Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad College of Law Student Defense Lawyer

How do conduct and academic cases work at NSU Shepard Broad College of Law?

This is a private university, so it is not a state actor: the Fourteenth Amendment does not reach it, and Fla. Stat. section 1006.60(3) — the statute that gives students at Florida’s public colleges and state universities a legal representative who may question witnesses — does not apply. What governs instead is the school’s own published policy, enforced as a contract. In Florida that is not a weak position. Sharick v. Southeastern University of the Health Sciences establishes that a Florida institution which breaches its own procedures can face real damages, which makes the precise wording of the school’s rules the centre of the case.

At Shepard Broad the published rules are notably restrictive in three specific ways, and a student who does not know them in advance tends to discover them at the worst moment.

Attorneys are barred from the disciplinary process

The NSU Student Handbook states that attorneys are not permitted to participate in, or observe, the disciplinary process, and that an adviser must be an NSU employee. That is the opposite of the position at Florida’s public law schools, where Fla. Stat. section 1006.60(3)(g) guarantees a legal representative who may question witnesses. The contrast is stark and it is lawful: a private university may set that rule by contract.

What it means in practice is that the work moves. If counsel cannot be in the room, then everything that matters must be done before the room — the written statement, the documentary record, the identification of which policy provision actually applies and which the school has skipped, and the preparation of the student to present all of it unaided. A lawyer who cannot appear can still draft, still assemble, still prepare, and still write the correspondence that creates the record for review afterwards. Being excluded from the hearing is a reason to involve counsel earlier, not later.

Three non-appealability clauses, and a dismissal that is final

The College of Law Code of Academic Regulations contains several hard stops. Attendance-grade decisions of the Student Affairs Committee are reviewable only for abuse of discretion and are stated to be final and not appealable. A decision of the Dean of Students on a missed examination is stated to be final and not appealable. And academic dismissal is stated to be final and unreviewable by any means other than a petition for reinstatement or readmission — with a two-year wait before reapplying.

Those clauses do a great deal of work, and they change the sequencing of a case completely. Where the internal route is closed by the terms of the contract, the leverage is almost entirely front-loaded: it exists before the decision, in the procedural steps the school owes under its own regulations, and it largely evaporates afterwards. A student who waits to see how the committee rules before seeking help has usually spent the part of the process where help was worth most.

They also sharpen the Sharick point. Where a school has written itself an unreviewable decision, the question that remains is whether it followed its own published procedure in reaching it. Compliance with process is what a court will look at, and a documented departure is worth considerably more where no internal appeal exists to cure it.

The continuing disclosure duty, which catches people out

NSU imposes an ongoing character and fitness reporting obligation on law students that reaches accusations rather than only findings, and extends down to traffic fines at or above two hundred dollars. Read literally, it obliges a student to report matters most people would never think of as disciplinary events, and it runs throughout enrolment rather than only at admission.

The trap is not the underlying incident. It is the failure to report it. A minor matter disclosed on time is an administrative footnote; the same matter surfacing later, undisclosed, becomes a candour problem — and candour is the one thing a bar examiner treats as disqualifying in itself. If there is any doubt about whether something is reportable under the policy, the answer is to report it and to document that you did.

The bar application is the real exposure

The sanction recorded on a transcript is seldom the worst of it. The Florida Board of Bar Examiners requires disclosure of academic discipline, and the law school’s own certification accompanies the application. A finding an undergraduate would absorb becomes, for a law student, a character and fitness matter to be explained in writing years later, under oath, next to the school’s account of it.

The objective is therefore a better characterisation, not merely a smaller sanction, because the characterisation is what gets disclosed. An outcome recorded as an academic disagreement closed without any finding of dishonesty is a different bar application from one recorded as an integrity violation involving misrepresentation, even where the practical consequence is identical. That is negotiated before agreement, never after.

What should you do first?

Get the two governing documents and read them before responding to anything: the NSU Student Handbook and the College of Law Code of Academic Regulations. Identify which committee has your matter and whether its decision is one of the ones the Regulations make final. Preserve every draft, timestamp, and submission record and alter nothing. Put every request in writing so the procedural record exists. And check the continuing disclosure obligation against anything in your recent history now, rather than when a bar examiner asks.

What can a student defense lawyer do here?

  • Front-loading the work, because the Regulations close the internal route after the decision
  • Drafting the written statement and assembling the documentary record the student will present alone
  • Preparing a student to appear unrepresented, since counsel may neither participate nor observe
  • Identifying departures from NSU’s own published procedure, which is the ground Sharick makes valuable
  • Writing the correspondence that creates a reviewable procedural record while the process is still running
  • Advising on the continuing character and fitness disclosure duty, including accusations and fines at or above two hundred dollars
  • Building the reinstatement or readmission petition, which the Regulations make the only route after academic dismissal
  • Assessing breach of contract and arbitrary and capricious theories where process was not followed

Where an NSU Law matter would be litigated

NSU is in Broward County, which 28 U.S.C. section 89(c) places in the Southern District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division. Federal claims — Section 504 and the ADA, Title IX, Title VI — are filed there, where I am admitted and where I practise. Note that constitutional due process claims do not lie against a private university, which is why the contract and statutory routes carry the weight here. See the guide to federal districts by campus and the NSU page.

The other Florida law schools, and why the differences matter

Florida has eleven ABA-approved law schools headquartered in the state plus the Florida campus of Cooley, and their honor codes are not variations on a theme. Whether an advisor may be a lawyer, whether that lawyer may speak, what the school must prove, and which decisions can be appealed at all differ from one to the next — which is why the first question in any case is which document actually governs you.

For the statutory framework behind all of them — Fla. Stat. section 1006.60(3) at the public schools, the contract and Sharick route at the private ones, and the thirty-day certiorari deadline that catches people out — see Florida student defense. Where the issue is a GPA rather than an accusation, see law school academic standing.

Common questions about NSU Shepard Broad College of Law cases

Can my lawyer attend an NSU law disciplinary hearing?

No. The NSU Student Handbook states that attorneys are not permitted to participate in or observe the disciplinary process, and that an adviser must be an NSU employee. That makes the preparation done beforehand far more important, and it is a reason to involve counsel earlier rather than later.

Is an academic dismissal from NSU law appealable?

The Code of Academic Regulations states that academic dismissal is final and unreviewable other than by a petition for reinstatement or readmission, with a two-year wait before reapplying. Because the internal route is closed by contract, the leverage sits before the decision rather than after it.

Which decisions does NSU say cannot be appealed?

Attendance-grade decisions of the Student Affairs Committee, reviewable only for abuse of discretion; a missed-examination decision of the Dean of Students; and academic dismissal. All three are stated to be final in the Regulations.

Do I have due process rights at NSU?

Not constitutional ones. NSU is private, so it is not a state actor and the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply, and Fla. Stat. 1006.60(3) does not reach private schools. Your protections come from NSU policy enforced as a contract, and in Florida Sharick means a breach of an institution’s own procedures can carry real damages.

What does the continuing disclosure obligation cover?

More than most students expect. It reaches accusations rather than only findings, and extends to traffic fines at or above two hundred dollars, and it runs throughout enrolment. The risk is usually the non-disclosure rather than the underlying matter, so document what you report and when.

If I cannot have a lawyer in the room, is there any point hiring one?

Yes, and arguably more. The written statement, the documentary record, the identification of procedural departures, and the correspondence that preserves a reviewable record are all done outside the hearing, and they are what decides these cases where no appeal exists.