application form contains the appropriate disclosure and asks applicants about their
prior law school attendance and, in the event any previously-disqualified or transfer
students apply, it has compliant policies in place for their admission and for the potential
transfer of their credits earned at another law school.
MAOL’s recruitment of students appears confined to print advertisements and Craigslist
postings, which advise of the existence of the law school.
(H) Library. The law school must maintain a library consistent with the
minimum requirements set by the Committee. (Guidelines 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.5)
While MAOL maintains a law library with all hardcopy case reporters, statutes and legal
authorities required by the Guideline 6.2, the inspection confirmed that its California
case reporters, California statutes and its hardcopy case citator are no longer current
and have not been updated since 2014. As such, the law school is not compliant with
Guideline 6.2 nor, more importantly, with the mandate of the California Supreme Court
as set out in the California Rules of Court, specifically Rule 9.30(b)(6), which provides,
in part, that an unaccredited, fixed-facility law school must “[o]wn and maintain a library
consisting of not less the following sets of books, all of which must be current and
complete: (A) The published reports of the decisions of California courts; with advance
sheets and citator; . . . (C) An annotated set of the California Codes; . . . .”
While the Committee’s Guidelines (Guideline 6.4) permits a registered law school to
meet its obligation to maintain a fully-compliant law library through the use of a “county,
state, federal or law firm library,” “within a reasonable distance of the law school’s
classroom facilities,” no such exemption or provision exists in Rule 9.30. As such, the
Committee lacks the authority to allow MAOL to operate without a law library, whether
or not it has currently enrolled students. Compounding the issue of MAOL’s
9

noncompliance with Guideline 6.2 is the fact that the school was found similarly
noncompliant with this critical requirement at the time of its periodic inspection in 2012.
In the report received and filed following that inspection, the Committee adopted the
following finding and recommendation: “To better comply with Guideline 6.2, the law
school should conduct and audit of its law library to confirm that all mandatory legal
authorities are complete and current with the requirements of said guideline and
California Rule of Court 9.30.”
In light of this finding, a subsequent, interim inspection was performed in September of
2013, during which it was confirmed that, through its recent purchases of updates and
new editions of mandatory hardcopy legal authorities, MAOL’s library was found
compliant since, as described in the inspection report, “the law school has taken efforts
needed to ensure that its library is compliant with the contents requirements set forth in
Guideline 6.2.”
The fact that shortly after the interim inspection of 2013 the law school’s library was
soon outdated and noncompliant supports the conclusion that Dean McMillan is
unwilling to maintain a compliant law library in the absence of enrolled students. In light
of such apparent willful noncompliance, and given the mandate of Rule 9.30(b)(6),
MAOL should be required to update all of its mandatory library resources as soon is
reasonable.
The law school is compliant with Guideline 6.5 by offering its students access to online
library materials. The law school maintains an account with Lexis-Nexis account which,
if and when it were to enroll any new students, each will be given compliant access.
In separate financial accounting, no costs for library materials have been charged to the
school in the last five years. Since the law firm shares the library with the school, the
law firm may have been responsible for the costs of upkeep and additions to the library
not reflected in the school’s library accounts during this period.
(I) Physical Resources. The law school must have physical resources and an
infrastructure adequate for its programs and operations. The law school must, at
a minimum, maintain its primary administrative office in the State of California.
(Guidelines 7.1, 7.2)
MAOL’s offices and school are located in a commercial building in La Mesa, California.
The area set aside for use as a classroom within the McMillan Law Firm appears
adequate for small classes and any conference space needed for adjunct faculty to
meet privately with a student. Sufficient on site and nearby public parking is available.
The Dean’s office is appropriate and on-site filing cabinets contain all the required
hardcopy materials generated by the school. Technology plays a minimal role at the
school, and the separation of school electronic information from the law firm’s electronic
files, firewall and password protected, appear sufficient for the needs of the law school.
10

