no homo (nh)

[Jay Bee]

Once again, you have provided an example that illustrates what I am talking about. Students are allowed to have attorneys as advisors but advisors can only address their advisee.

TAMU’s 26.2.3.1, etc. - maybe this is where we disagree. I see this as saying you can NOT have someone acting as an attorney.
 
You can have an advisor, but not acting as an attorney.

To me, that’s saying you’re not allowed to use an attorney as an attorney.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

TAMU, can you speak to the intent of prohibiting representation? It is to prevent universities from needing to bring in (and pay for) their own counsel? I can understand that for underage drinking tickets and plagiarism, but for serious disciplinary proceedings where there may also be criminal charges, assuming that the university proceeding record is admissible in a criminal court proceeding, doesn't that discourage the accused from participating at the university level?

You would have to ask the creators of the guidance for their true intent, but the most common interpretation is that this is not a legal process, it is an educational one. The sanctions applied are not meant to be punitive but to help responsible students learn from their mistakes, as well as protect the academic environment of all students. Having a student stay silent while an attorney does all the speaking for him/her goes against the goal.

Also, the focus is always on the accused not being represented by an attorney, but keep in mind that universities are mandated to a doctrine of equality. Accusers are bound by the same rules so it is an equal playing field. The legal system is meant to give every advantage to the accused. The university system is meant to give the accuser and accused equal footing. The university still has the disadvantage of having the burden of proof.

The last point you bring up is a very good one. Conduct proceedings can be subpoenaed and entered in as evidence in criminal court. We see this with drug cases very commonly. The accused will come in and answer every question with some form of "on the advice of my attorney, I am not answering any questions at this time." The panel is then left to make a decision based on the investigation, police report, and any other evidence or testimony that is presented. Accused students often sacrifice their conduct case to help their criminal one.

This is not as common with Title IX cases. In the hundreds that I have had a role in, less than 3 dozen have had corresponding criminal cases and almost all of those were domestic violence cases, not sexual assault. I can think of six sexual assault cases off the top of my head that had a corresponding criminal case. All 6 never made it to trial, 1 took a plea for indecent exposure and the other 5 were dismissed for lack of evidence. In most states, what counts as sexual assault in Title IX does not match what counts as sexual assault in state law, so most of our cases can't be brought in criminal court. The ones that can usually don't have enough evidence to prove. It's a sad reality that it is almost impossible to get convicted for sexual assault in most states unless it was filmed, there was a witness in the room, the accused confesses, extreme violence was used, or if the victim was underage. Now, when someone's freedom is on the line, that's the level of evidence required, but it is unfortunate that so many can't get justice through the courts.

All that being said, I absolutely understand why when there is a criminal case pending why it could discourage the accused from participating. I have yet to have a sexual assault case where it happened, but I could see it happening. That is why I think attorneys absolutely need to be allowed to be present and advise their clients.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

TAMU’s 26.2.3.1, etc. - maybe this is where we disagree. I see this as saying you can NOT have someone acting as an attorney.
 
You can have an advisor, but not acting as an attorney.

To me, that’s saying you’re not allowed to use an attorney as an attorney.

Gotcha. What that is saying is that your advisor cannot act as an attorney. S/he cannot question witnesses, they cannot address the panel or other university administrators, they cannot speak for a student. What an advisor can do is be present for all meetings and give advice/guidance directly to their client. If they so choose, the attorney can literally tell them what to say verbatim and then the student can parrot it back to the panel. And yes, your advisor can be an attorney by profession.

[Spotcheck Billy]

Funny how JB was silent for so long in this thread until it changed topics.

[Jay Bee]

Funny how JB was silent for so long in this thread until it changed topics.

I was silent because I was banned, pal.

Some of you create a fantasy land in your own minds... bizarre.

PS - the t-bones were delicious

[Jay Bee]

All that being said, I absolutely understand why when there is a criminal case pending why it could discourage the accused from participating. I have yet to have a sexual assault case where it happened, but I could see it happening. That is why I think attorneys absolutely need to be allowed to be present and advise their clients.

