ETHICS GUIDELINES FOR CHICAG=
O-KENT
LLM STUDENTS
AUGUST 2005
&nbs=
p; All
LLM students are bound by the
We understand that it is not always=
easy
for students to apply the general provisions of the Code of Conduct to spec=
ific
situations. For this reason, =
we are
supplementing the general provisions of the Code with comments and
illustrations about some of the situations that may develop in your law sch=
ool
classes. Obviously, we cannot
anticipate every circumstance, but we hope that these Guidelines will help =
to
resolve some of the questions you may have. If you are not certain whether
particular conduct is permissible, you are responsible for seeking
clarification from your professor.
We
understand that as an LLM student who may be studying law in English for the
first time, you may feel that you cannot adequately express the ideas
and concepts of your subject in your own words in English and you may there=
fore
consider relying upon or using the text found in books, cases and, especial=
ly,
on the Internet. While it may be dif=
ficult
at first, you must learn to use your own words to discuss the legal ideas y=
ou
are studying and analyzing. Your attempt to express your understanding of l=
egal
principles in your own words is precisely what will be measured by the facu=
lty
when assessing your classroom and written work. Failure to use your own wor=
ds
will be taken as a sign that you do not really understand the legal concept=
s at
issue and you will be evaluated –and graded - accordingly.
Serious sanctions may be imposed for =
the
violation of any of the rules or policies contained in the Code of Conduct;
these sanctions may include receiving a failing grade for the course,
suspension from law school, a notation of an ethics violation on your law
school transcript, or dismissal fro=
m the
law school and failure to earn the LLM degree.
* * * * * * *
§ 2.1 of t=
he Code
of Conduct contains the definitions of "academic misconduct" and
provides that:
It
shall be a violation of this Code for a matriculated or non-matriculated
student, whether or not currently enrolled in the College, to engage in or
attempt to engage in any of the following conduct, which, unless otherwise
stated, must be done knowingly, recklessly, or negligently:
(a)
representing, expressly or impliedly, the work of another to be one's own.
Commentary This is the section of the Code of
Conduct that applies to charges of plagiarism. Section 2.1 applies to all l=
aw
school classes. The majority of Code of Conduct violations involve
plagiarism. Particularly in
academic settings, plagiarism is a form of theft - the theft of another's
ideas. Plagiarism is also an
attempt to gain an unfair advantage over other students by misrepresenting
someone else’s written work as one's own. Further, plagiarism defeats the
pedagogical goals of law school, which require each student to develop their
own understanding of the materials being studied. In order to graduate with an LLM d=
egree
from Chicago-Kent College of Law, you must do your own writing and receive
critique on your own work.
Your professor will use the following
definition, based on Louis Sirico's A
Primer on Plagiarism, in determining what constitutes plagiarism:
Plagiarism=
There are three ways in which
students may engage in plagiarism, on either a draft, a final paper or an
exam, including a take-home exam:
&nbs=
p;
(1) Quoting the words of another without a=
ttribution. <=
/span>
When using a quotation, cite=
the
source, and use ellipses, brackets, and quotation marks scrupulously to
indicate which words are your own and which are the words of another. Changing one or two words withi=
n a
sentence does not eliminate the need to use quotation marks. If one or two words are inserted or
omitted, use quotation marks, even if you have cited the source, and indica=
te
the addition or omission with brackets or ellipses. Even very brief quotations, such as t=
he key
words of a statute, should be placed in quotation marks when they are legal=
ly
significant.
Commentary:
(2) Paraphrasing the words of another with=
out
attribution.
When rewriting the words of
another, cite to the source. =
This
requirement is particularly important when you are relying on the work of
scholars in law review articles or treatises. When paraphrasing language fr=
om a
case, proper attribution will emphasize the weight and importance of the
idea. “ParaphrasingR=
21;
means more than changing one or two words; a proper paraphrase reproduces
the idea in substantially your own words and, again, always requires a cita=
tion.
(3)
Using the ideas of another without
attribution.
When using the ideas of a so=
urce,
provide an acknowledgment of the contribution made by that source to your o=
wn
work. Likewise, adopting the =
same
structure or analytical framework as a prior source will require
attribution. When the structu=
re or
substance of another's work may be considered a part of general legal
knowledge, however, it is debatable whether attribution is required. A good practice is to trace an ide=
a to
its original source and credit that source, while explaining how the idea h=
as
evolved since the original author expressed it. The general rule is always to e=
rr on
the side of giving credit.
(4) Taking the work of another student.
Students may not take the wo=
rk of
another student, either a current classmate or a student who took the class=
in
the past, and present it as their own.
* * * * * * *
§ 2.1(b) o=
f the
Code of Conduct prohibits giving, obtaining, or soliciting unauthorized
assistance or using unauthorized material in the preparation of material to=
be
submitted or presented in a class, law review assignment or competition, mo=
ot
court assignment or competition, client counseling competition, essay conte=
st
that the student is able to enter by virtue of being a law student, or simi=
lar
activity.
Commentary:
This section relates to unauthorized collaboration. Depending on the professor’s
instructions, it may be appropriate to exchange ideas or
"collaborate" with other class members. Indeed, students in some courses m=
ay be
assigned to work together on certain projects. Students are responsible for=
finding
out their individual professor’s policy regarding collaboration.