(J) Financial Resources. The law school must have adequate present and
anticipated financial resources to support its programs and operations.
(Guidelines 8.1, 8.2, 8.3)
With no tuition income earned over the past four years and with fixed annual costs,
including annual business license fee of $1410 paid to the City of La Mesa, its annual
rent of $9,600 MOAL is to pay under its lease with the McMillan Law Firm, along with its
annual report fees of $580 paid to the Committee each year, the law school has
operated at a loss over the last four years. All such expenses, however, have been
absorbed annually by Dean McMillan, as MAOL’s sole shareholder, and paid by him
through additional capital contributions made to the corporation.
The law school’s self-study included a projected budget for 2017, which seems to
suggest that it would have enrolled students and, thus, it would be earning tuition
revenue. Based upon that speculative assumption, the law school’s overhead
expenses as calculated included only its expenses for business and reporting fees, its
rent and instructional salaries. They did not include any compensation for
administrative staff, advertising, and maintenance of the website, library or online
technology. Moreover, under the proposed budget, the law school’s future income is
calculated on the assumption that it will enroll up to five first-year students a year, with
each attending the same classes for an entire year and each paying full tuition. Based
on this presumed budget, the school would generate a small profit.
In making each of these assumptions, and ignoring the very real possibility of student
attrition, its projected future budget and it estimate of generating a profit are, at best,
overly optimistic and likely unattainable. The school is not now nor does it appear likely
that it has ever earned a profit since it opened. In the current absence of any enrolled
students, it also appears unlikely to do so in the future.
As a result its ongoing ability to maintain its registration is clearly dependent on the
Dean’s continued willingness to absorb and pay its fixed operating losses. In light of
this necessity, it appears that the law school is not compliant with Guideline 8.1 which
requires that a “law school must have adequate and anticipated financial resources to
support it programs and operations . . . .”
In light of such apparent noncompliance, sufficient credible financial evidence, in the
form of bank statements, should be required to show that MAOL as a separate
corporate entity currently has sufficient capital and cash resources to confirm its current
and future financial viability and current compliance with Guideline 8.1.
(K) Records and Reports. The law school must maintain adequate records of
its programs and operations. (Guidelines 9.1)
MAOL substantially complies with the recordkeeping requirements of the Guidelines.
The school has adopted an appropriate policy covering recordkeeping procedures
regarding student files and maintenance of privacy and security.
11

The Consultant examined several student files. All required records were found in all
required files. In addition to keeping its applications, pre-law transcripts, law school
transcripts, enrollment agreements and other required student memoranda in the file,
the law school maintains a policy of also storing the written work product of its students,
including their exams and answers, in the same file. The result is that its student files
are extremely large and bulky, which made it difficult to locate relevant material. It also
made it nearly impossible to compare student answers and grading of the same
examination since they were scattered amongst the various student files.
Student examinations and corresponding answers, as well as any other course work
retained by the school, along with course grades given and roll sheets, should be
maintained in separate files, by course and by year.
Faculty personnel files reviewed were complete. The school keeps no separate
administrative files. No minutes of a faculty meeting within the last five years were
available. It does not appear the faculty has met, as a group, within this period. Board
minutes were also not available. However, given that the Board consists solely of Dean
Millan, these would not have supplied any relevant information.
The law school was found to maintain adequate records of Committee correspondence
and copies of its Annual Compliance Reports. The school should ensure that numbers
and status of admitted and continuing students is consistent between the certifications
and Attachments 12 and 13 to the Annual Report.
(L) Equal Opportunity and Non-Discrimination. Consistent with sound
educational policy and these rules, the law school should demonstrate a
commitment to providing equal opportunity to study law and in the hiring,
retention and promotion of faculty without regard to sex, race, color, ancestry,
religious creed, national origin, disability, medical condition, age, marital status,
political affiliation, sexual orientation, or veteran status. (Guidelines 10.1)
The law school has adopted and provides adequate notice that is maintains appropriate
policies to operate in a non-discriminatory manner. The Consultant met with the Dean,
Associate Dean, and administrative assistant. Within such a small group of
administrators and faculty there was no indication of either a lack of equal opportunity or
of any unlawful discrimination.
12

NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE
TO
4670 Nebo Drive, Suite 200, La Mesa, California
December 2, 2017
Pursuant to Rule 4.260 of the Unaccredited Law School Rules, the Committee of Bar
Examiners (Committee) finds grounds to believe that the McMillan Academy of Law
(MAOL), a registered, unaccredited, fixed-facility law school, is not in compliance with
one or more of the Guidelines for Unaccredited Law School Rules (Guidelines) and is
hereby issued this Notice of Noncompliance.
The noncompliance of MAOL relates to the following Guidelines:
Guidelines for Unaccredited Law School Rules:
1. Guideline 2.3(A) - 2.3(E) (Honesty in Communications)
Failure to communicate in an accurate, honest and forthright manner.
2. Guideline 2.9(B)(4) – 2.9(B)(6) (Fairness in Academic Standards and Student
Assessment)
Failure to maintain current and accurate means to assess students.
3. Guidelines 5.1 – 5.2 (Academic Program and Criteria for Compliance)
Failure to maintain a current, qualitatively sound program of legal instruction.
4. Guidelines 5.2(J), 8.1 and 8.2 (Adequacy of the law school’s finances)
Lack of auditable income and funds needed to provide a long-term and sound
program of legal education.
5. Guidelines 6.1 – 6.6 (Library Resources)
Failure to maintain a complete and updated hardcopy law library.
Pursuant to Rule 4.261, within fifteen (15) days of the receipt by McMillan Academy of
Law of this Notice, it must file a response as to its compliance or is taking steps to
achieve compliance with each of the findings of its noncompliance as described above.
In further compliance with Rule 4.261, the response must be submitted with the fee of
$924 as set forth in the Unaccredited Law School Fees.
ATTACHMENT B

