UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI SCHOOL OF LAW
STUDENT BODY ASSOCIATION HONOR COUNCIL

In the case of an Honor Code violation,
please contact one of the following members of the investigative committee:

Jessica Rawls (3L) 601-731-1490
Bradley Smith (2L) 770-307-7581
Allison Barrett (1L) 662-356-6158

The Honor Council is the enforcement body of the Honor Code. Members are elected to the Council in accordance with the Law School Student Body Constitution. Enrollment in the law school constitutes a student’s pledge that he or she will conduct himself or herself in accordance with the provisions of the Honor Code. The Honor Code is found in Article VIII of the Law School Student Body Constitution. The honor system allows students greater freedom in the pursuit of a profession, which is dependent upon the integrity of its members. The function of each student in implementing the Code is so important that the duty to report violations is considered as fully obligatory as is the duty to refrain from violations. Should a student be found guilty by the Honor Council of violating the Code, the Council will impose an appropriate penalty which may include dismissal, suspension or punishment of a lesser nature. Consistent with the law school’s responsibility to the profession and to the community, all sanctions resulting from Honor Code violations shall be noted on the official transcript of the student sanctioned and shall be available to bar officials.

MEET THE HONOR COUNCIL

VIEW HONOR COUNCIL DECISIONS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

HONOR CODE IN THE CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE VII

Section 1 Honor Council

1.1 The Honor Council shall implement the Honor Code, serve as the Judicial Branch of the Law School Student Government, and shall perform such other duties as are or may be set forth in this and other ARTICLES of this Constitution as amended from time to time.

1.2 The Honor Council shall conduct an orientation for each incoming Freshman Class as regards the Honor Code to be conducted at the beginning of the Summer Session and again at the beginning of the Fall Semester.

1.3 The Honor Council is hereby empowered to adopt such rules of procedure as are or may be deemed necessary within the principles of this Constitution.

Section 2 Composition

2.1 The Honor Council shall be composed of a Chair and eight (8) student members plus a member of the faculty appointed by the Dean.

2.3 The Chair of the Honor Council shall be elected at the end of the Spring Semester each year and shall serve a term of one (1) year or until he or she ceases to be a regular student, if such event occurs before expiration of one (1) year.

2.4 Should a vacancy occur, the un-expired term shall be filled in accordance with ARTICLE II, Section 5, of this Constitution.

2.5 The faculty member of the Honor Council shall be appointed at the sole discretion of the Dean and shall serve so long as the Dean shall direct. Except as noted to the contrary in this ARTICLE, the faculty member shall be a full voting member of the Honor Council and shall participate in the proceedings and deliberations of the Honor Council like student members. In the event that the faculty member is disqualified from participation in a particular proceeding under Section 4.14 of this ARTICLE, the Dean may appoint a substitute faculty member to serve in place of the disqualified faculty member for purposes of such proceeding.

2.6 One (1) student member of the Honor Council shall be designated by the Chair as the Secretary. The Secretary shall have responsibility for the record-keeping function of the Honor Council, which shall include maintaining an appropriate permanent record, according to the rules of the Honor Council, of all charges investigated and brought, witnesses giving testimony or submitting statements and counsel and representatives involved. The Secretary shall also have the responsibility for, and oversee, the recording or stenographic transcription of the proceedings in accordance with this ARTICLE and the handling, sealing and destruction of such recordings and transcriptions when required in accordance with this ARTICLE.

Section 3 Honor Council Investigating Committee

3.1 The Chair of the Honor Council shall designate three (3) members at the beginning of the Fall, Spring, and Summer terms, one (1) from the Freshman class, one (1) from the Junior class, and one (1) from the Senior class, to serve as the Honor Council Investigating Committee. The names of the members and their telephone numbers shall be posted. The Investigative Committee designated for the Summer Term shall continue to serve until a new Investigative Committee has been designated for the Fall/Spring Term.

3.2 Alleged violations of the Honor Code and other offenses shall be reported to a member of the Investigating Committee.