&nb=
sp;
* * * * * * *
§ 2.1(c) o=
f the
Code of Conduct prohibits knowingly or recklessly hiding or stealing library
material, or withdrawing books or materials from the library without proper=
ly
charging them out, or defacing books or materials.
Commentary:
This rule is generally self-explanatory. Students who engage in this
type of conduct are deliberately and unfairly interfering with the work of
others.
The term "library
materials" includes both print and on-line materials. Because Chicago-Kent is an educati=
onal
institution, it receives licenses from certain vendors of on-line data base=
s,
such as LEXIS and WestLaw, which permit Chicago-Kent students access to the
data bases as a part of the educational process. Students are not permitted to acce=
ss
these data bases for other than educational purposes. Students who work or volunteer par=
t time
outside of the law school may not use their student passwords to these serv=
ices
during the course of their outside activities.
* * * * * * *
§ 2.1(d) of the Code of Conduct prohi=
bits
violating any rule imposed by the instructor or exam proctor.
Commentary: From time to time, your professors=
may
impose additional rules. For
example, professors generally encourage students to use every means of rese=
arch
available, just as lawyers do in practice.=
On some occasions, however, additional limits may be appropriate; for
example, a professor may instruct students who are writing a brief on a pen=
ding
case not to consult either the briefs or the attorneys of record in that
case. To do so would constitu=
te a
violation of the Code of Conduct. When in doubt, clarify the rules with =
your
professor.
* * * * * * *
§ 2.1(l) o=
f the
Code of Conduct prohibits otherwise seeking to gain an unfair advantage over
another student.
Commentary: Any of the condu=
ct
described in the preceding provisions will also violate this "catchall=
"
provision. There are, however=
, a
number of respects in which other conduct might be deemed to violate this
specific provision.
First, professors are very
specific as to assignment due dates.
Law is a profession governed by strict deadlines. In practice, failure to comply wit=
h a
court filing deadline can have very serious effects on a client’s leg=
al
rights or a lawyer’s professional status. Accordingly, if a paper is handed =
in
after the time specified, it will be penalized one half grade per day. Thus, an “A” paper han=
ded in
after the time specified would receive at most an “A-.” A
“B” paper handed in more than 24 hours but 48 hours or less from
the due date would receive a “C+.” Attempting to circumvent the=
se
penalties by misrepresenting the time a paper has been handed in will be
considered an attempt to obtain an unfair advantage.
Extensions on due dates will=
be
granted only for the reasons courts generally grant extensions, such as a d=
eath
in the family, serious illness, or other circumstances that make a timely
submission impossible. As wit=
h a
court deadline, extensions must be requested in advance of the time the pap=
er
is due, if at all possible. Any
extension request that misrepresen=
ts the
reason for the request is an attempt to gain an unfair advantage over anoth=
er
student.
Second, attempting to evade =
page
limitations on papers through the use of fonts and margins other than those
specified by your writing professor is also an attempt to gain an unfair
advantage.
Third, some professors will =
grade
some or all of the papers anonymously. If your professor has asked that pap=
ers
be submitted anonymously, any attempt at either direct or indirect
identification constitutes an attempt to gain an unfair advantage.
Fourth, in some upper level
writing courses, such as seminars, students may choose their own topics for
assignments. In completing th=
ese
assignments, students should submit original work for each course. It is a violation of the Code of C=
onduct
to submit the same paper for credit in multiple courses.
Fifth, attempting to harass =
or
intimidate a professor into changing a grade may be viewed as an attempt to
gain an unfair advantage.
=
&nb=
sp;
&nbs=
p; =
We hope this memorandum clarifies some of =
the
questions you may have about how the Code of Conduct will apply to your stu=
dy
at Chicago-Kent College of Law. If
you have any other questions, please ask your professor, or Assistant Dean
Lydia Lazar.
CERTIFICATION AND DECLARATIO=
N OF
UNDERSTANDING
&=
nbsp; I,
(print your name here) =
&nb=
sp;
=
&nb=
sp; =
,
have received the five-page document entitled Ethics Guidelines for Chicago-Kent LLM Students. I understand that as a student in =
at
Chicago-Kent College of Law, I am subject to the Ethics Guidelines for Chicago-Kent LLM Students, as well as
Chicago-Kent’s Code of Conduct.
I understand:
" =
that the
Ethics Guidelines define plagia=
rism
and describe the proper techniques for paraphrasing and quoting others̵=
7;
words, ideas, and format;
"
"Ethics Guidelines and that these
sanctions may include receiving a failing grade for the course, suspension =
from
law school, a notation of an ethics violation on my law school transcript, =
or
dismissal from the law school and failure to earn the LLM Degree.
&=
nbsp; Finally,
I understand that I am responsible for knowing what is in the Ethics Guidelines and the Code of
Conduct, and that if I am unsure of the meaning of any of the provisions, o=
r if
I receive instructions that seem to contradict the provisions, I understand
that I am responsible for seeking clarification from my professor, or from =
Assistant
Dean Lydia Lazar.
___________________
&=
nbsp; ______________
Signature &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; =
Date
&nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; LLM Ethics Guidelines August 2005
LLM Ethics Guidelines August 2005