SUPPLEMENTAL INSPECTION REPORT
Inspection conducted on May 9, 2018
Pursuant to Rule 4.262(B) of the
Unaccredited Law School Rules
Sally Perring, Educational Standards Consultant,
Office of Admissions, The State Bar of California
ATTACHMENT C

McMILLAN ACADEMY OF LAW
INTRODUCTION
McMillan Academy of Law is a fixed-facility unaccredited registered law school located in
La Mesa, California, a suburb of San Diego. The school initially registered with the State
Bar in 2007 and enrolled its first students in 2009. Between 2009 and 2013 the school
enrolled approximately 12 students. Only three of these students completed the first
year and sat for the First Year Law Students Examination (FYLSX). One student passed
on the first attempt, one passed on a second attempt, and one failed the first time and did
not retake the FYLSX. Neither of the students who passed completed their second year
of studies at MAOL. One of the students who passed the FYLSX transferred to an
ABA-accredited law school, but received no credit for work completed at MAOL. After
that, no students enrolled at the school until 2018, when somewhere between two and
three students were enrolled without any tuition or fees being charged to them.
Shortly after initial registration, the school received its first Notice of Non-Compliance for
failure to comply with Rule 2.3(D), disclosing the school’s status and limitations as a
registered, unaccredited law school. After several rounds of correspondence, the school
corrected its public communications.
When the school underwent its first five-year periodic inspection in May of 2012, the
resulting report and Committee action required the school to take fourteen significant
mandatory actions to remain in substantial compliance with the Guidelines. Because of
the large number of actions required, the Committee took the unusual step of ordering a
follow-up inspection in 2013. At that inspection, the school was able to establish enough
improvement that the Committee of Bar Examiners (Committee) extended the school’s
registration through 2017.
The next five-year periodic inspection took place in May of 2017, and serious violations
were observed in three main categories, involving over fifteen of the Rules and
Guidelines for Unaccredited Law Schools. A further complication was that the school
had not enrolled any students since the last follow-up inspection, and it appeared that
none of the school’s materials or library had been updated since that time either.
Therefore, certain portions of the school’s curriculum, faculty, program of instruction and
student services could not be evaluated because the school’s program appeared to be
dormant.
On December 2, 2017, the Committee issued a Notice of Non-compliance to McMillan
Academy of Law (MAOL). The Committee noted that MAOL was not in compliance with
the following Guidelines, and grave concern was expressed regarding the school’s ability
to operate a school that was substantially compliant with the Guidelines now or in the
future.
1. Guideline 2.3(A)-2.3(E) (Honesty in Communications) based upon a failure to
communicate in an accurate, honest and forthright manner.
2. Guideline 2.9(B)(4)–2.9(B)(6) (Fairness in Academic Standards and Student
2