3.3 The Investigative Committee shall cause an investigation to be made into the alleged violation or offense. The Investigative Committee shall, in writing, notify the student accused of a violation that an investigation is being conducted. This notice shall inform the student of the allegations and shall state that the investigation will be conducted with the utmost discretion and confidentiality. A copy of this notice shall be given to the Chair of the Honor Council, the Dean, and to the member of the law school faculty who sits on the Honor Council.

3.4 Upon completion of the investigation, the members of the Investigating Committee shall meet in private to evaluate the information they have gathered and determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a violation of the Honor Code has occurred. This meeting is not to be conducted like a trial-type proceeding. Charges shall be submitted to the Chair for hearing by the Honor Council upon a majority votes of Investigating Committee members that such probable cause exists. Absent unusual circumstances, the Investigative Committee should strive to complete the investigation and probable cause hearing within two (2) weeks of notification of an alleged violation.

3.5 Upon a finding of probable cause the Investigative Committee should turn over the case to the Attorney General. The Attorney General and the Honor Council Chair shall schedule a hearing within thirty (30) days of issuance the case in accordance with Section 4.2 of this ARTICLE.

3.6 If the members of the Investigating Committee find that there is not probable cause of an Honor Code violation, the Investigating Committee shall so report to the Chair. The Chair shall promptly notify, in writing, the accused student, the Dean, and the member of the faculty on the Council, that no probable cause was found to suspect that a violation of the Honor Code occurred.

3.7 Neither the Investigating Committee nor the Attorney General shall disclose any of the matters which transpired before them, and they shall conduct their affairs with the utmost discretion and confidentiality.

Section 4 Honor Board

4.1 The Honor Board shall consist of the Chair and those members (student and faculty) not serving on the Investigating Committee. The Attorney General will present the case.

4.2 Upon receipt of charges from the Investigating Committee, the Chair shall notify the accused of his or her rights and of the date, time and place for the hearing. The hearing shall take place no less than five (5) working (academic) days from the date the accused receives notice of the charges and the hearing. The Chair, upon reasonable request from the accused, shall grant a continuance and reschedule the hearing for a mutually convenient time and, absent unusual circumstances, no more than ten (10) working (academic) days from the date the accused receives notice.

4.3 Notice to the accused shall also contain a statement of the specific charge(s) and the grounds which, if proven, would justify punishment under the Honor system. The Chair also shall present to the accused any statements of the interested parties and witnesses submitted by the Attorney General.

4.4 On the designated day the Honor Board shall conduct an evidentiary hearing presided over by the Chair. The evidentiary hearing shall be closed unless the accused requests in writing that it be open.

4.5 During the evidentiary hearing, the accused and witnesses shall be called to testify and shall be questioned by the Honor Board and the Attorney General. Similarly, the accused may call witnesses and examine them as well as cross-examine witnesses called by the Attorney General. The accused and the Attorney General have the right to make opening and closing statements and to present oral argument. The accused may, at his or her own expense, be represented by an attorney or another representative during any questioning of the accused by the Investigating Committee during the evidentiary hearing before the Honor Board and throughout the academic disciplinary process, including appeals. The attorney's or representative's role is, however, advisory only. He or she will not be permitted to make opening and closing statements, present arguments, question witnesses, or otherwise speak on behalf of or advocate for the accused. Neither the accused nor his or her attorney or representative, shall have any right to be present during deliberations by the Investigating Committee, Honor Board or other body. The evidentiary hearing before the Honor Board shall be recorded.

4.6 Upon completion of the evidentiary hearing before the Honor Board, the Honor Board shall retire in closed sessions to consider the guilt or innocence of the accused. The Attorney General is not allowed to participate in these deliberations nor shall he or she be entitled to vote. The Honor Board shall then vote. Except as provided in Section 4.14 with respect to disqualified members, a guilty verdict shall be found by the seven (7) voting members of the Honor Board upon a vote of at least six (6) to one (1). The burden of proof shall be clear and convincing evidence. This burden will rest with the Attorney General and shall not shift to the accused at any time.

