Law School Dean Goes to Prison for Making Internet Threats

What happened regarding a former dean of the Kaplan University Law School?

Former dean of Kaplan University Law School, Bennie Wilcox, was sentenced to a prison term of one year and one day following his conviction.

Last year, prosecutors sufficiently convinced a jury that Wilcox sent emails which threatened both the school in general, and Kaplan Inc. Chief Executive Officer Andrew Rosen in particular. Just recently, the judge of the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Blanche Manning, sentenced Wilcox to confinement starting on September 16, and recommended that Wilcox serve his time at a federal institution in Florida.

What was Bernie Wilcox’s motivation for sending the threatening messages?

In 2007 Wilcox filed a suit with two other individuals against Kaplan, alleging that they had received student loan proceeds under false pretenses. Though Wilcox maintains that Kaplan acted in an illegal way, prosecutors encouraged the jury to ignore claims against Kaplan, and to instead look to the evidence of Wilcox sending the threatening messages to the school and its representatives. Despite the allegations from Wilcox, Kaplan continues to maintain its innocence, and asserts that Wilcox merely acted as a disgruntled former employee by filing suit against the education company.

The controversy emerges just as for-profit schools in the nation face close scrutiny by consumers and federal lawmaking officials. Statistics show that students at for-profit colleges default on their loans twice as often as students at public colleges and universities, and three times as high as students at non-profit private schools. In response to the statistics demonstrating difficulties experienced by for-profit institutions, the Obama administration announced it would strip for-profit institutions of the ability to participate in US student loan programs if for-profit schools continue to improperly prepare their students to repay the loans.

Why was Bennie Wilcox convicted?

Though Wilcox at trial denied transmitting the threatening emails, prosecutors presented both handwritten and videotape confessions Wilcox had made prior to trial in which Wilcox admitted to having sent the messages. At trial Wilcox claimed the confessions were made in an effort to protect his wife, who he claimed might have written the threatening emails following her alleged sexual abuse by a Kaplan executive. This argument, however, did not persuade a jury to find Wilcox not guilty.

Despite evidence that at least one of the threatening emails was sent via an account not belonging to Wilcox, prosecutors still prevailed in proving that Wilcox was, in fact, responsible for the threatening messages. In a world where determining who responsible for what submission on the internet is difficult, this case proves the possibility for conviction in such circumstances.

Share

Internet libel: Did a law firm defame a law school?

What do defamation laws do?

Defamation laws exist to discourage people from broadcasting false statements about others.

If a party makes false assertions about any aspect of your character, you have the right, under the defamation laws, to sue that party. Though intended to merely protect individuals’ reputations from falsification, defamation suits run into controversy due to their perception as limiting freedom of speech. In one recent example, debate exists on whether a New York law firm did in fact defame the Thomas M. Cooley School of Law, located in Lansing, Michigan.

Why is the Thomas M. Cooley School of Law suing a New York law firm for defamation?

Cooley claims that the New York law firm Kurzon Strauss LLP defamed the school by asking students to join the law firm in a class action suit against the school. Pointing specifically to information about Cooley students defaulting on their loans, Kuzon Strauss asserted statistics about Cooley that the school claims are libelous and untrue. In order to maintain the reputation of the school, Cooley decided a defamation suit was necessary

In addition to the suit against Kurzon Strauss, the Thomas M. Cooley School of Law filed suit against four anonymous bloggers that the school claims have posted online comments detrimental to the school’s reputation. Cooley representatives claim that though free speech entitles everyone to their own opinions about the school, these particular online comments have crossed the line into defamation. The results of these suits could usher in new standards by which parties are able to recover in defamation suits for content posted over the internet.

What has happened to the Thomas M. Cooley School of Law as a result of its lawsuit?

Pursuant to Cooley’s suit, an attorney for Kurzon Strauss named David Anziska announced plans his firm had for countersuing both the law school, and its lawyers. Anziska claimed that Cooley’s original suit seeks to intimidate his law firm, and that the grounds on which Cooley is suing are unfounded.

Given the relative newness of the internet, this controversy could answer questions about how much is too much in terms of freedom individuals have to post comments on the internet. Proponents of free speech might argue that the best remedy for false information posted over the internet would be for the school to have posted the correct information-not to sue Kurzon Strauss. Others might disagree, instead recognizing that preservation of reputation, even over the internet, demands that the Thomas M. Cooley School of Law win its defamation suit against Kurzon Strauss.

Share

Web Attorney: Internet Law Classes

Given the amount of e-commerce, I’m not surprised as a Web attorney that law students want more Internet law classes. The issue is: where will the schools find qualified instructors to teach the classes? I don’t mean to be harsh but most schools default to large firms filled with attorneys who bring blue chip credentials to the table but no real world experience when it comes to understanding how Internet law really works. These lawyers are simply behind the times, practicing 1990s law in the 21st Century.

YouTube Preview Image

Unfortunately, law school hiring committees don’t have a clue as to what’s really needed when selecting a Web attorney to teach cyberlaw. They falsely assume that big firm Dewey Cheatem and Howe must be experts because Fortune 500 companies are clients of the firm. Thus, firm partner Winthrop P. Buffington XVI becomes the new cyberlaw ‘expert’ teaching as an adjunct faculty member.

Perhaps the only thing more outdated than the typical Web attorney school instructor’s credentials to teach are the books used for such instruction. By the time most of these books are published they’re obsolete.

Personally, it is a good thing because it means I’ve got less competition in the marketplace. However, there will be entrepreneurs who unfortunately fall victim to bad advice from a new attorney who received an outdated education on Internet law and lacks the experience to know it.

To your success!

-Mike the Web attorney

Share

Free! Get Internet legal and marketing updates plus 3 chapters of the #1 Internet legal protection book for business website owners. Over 40 pages packed with strategies you can use to protect yourself without a lawyer.