Assessment) based upon a failure to maintain current and accurate means to assess
students.
3. Guidelines 5.1–5.2 (Academic Program and Criteria for Compliance) based upon a
failure to maintain a current, qualitatively sound program of legal instruction.
4. Guidelines 5.2(J), 8.1 and 8.2 (Adequacy of the law school’s finances) based upon a
lack of auditable income and funds needed to provide a long-term and sound program
of legal education.
5. Guidelines 6.1–6.6 (Library Resources) based upon a failure to maintain a complete
and updated hardcopy law library.
Pursuant to Rule 4.261, MAOL was required to file a written response within fifteen days.
MAOL’s response advised that the school would take immediate steps to remedy the
outdated website and library, and further advised that a small cohort of students had
registered for Winter Quarter beginning in January of 2018. MAOL’s Dean, Scott McMillan,
appeared voluntarily at the Committee meeting in February 2018 to be available for questions
from the Committee.
As a result of these representation, the Committee ordered in February 2018 that a
supplemental site visit take place within 90 days in order “to determine whether, under Rule
4.262(A), its response should be deemed satisfactory or whether, based upon that inspection
and subsequent report and as provided by Rule 4.263, the Committee is able to determine
that the law school is not or is not likely to be in compliance with these rules so that it may then
notify the law school that it recommends probation or withdrawal of its registration.”
State Bar Educational Consultant Sally Perring revisited the school on May 9, 2018, to
confirm compliance or progress on the fives bases of noncompliance cited by the Committee
in the December 2, 2018 Notice of Noncompliance. Her inspection included discussions of
the compliance issues with Dean McMillan and faculty member Jorge Jamarillo. She also
reviewed the midterm and final examinations from the Winter 2018 quarter, student files,
financial statements, and the library. She was also supplied with electronic examples of
assignments in the Legal Writing class from the Winter 2018 quarter as well as copies of one
student’s briefs for Criminal Law. She attended the Contracts class that was held on the
evening of the inspection.
FINDINGS
1. Guideline 2.3(A)-2.3(E) (Honesty in Communications) based upon a failure to
communicate in an accurate, honest and forthright manner.
There were issues even prior to the start of the inspection. While a main focus of the
inspection was to observe the students that MAOL had represented would begin class in
January 2018, the school did not file its certificate indicating whether and how many students
had enrolled. This certificate is normally due within 60 days after the start of classes under
Guidelines 9.2(O) 2-3. MAOL did not respond to any of the numerous communications from
the State Bar related to enrollment of students until April 17, when it advised, well after the
required certification deadline, that two students had enrolled.
3

Its Annual Student Disclosure Statement reported that three students had enrolled. The
Relevant portion of the Student Disclosure Statement is reproduced below, emphasis added:
16. ATTRITION Rates of enrolled students in subsequent years. Students enrolled in this Law School’s J.D. program
by year:
First Year Second Year Third Year Fourth Year
9/15/2013 3 0 0 0
9/15/2014 0 0 0 0
9/15/2015 0 0 0 0
9/15/2016 0 0 0 0
9/15/2017* 3 0 0 0
*Denotes the 2017-2018 Academic school year
Focus on the last line of the report, beginning 9/15/2017. First, the school was to report the
number of first year students as of 9/15/2017. Though zero students were enrolled as of that
date, the school communicated that three students had enrolled. Second, even assuming
the school could expand this reporting category by inserting the asterisk to have it include all
students enrolled in the 2017-2018 academic year, which is not permissible under the statute,
then the form shows three students enrolled for the 2017-2018 year. The school could
produce applications for only two candidates, both of whom were admitted. The Dean, who
did not personally fill out the disclosure form, could not explain why the form identified that
three students had enrolled. The school did, however, respond to criticism in the school’s
last inspection and update information on the form regarding administrative personnel at the
school.
On the other hand, the school did, however, update its handbook, including removing its
many-years-outdated reference to the school’s oversight by the Bureau of Private
Post-Secondary Education and its participation in the Student Tuition Recovery Fund. The
school regularized reference to the number of units required to graduate and other outdated
general references that appeared not to have been changed since the last students were
enrolled in 2013.
2. Guideline 2.9(B)(4)–2.9(B)(6) (Fairness in Academic Standards and Student
Assessment) based upon a failure to maintain current and accurate means to
assess students.
While at campus the consultant reviewed the midterm and final examinations of both students
for the criminal law class which was completed the prior quarter. Unfortunately, neither the
multiple-choice portion nor the essay portion of the examination contained materials
compliant with the Guidelines.
Both the final essay questions were past FYLSX questions. Unfortunately, Guideline 5.15
expressly prohibits the use of past FYLSX questions “for any purpose that affects a student’s
grade.” The Dean advised did not know that the professor had used FYLSX questions,
calling into question the training and oversight of the school’s sole additional faculty member.
Neither the Dean nor the professor who gave the final exam seemed familiar with the
Guideline 5.15. Moreover, the answers published with released questions to the FYLSX and
used as model answers for grading, while good, were, as is typical for selected answers
released with the examination, far from perfect or model answers.
4