4.7 Should a guilty verdict be rendered, the Honor Board shall then determine the appropriate punishment, which shall be based upon a majority vote of the participating Honor Board members.

4.8 The accused shall be notified of the Honor Board's findings as soon as possible after the Board reaches the decisions on guilt or innocence and the penalty under sections 4.6 and 4.7. In any event, a written decision shall be given to the accused student within five (5) academic days of the completion of hearing. The written decision shall contain findings of fact and conclusions and explain the basis for the Honor Board's actions including the Board's penalty or sanction. A copy of the written decision shall be given to the Dean and to the instructor for the course in which the violation occurred as well as to the accused student. The written decision shall be further published into the judicial opinions of the Honor Board in accordance with section 7.2 of this ARTICLE. The Honor Board may, of its own accord and in the interest of justice, grant a new hearing.

4.9 Should the accused be found innocent, the tape(s) and any transcript(s) of the hearing shall be destroyed.

4.10 Should the accused be found guilty, the Chair shall seal and deliver the tape(s) and any transcription(s) of the hearing to the office of the Dean of the law school. The tape(s) and any transcription(s) shall not be opened except in the event of a re-hearing and except for necessary examination by the Dean in the event of an appeal to the Dean by the accused. The tape(s) and any transcription(s) may, of course, be opened for the inspection and reproduction by the accused in the event he or she appeals the Honor Board's decision to the Dean and the Honor Board Review Committee. Similarly, the accused may, at his or her expense, have a transcript of the hearing prepared from the tape(s) or other record of the hearing.

4.11 The accused may appeal the decision of the Honor Board to the Dean of the Law School for review by the Honor Board Review Committee. The appeal must be filed with the Dean within ten (10) working days of the accused's receipt of the Honor Board's written decision. This appeal is on the record. It is not a de novo proceeding and the accused and his or her counsel or representative do not have the right to present additional evidence or oral argument to the Dean and the Honor Board Review Committee, but may present in writing the specific reasons for appeal.

4.12 In the event of an appeal by the accused, the Dean promptly shall have the Honor Board Review Committee review the record of the Honor Board's hearing and render a written decision affirming, modifying or reversing the Honor Board's action, including the Board's recommendation of the penalty or sanction. The Honor Board Review Committee is composed of members of the faculty appointed by the Dean. The Review Committee also has the authority to remand the matter to the Honor Board for a rehearing or for additional proceedings. The Dean shall adopt the Honor Board Review Committee's decision.

4.13 The decision of the Honor Board Review Committee and the Dean is final except in cases in which the penalty is dismissal or suspension. In those cases the accused may, in writing, seek review from the Chancellor within five (5) working days of his or her receipt of the Dean's and the Honor Board Review Committee's written decision. If the accused desires to appeal to the Chancellor's decision in cases involving dismissal or suspension, he or she may request a review of his or her case by the Mississippi Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning by submitting a written application for review to the Board within thirty (30) days of his or her receipt of the Chancellor's written decision. Such appeal will be in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Board.

A member of the Honor Council shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which such member an impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:

He or she has a personal bias or prejudice concerning the accused, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; or

He or she or his or her spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship (calculated according to the civil law system) to either of them, or the spouse of such person:
is the accused;
is acting as a lawyer or representative in the proceeding;
is known by the member to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; or
is to the member's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

A member who disqualifies himself or herself shall not participate in proceedings after such disqualification and shall not vote on findings of probable cause or guilt. The quorum and affirmative voting requirements for a finding of guilt shall be reduced by one (1) for each disqualified member on the Honor Board (unless, in the case of a disqualified faculty member, the Dean has appointed a substitute member as provided in the ARTICLE). In the event of recusal or disqualification of a member of the Honor Board, the following voting requirements for a finding of guilt shall be used:
6 members = at least 5 to 1
5 members = at least 4 to 1
4 members = at least 3 to 1
3 members = unanimous
2 members = unanimous

4.15 The Honor Board shall use its best efforts to resolve charges brought in a reasonably expedient and timely manner. A reasonably expedient and timely manner shall not require the Honor Board to assemble, meet or deliberate during the break following Fall Semester or any vacation period during the regular school year. Charges which rise during the last part of the Spring Semester will be handled by the regular academic year Honor Council until the Summer Term Honor Council is elected.