Would be interested in the background/intent/arguments for an against.

I think we're in agreement on this: in a sexual misconduct student code case at TAMU and many other universities, the accused is NOT allowed to be legally represented. An attorney cannot advocate for the accused.

Thanks for bearing with my ranting earlier.

[Golden Avalanche]

Would be interested in the background/intent/arguments for an against.

I think we're in agreement on this: in a sexual misconduct student code case at TAMU and many other universities, the accused is NOT allowed to be legally represented. An attorney cannot advocate for the accused.

Thanks for bearing with my ranting earlier.

If that's your apology for repeatedly calling him a liar, you're quite the coward.

[Jay Bee]

If that's your apology for repeatedly calling him a liar, you're quite the coward.

Don't worry, that was not an apology for the 'liar' comment - that stands. My apology was for adding too much yapping to my issue.

That is, TAMU said that the accused were required to have access to counsel. To me, he was inferring legal counsel, e.g., an attorney. Attorneys represent. That is not the case.

Bill Self used to come to travel games during non-evaluation times. Coaches were not allowed to attend these events. He was allowed because his son was playing, but he was not allowed to be a coach evaluating there. He was allowed in the capacity of being another dude in the stands, watching his kid play bball. So, was his a coach physically there? Sure. So was he allowed to evaluate? Nah.

The accused cannot have legal counsel do what legal counsel does in a student case. So... do they have access to legal counsel? No, but I believe TAMU was inferring otherwise.

Might be my misread; both probably could have done better to explain.

But thank you for your valued opinion. It means a lot.

#TheRighteousHypocrites

[rocket surgeon]

His brother Greg is an All-Pro tight end who has made tens of millions of dollars during his career, and he is directly involved in every step of Kevin's life. Greg was in the courtroom just about every day, and he bankrolled the best attorneys money could buy to defend his brother.

So yes, Kevin Olsen is a rich, white male.

A poor person would not have been able to afford that kind of defense, and very well might have been found guilty because of it -- one of many reasons our prisons are filled non-Caucasians.

So Greg told you that he paid for bro kevin’s Attorney(s) and regularly gives him money to push him into “rich white guy” tax bracket...well well well, why didncha say so in the first place.  You and Greg must be tight, eyn’a?

Ho boy, your next comment is a doooozy.  Don’t think it would be prudent to dignify that bute.  Your guys are just licking their chops and sharpening their swords😳

[NWarsh]

Don't worry, that was not an apology for the 'liar' comment - that stands. My apology was for adding too much yapping to my issue.

That is, TAMU said that the accused were required to have access to counsel. To me, he was inferring legal counsel, e.g., an attorney. Attorneys represent. That is not the case.

Well to me that is not how I took his comment. So you calling him a liar is not true. You realize counsel does not always have to be legal counsel, right? So you put words in his mouth based on your perception and then called him a liar. You have to see how you are being a jag here yet again, right?

[forgetful]

@TAMU

Thanks for the info. I'll have to find the articles I read and post them since they seem to contradict what you say. In those articles, they stated that the process was mostly a sham with little room for the accused to make their case and I distinctly remember it being stated that no lawyers were allowed.

I believe this was about Rice university if that helps.

You might have it backwards. Rice is pretty protective of the accused. 

[MU82]

So Greg told you that he paid for bro kevin’s Attorney(s) and regularly gives him money to push him into “rich white guy” tax bracket...well well well, why didncha say so in the first place.  You and Greg must be tight, eyn’a?

Ho boy, your next comment is a doooozy.  Don’t think it would be prudent to dignify that bute.  Your guys are just licking their chops and sharpening their swords😳

You're a piece of work, rocket.

[rocket surgeon]

You're a piece of work, rocket.

That was a c**k high hanging uncle Charlie man, but thank you

[TSmith34, Inc.]

That was a c**k high hanging uncle Charlie man, but thank you

Huh?  90% of your posts are indecipherable.

[4everwarriors]

Y kant wee all bee friends, hey?