The multiple-choice questions were photocopied from a Siegel’s Criminal Law bar
preparation book. Use of commercially available material for the MBE-type multiple-choice
questions for the final throws into question the accuracy of the assessment of student
achievement as well as fairness. Students with access to the material could have
conformed their answers to those provided in the commercial materials, learning the right
answers, but not necessarily the law. Also, if one student had access and another did not, it
would be unfair.
The grading seemed to fairly reflect the varying degrees of competency and comprehension
of the students as to each essay question. Moreover, the scores on the essays correlated well
with the scores on the MBE-type questions. The midterm essays had numerous handwritten
comments to alert the students both to problems and where they did well. Both the midterm
and the final had available model answers. Unfortunately, though the scores were tainted by
the knowledge that the students could have had access to the prior FYLSX questions or
commercial multiple-choice questions before the examination took place. And as students
continued to enroll from year-to-year, these practices could become known, increasing the
chances for unfairness.
3. Guidelines 5.1–5.2 (Academic Program and Criteria for Compliance) based
upon a failure to maintain a current, qualitatively sound program of legal
instruction.
Guideline 5.1 requires a school to maintain a qualitatively and quantitatively sound program
of education. Guideline 5.2 provides a long list of specific criteria for evaluating conformity
with Guideline 5.1.
Amongst the criteria in Guideline 5.2 is the competence of the instructors, their ability as
teachers, and effectiveness of the methods of instruction. (Guidelines 5.2(B) and (D).) The
consultant attended the first class in Contracts this quarter. The instructor was informed and
drew reference from the Criminal Law class that the students had already taken, referring to
such notions as specific intent, subjective and objective criteria, and capacity to help the
students transition to a new subject. After an introductory lecture, the class went through the
cases to be read that night. Both students had prepared their own briefs and were prepared
to discuss the cases. The instructor led the discussion of each case ably, calling on the
students alternatively to recite the facts, etc. The atmosphere was supportive and conducive
to learning.
While the required case book was typical of that used in most law schools, the syllabus for the
course was quite skeletal, giving the reading assignment for the entire week, when the class
actually meets multiple times per week. Syllabi from prior years contained more information,
breaking down reading assignments for each class period, and included attendance
requirements, explanation of examinations, class participation and case briefing expectations
and an explanation of how the final grade would be computed, as required under the
Guidelines. (See Guidelines 2.9(C) and 5.2(C).)
Guideline 5.2(E) provides consideration of admission requirements, including minimum levels
of prior education, preparation, or training. Upon examination of the two student files of
those enrolled in January, it was discovered that one student lacked sufficient qualifying units
(60) to be admitted as a non-degree regular student. The student could only have been
5

admitted as a special student. The student, however, had not taken the College Level
Equivalency Program (CLEP) examinations, required for admission as a special student, and
therefore could not have been admitted as a special student. (See Guideline 5.33 and the
Rule and Business and Professions code section cited therein.) The student thus must be
excluded from the law school and can receive no credit for any work completed since
enrollment.
While the school’s Catalog sets forth numerous submissions required for consideration of the
student application, the two files contained only a completed application form and signed
disclosure forms, but none of the other materials set forth in the Catalog as required for
admission. It appeared as well that the student files were otherwise deficient under the
recordkeeping requirements of the Guidelines, lacking transcripts and other required
elements. (See also Guidelines 9.1(A) through (D).)
On the day of the consultant’s visit, one of the Dean’s law clients decided she wanted to
attend law school. The client completed the application form and signed the appropriate
disclosure forms. The applicant was admitted on the spot and provided with a photocopied
portion of the Contracts textbook so that he could attend class that evening, and she did so.
While not specifically covered under Guideline 5.2(E), but related to this, is the requirement
under Guidelines 9.1(O)(2)(A) and (B) that a law school must submit an Admission
Certification within 60 days of the beginning of any academic period wherein it has admitted a
new student. Certification forms for the two students who began in January were not
submitted until April 17th
and then only after the school was reminded on multiple occasions of
its obligation to submit the forms. The forms showed one degreed regular student and one
non-degreed regular student, but this information was neither accurate nor timely.
Other Guideline 5.2 criteria include the quality of examinations (discussed above in 2.), legal
research resources and adequacy of the school’s finances, which will be discussed below as
separate issues in sections 4 and 5.
4. Guidelines 5.2(J), 8.1 and 8.2 (Adequacy of the law school’s finances) based
upon a lack of auditable income and funds needed to provide a long-term and
sound program of legal education.
The school continues to lack auditable income. The Dean, who is also the owner of the law
school corporation, in response to the December Notice of Noncompliance has deposited
$20,000 to the school’s account, which shows a current balance of $20,202.81. The
$20,000 was credited to Equity, Capital Stock, on the corporate Balance Sheet. In his
Response to the Notice of Noncompliance Dean McMillan asserted: “Dean McMillan has
provided MAOL with a capital guarantee of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) over the next
five years.” A subsequent conversation with the Dean clarified that he was committed to
depositing $20,000 annually over a five-year period.
Current students are not being charged any fees or tuition. The Dean hopes to use the
success of the current students to attract paying students in the future.
The law school’s fixed expenses include $800 monthly rent ($9600 annually) to the McMillan
Law Firm (also owned by the Dean) for use of office space for offices, study rooms,
classrooms, and the library. Annual licensing and registration fees, owed to various
6