Section 5 Honor Code

5.1 Nature and Purpose: The purpose of the honor system is to allow the students the greatest possible freedom in the pursuit of their studies without the necessity of supervision or proctoring by the faculty. Its further purpose is to develop to the utmost the highest possible professional standards of honesty, dependability and absolute integrity in all matters pertaining to the law and to legal studies.

5.2 Enrollment in the law school constitutes a student's pledge that he or she will in all matters conduct himself or herself in accord with the provisions herein stated.

5.3 Violations

(a) Expectation of Honesty and Fairness: Honesty and fairness must be essential elements of the academic environment of the Law School. If either principle is diminished, the academic experience is devalued. In addition, it is important to understand that applications for employment and professional licensing often require the applicant to state whether he or she has been found guilty of academic dishonesty. Accordingly, academic dishonesty in all forms is taken seriously at the law school. Every member of the law school student body is charged, therefore, with upholding high standards of honesty and fairness in all academic matters. Any action which is contrary to these standards is subject to academic discipline, as are actions which are harmful to the facilities that support the academic environment. Mutual respect and fairness are the basis of the instructor-student relationship at the Law School. This Section outlines conduct which is clearly in violation of standards of honesty and fairness or which purposefully damages the academic environment.

(b) Examples of Conduct Subject to Academic Discipline:

Representing someone else's work as your own; collaboration outside assistance. Plagiarism takes place when published material is copied verbatim or paraphrased without citing the source of the material. But plagiarism is not limited to copying published material. A student who copies another's homework, copies answers to test questions, or allows someone else to do work for him or her on homework or tests also violates the standards of honesty and fairness and is subject to academic discipline. A student who misrepresents the work of another as his or her own by handing in a paper purchased from a term paper service or using a paper prepared by another, or who engages another person to take a test in his or her stead, is subject to academic discipline. It is the responsibility of each student to consult applicable Law School policy statements, administrators, faculty and other knowledgeable sources in order to clarify whether particular conduct would violate the prohibition on plagiarism. A key presumption of the honor system is that examinations and other work product submitted to an instructor by a student reflect such student's individual effort. Consequently, collaboration or assistance from others on examinations or other work product submitted to an instructor is prohibited under the Honor Code unless the instructor has specifically instructed that such collaboration or assistance is permitted with respect to the examination or other submissions in question. It is the responsibility of each student to seek clarification from his or her instructor regarding the permissibility of collaborative efforts or assistance from others.

Knowingly allowing someone else to represent your work as his or her own. In the violations described in the preceding two (2) paragraphs there are clearly at least two (2) persons involved: the person who does the work and the person who falsely represents that work as his or her own. A person who knowingly assists another person in falsely representing work is also subject to academic discipline. The same is true of a person who knowingly collaborates with or assists another where such collaborations or assistance is impermissible.

Gaining or attempting to gain an unfair advantage. Violations of the Law School's standards of honesty include cheating in any form, including possession of or an attempt to gain possession of a test prior to its being given. An attempt to gain possession does not imply that one must physically have an original of the test or assignment. Other violations include, but are not limited to, accessing computer files, breaking or entering a locked or unoccupied office in an attempt to 'jam an unfair advantage'; using reference materials which have not been allowed by the instructor; using handwritten or printed notes during a "closed book/closed notes" test; stealing or hiding books or other materials from or in the library or other facilities; removing pages from library books or journals; and/or employing bribery, intimidation or harassment in an attempt to gain unfair advantage.