governmental entities, amount to $1,410. Salaries for adjunct professors are estimated at
approximately $3,000 per quarter if all 10 units are all taught by adjunct faculty. The school
also has annual expenses for the upkeep of the library would be in addition to these costs.
Even treating the rental payments as waivable, licensing and registration fees to operate the
school, adjunct salaries, and upkeep of the library, at a minimum, total about $10,000
annually. If rental costs were included, this annual cost would be around $20,000. One
student enrolled for a year taking all classes required for the part-time program and paying full
tuition and fees would contribute about $8,300.00 annually. MAOL, registered since 2007,
has had only fifteen students total, and none have undertaken the second year of study at
MAOL.
5. Guidelines 6.1–6.6 (Library Resources) based upon a failure to maintain a
complete and updated hardcopy law library.
The law school has ordered the required hardcopy materials needed to update its physical
library holdings. Most of the volumes had been received and properly shelved at that time of
the inspection, though some were still in their wrappers. The school has procured access to
Lexis-Nexis for its students.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
The consultant observed real teaching and learning of the law in the classroom.
However, the Guidelines require much more than that. It does not appear that anyone
currently at the school has attempted to learn and ensure compliance with the
requirements and obligations of an unaccredited, registered school under the relevant
Rules and Guidelines. The school reacts to remedy noncompliance issues as they are
highlighted by site visits, but its responses are often late and often give rise to other
issues because it appears no steps have been taken by the school proactively to ensure
ongoing substantial compliance.
Moreover, it does not seem possible that the school has the resources or reputation to
attract, educate or retain students, and no student has advanced even to the second year
of study since the school opened eleven years ago.
Based upon materials submitted both before and during the site visit as well as findings
while at the site, it is recommended that the Committee of Bar Examiners withdraw
registration of the McMillan Academy of Law. The school’s admissions, academic
program and student assessment fall short of the requirements set forth in the Guidelines
and there continues to be no auditable income. Alternatively, the school should be
placed on probation for one year, with a site visit at the end of that year to ensure
compliance with the problems noted above and demonstration that personnel and
systems have been put in place to ensure ongoing compliance with all the Rules and
Guidelines. In light of the past efforts, however, success after probation is unlikely and
continued operation of the school may serve to disadvantage any students who might
choose to enroll.
7

'
4670 Nebo Drive, Suite 200
La Mesa, California 91941-5230
(619) 464-1500
www.maol.info
December 19,2017
George Leal, Program Manager, Educational Standard
The State Bar ofCalifornia
180 Howard Street
San Francisco CA 94105
Dear Mr. George Leal
McMillan Academy ofLaw is in receipt ofthe Notice ofNon-Compliance dated December 2,
2017 (hereinafter the Notice], as well a copy ofPeriodic Inspection Report [hereinafter the
Report], completed by Ms. Sally Perring, a consultant for the Economic Standards Office, and a
memorandum authored by Mr. George Leal, all ofwhich were sent to the Education Standards
Subcommittee ofthe CBE. Please consider this letter our response to the Notice ofNon
Compliance. The fee required of$924 as requested in the Notice was previously tendered.
We at the McMillan Academy ofLaw [hereinafter MAOL] take not only the Notice ofNon
Compliance extremely seriously, we are also mindful ofall suggested actions outlined in you're
the Report. MAOL is now in the process ofcorrecting all required actions as well as those
suggested and proposed in the Report. We will address each item individually below.
We also wanted to take this opportunity inform the Educational Standards Committee that
MAOL is excited to announce that it already has an incoming class enrolled for the upcoming
quarter, and will resume classes in January of2018. MAOL has also hired anew professor for
the upcoming academic year. Cumulatively, this will help ensure a promising future for MAOL,
its students, faculty and professors, and legal community. We look forward to a optimistic and
encouraging upcoming academic year.
Recommended Mandatory Actions
The first item where mandatory action is recommended in the report indicates to be compliant
with Guideline 2.3©, MAOL must review, revise and delete from all ofits materials, both
hardcopy and electronic, any and all references to the Bureau ofPostsecondary, Private
Education [hereinafter BPPE) and the Student Tuition Recovery Fund [hereinafter STRF], as
ATTACHMENT D

each is noted in its program oflegal education.
At this time, MAOL has already updated its website to reflect the current information. All
references to the BPPE and the STRF have been removed from the website to ensure that all
communications are in an accurate, honest, and forthright manner. The website also no longer
provides any information on any individual orjoint MBA program. We have already updated all
hardcopies ofany information. manuals, or disclosure provided to students to reflect the same
changes, removing all references to the BPPE and the STRF. Those hardcopies are now
available for download on from MAOL's website. By adjusting both the electronic and hardcopy
versions, this will ensure there is no inaccurate or confusing information being disseminated to
entering students. We have attached the updated catalog (EXHffiiT A) to show the referenced
changes.
The second item where mandatory action is recommended in the report indicates to be compliant
with Guideline 2.3(D), the MAOL must review, revise and correct all information and data
reported on its written Disclosure Statement required by Ru1e 4.241 and its Information Report
Form required by Business and Professions Code, sec. 6061.7(a). MAOL has revised its
disclosure statement on both the website, and in hard copy form. This includes both the required
disclosure for Ru1e 4.241 as well as the Form required by Business and Professions Code, sec.
6061.7(a). The information is listed on the website itself, and is available for download from the
website as well. All disclosures are now current, accurate, and comply with all Rules and
Guidelines. Hardcopies and the website have been updated accordingly, and the disclosures are
available on the website now. We have attached our Rule 4.241 Disclosure (EXHIBIT B) as
well as MAOL's Information Report Form required by Business and Professions Code, sec.
6061.7(a) (EXHIBIT C).
Next listed in the Report where mandatory action states to be compliant with Guideline
2.9(B)(4), MAOL must review and revise all ofits materials, hardcopy and electronic, to ensure
that all correctly and consistently state the number ofquarter units (114) needed to earn a Juris
Doctor degree. MAOL's website already reflects the minimum number ofcredits needed to earn
a JD degree and explains the quarter system, as well as the required hours needed for students to
earn credits for each course taken. We have concurrentlyupdated all hardcopy versions to reflect
the same, so that all correspondence with students regarding the credit and hour requirements is
accurate and non-confusing. The information is available in the catalogue and other documents
on the website. This information is available in the catalog (EXHIBIT A), as well as our
Academic Requirements Information (EXHIBIT D)
Along with Guideline 2.9(B)(4) in the report, the Notice indicates that MAOL has failed to
maintain current and accurate means to assess students. As noted in the report, MAOL has had a
few years with no students enrolled. With few or no students, assessing students understanding
and comprehension has been unavailable. MAOL has adapted its grading criteria, and has
finalized those changes for the upcoming school year. The new grading standards will be given
to the incoming students prior to or at their first classes. The information will be contained in the
student catalogue and in each individual syllabus as well. We are excited to have the opportunity
to teach and assess students in the upcoming quarter. Each professor will follow the grading
-· .

scale and notify students in a timely manner ofhow they are graded. MAOL no longer uses any
letter grades. Our grading criteria is now included in the catalog (EXHmiT A) and will be
included in each syllabus for all classes at MAOL.
The Report also requires in accordance with Guideline 4.11(A), that MAOL must designate an
individual as its Registrar and inform the Committee ofBar Examiners accordingly. MAOL has
designated Mr. Scott A. McMillan as its Registrar. He can be reached at
Scott A. McMillan
McMillan Academy ofLaw
4670 Nebo Dr., Ste. 200
La Mesa, CA 91941
Scott@McMillanlaw.us
P: (619)464-1500
F: (619)828-7399
MAOL has already sent separate letter as an official notification to the Committee ofBar
Examiners as to the designation ofits registrar. We have attached the letter for your complete
records (EXHIBIT E)
Also contained in the Report, and the Notice, is a requirement to update the law library at
MAOL. This requirement is to comply with Guideline 6.2 and Rule 9.30(b)(6) ofthe California
Ru1es ofCourt, which specifically state that [MAOL] must maintain a law library such that
contains all mandatory hardcopy legal authorities that are complete, current and updated. MAOL
has already ordered the requisite hardcopies ofany updates to its already existing law library.
We expect the law library to be fully updated by the time courses start for the upcoming
academic year. We have attached the invoice and order form ofthe update to our library as
(EXHIBIT F).
Finally listed in the Report and the Notice for mandatory recommended actions is a concern
about MAOL's compliance with Guidelines 5.2(J), 8.1 and 8.2. These Guidelines discuss the
adequacyofthe law-school's finances and lack ofauditable income and funds needed to provide
a long-term and sound program oflegal education. To comply with Guideline 8.1, MAOL must
confirm that, as a separate corporate entity, it has and will maintain sufficient capital and cash
resources to ensure its current and future financial viability needed to support its program oflegal
education and each ofits current and future financial obligations.
Dean Scott McMillan is the sole director and shareholder ofMAOL. MAOL shares a space with
the Law Offices. Dean McMillan has provided MAOL with a capital guarantee oftwenty
thousand dollars ($20,000.00) over the next five years. This guarantee will provide sufficient
capital, cash, and resources to ensure the viability ofthe school, including supporting the
educational programs and any future financial obligations.
Listed on the Notice, but not in the report, is MAOL's non-compliance with Guidelines 5.1 - 5.2,
dealing with the MAOL's failure to maintain a current, qualitatively sound program oflegal