Giving false information or altering documents. Falsely attesting that work has been done when it has not been, falsely attesting that functions or classes were attended, falsely attesting about the reasons for absences or tardiness, and altering answers to test questions after the tests have been granted and returned are examples of giving false information. Altering grade report forms or changing grade forms or class rolls, either in their physical or electronic (computer file) form, and altering, falsifying or misusing any other Law School documents also constitutes a violation of expected standards of honesty.

Disruptive behavior. Disorderly behavior which disrupts the academic environment violates the standard of fair access to the academic experience. Some examples of disruptive behavior are purposeful acts such as "shouting down" a seminar speaker, physically or verbally harassing an instructor or fellow student, or engaging in any type of disruptive behavior in a class situation which interferes with the ability of the professor to teach or other students to learn.

Harm to the facilities that support the academic environment. A student who purposefully harms the facilities that support the academic environment may be subject to academic discipline. Damage to books, equipment, computers and other facilities violates the standard of fair access to the academic experience.

Violations Are Not Limited to the Areas and Examples Given. The academic discipline procedure can be invoked whenever the principles of honesty and fairness are violated and/or the facilities that support the academic environment harmed. The examples given above are illustrative only (it is impossible to delineate or cite every possible violation), and any act which violates the principles of honesty and fairness or harms the academic environment may be subjected to academic discipline. For example, some acts, such as sabotage of another student's work or sabotage of an instructor's record, may not fall neatly into any one (1) of the areas listed above but are subject to academic discipline if they damage the academic environment.

5.4 Duty to Report Violation: When a student has a good reason to believe another student is guilty of a violation of the Honor Code, he or she shall inform a member of the Investigating Committee. So important is the function of the student in implementing the Honor Code that his or her duty of reporting violations is considered as fully obligatory on the student as is the duty to refrain from violations of the Code.

5.5 Penalties: Should a student be found guilty by the Honor Board of violating the Honor Code, the Board shall impose an appropriate penalty, which may include dismissal, suspension or punishment of a lesser nature. Consistent with the Law School's responsibility to the profession and to the community, all sanctions resulting from Honor Code violations shall be noted on the official transcript of the student sanctioned and shall be made available to bar officials.

5.6 The Honor Council shall have no authority to set grades. Grades shall be the exclusive domain of the faculty, and review of grades shall be via the grade appeal procedure in effect at the time. Students should be aware that assignment of an accused student's grade will generally be delayed until disposition of an Honor Council proceeding.

Section 6 Impeachment

6.1 The Honor Council is hereby empowered to conduct impeachment hearings.

6.2 Student Body Officers: Upon receipt of a written complaint, signed by one-fourth of the Student Body, the Honor Board shall conduct an open hearing with regard to the complaint.

6.3 Class Officers: Upon receipt of a written complaint, signed by one-fourth of the Student Body, the Honor Board shall conduct an open hearing with regard to the complaint.

6.4 Upon a showing of dereliction of duty, incompetency, or other discrepancies that disqualify the Officer from any further service, the Honor Board may, by two-thirds vote, impeach the officer.

6.5 Upon Impeachment of the Officer, the Honor Board shall direct the vacant Office to be filled within seven (7) days, in accordance with ARTICLE II, Section 5, of this Constitution.

Section 7 Constitutional Question

7.1 The Honor Council shall have jurisdiction over any dispute arising under this Constitution.

7.2 Periodically, the Honor Council shall offer judicial opinions regarding the interpretation of the Honor Code. These opinions shall act as a common law body of precedent and serve as an interpretive guide for future decisions of the Honor Council.

7.3 The Honor Council shall document its judicial opinions, and make these opinions available to the student body for viewing. These judicial opinions shall protect the confidentiality of all parties involved.

7.4 To initiate a complaint, a written petition, stating the complaint and signed by one-fourth of the Student Body, shall be delivered to the Chairman of the Honor Council, who shall set a date for a hearing. At this hearing, all interested parties will be given the opportunity to voice their respective opinions. After hearing all opinions, evidence and other relevant testimony, the Honor Board in closed hearings, will review the complaint along with all relevant testimony and by Constitutional interpretation shall settle the dispute. . A majority vote of those Board members present will be final.