instruction. We are aware that this non-compliance is mostly due to a lack ofa student body and
classes over the past few years. However, as discussed above, MAOL already has students
enrolled for the upcoming quarter beginning in January of2018. While MAOL has been
dormant, it is now invigorated with new students for the upcoming quarter.
MAOL also has hired a new, highly motivated professor who is eager for an opportunity to teach
up-and-coming legal minds the law. how to pass the CBX, and how to be a successful attorney.
Despite the difficulty for MAOL to provide legal education and assess students' understanding of
the law, MAOL will resume classes in January. Because enrollment has increased, the law
library is being updated, and classes will resume In January, MAOL can now provide the
experience ofa current and qualitatively sound program. MAOL has updated its catalogue for
the incoming school year to reflect all changes discussed in this letter. That catalogue is
available on the website in the near future. We have also attached all disclosures as (EXHIBIT
G).
Recommended Su&eested Actions
Ms. Perring's Report discussed several suggested actions that were not mentioned in the Notice
itself. However, MAOL is committed providing the best possible legal education and is making
changes according to these suggestions The Report advises that pursuant to Guideline 1.9,
MAOL should incorporate into its materials, both hardcopy and electronic, that it is compliant
with all requirements set out in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) relevant to its
facilities and operations. MAOL has updated its website, its catalogue, and other materials, to
reflect that it is complaint with the ADA, relevant to its facilities. These changes are reflected in
all hard copymaterials, including the catalog, (EXHIBIT A). The facilities for MAOL are on
the second floor ofthe building, which predates the ADA. To the extent the facilities are
inaccessible, MAOL will provide either alternative instruction, alternative means ofinstruction,
or an alternative location.
Also listed in the Report was the suggestion to incorporate a copy ofMAOL's current instructor
evaluation policy in the its faculty handbook (Pursuant to Guidelines 4.8 and 4.9, the law school
should incorporate a copy ofits current instructor evaluation policy in its Faculty Handbook).
These changes have been made and specifically outline how and when each professor or faculty
member will be evaluated. The faculty handbook is still undergoing revisions, and will be ready
for all faculty when classes begin in January.
Finally, the Report details how Ms. Perring had a difficult time locating specific items within
each student file. Pursuant to Guidelines 9.l(A-D) and 9.l(E-F), MAOL should separate and
maintain all required information, transcripts and materials needed to be placed into its student
files from materials relating to its courses and classes. MAOL has adapted a new filing system
for student files to make individual items within each file easier to locate. MAOL has also
adjusted its filing system to keep and maintain a separate set offiles for each course, by year.
This allows easy access to any particular course and all exams taken by any students in that
course. This is for internal ease and so on subsequent inspections, the inspector will easily be
able to compare exams from the same course without having to pull individual student files

simultaneously.
On behalfofMAOL, we appreciate the opportunity to work with you to address the Notice.
Please contact MAOL ifyou have any questions or concerns regarding anything within the
Notice, Report, or this letter addressing the Notice. We look forward to working with you in the
future to resolve any compliance issues discussed above.
Sco
Dean- McMillan Academy ofLaw
The attachments to this letter will be available upon request and will be available
onsite at the meeting.

Scott McMillan San Diego Attorney Law School Fraud

More Related Content

Similar to Scott McMillan San Diego Attorney Law School Fraud (20)

More from Darren Chaker (9)

Recently uploaded (20)

Scott McMillan San Diego Attorney Law School Fraud