Skip to main content

ABA Required Disclosures

Please find below links to ABA Standard 509 Consumer Information.

The following information is provided to ensure accessibility and transparency of information about the law school. The College’s accreditors, the American Bar Association (ABA) and WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC), require that certain information be made easily available on a public website. It is always the school’s goal to make data accessible to our constituencies, so we maintain this page as a landing page for many pieces of key information that may be available on other pages of the website. If you have any questions about this page or the information contained or referenced on it, please do not hesitate to contact the Director of Accreditation & Assessment, Andrea Bing, at wellesan@uchastings.edu or (415) 565-4733.

ABA Standard 509 Information Reports

Bar Passage Rates

For more information on Bar Requirements and Resources, UC Law SF students should consult the Bar Passage Support Page on the Intranet.

General Information

History

Founded in 1878 by Serranus Clinton Hastings, the first Chief Justice of California, the University of California, Hastings College of the Law was California’s first law school and has been at the center of the legal community in the West for more than 120 years. On January 1, 2023 the College changed its name to the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco.

Mission

UC Law SF serves society as a center of higher learning committed to exceptional teaching, influential scholarship, and exemplary public service. We provide a rigorous, innovative, and inclusive legal education that prepares diverse students to excel as professionals, advance the rule of law, and further justice.

J.D. Program Learning Outcomes

  1. Doctrinal and Substantive Knowledge
: Students will be able to identify, explain, and employ basic concepts, theories, procedures, and rules of law in both core legal areas and in their own chosen area(s) of specialization.
  2. Problem Solving and Critical Thinking: Students will be able to analyze, assess, and form independent judgments on a variety of legal issues, and will use these skills to solve client legal problems.
  3. Practical and Communication Skills: Students will be able to gather and analyze evidence, communicate effectively in appropriate written and oral formats with a multiplicity of audiences, and demonstrate other professional skills.
  4. Research Skills: Students will be able to independently retrieve, organize, analyze and evaluate paper and electronic legal and interdisciplinary sources, and differentiate between the types and relevance of authorities.
  5. Professionalism: Students will demonstrate the professional skills necessary for effective and ethical participation in the legal profession.
  6. Public Service: Students will be able to describe the roles and responsibilities of lawyers in overcoming obstacles to legal access and in promoting social justice.

Admissions FAQ

How we evaluate applications

Annual Fees

(2017-18 through 2022-23)


Academic Year

2017-18

2018-19

2019-20

2020-21

2021-22
 
2022-23
 
Resident Tuition/Fees*

$44,326

 $44,326

$44,480

$44,628

$44,728

$46,034
 
Non-Resident Tuition/Fees

$50,326

 $50,326
 
$50,480

$50,628

$50,628

$52,454
 
Estimated Living Expenses (9 months)

$26,508

$26,508

$26,508

$29,662

$29,662

$29,662

*Includes Enrollment Fee, Activity Fee, and Health Services Fee. Does not include UCSHIP Insurance Premium, which can be waived.

For more detailed and current information visit our Tuition and Fees page.

UC Law SF Board of Directors

UC Law SF Faculty

Employment Outcomes

Find employment statistics 

Credit Hour Policy:

  • UC Law SF follows the ABA policy on credit hours (see Standard 310).
  • The relevant Standard and Interpretations are below:

Standard 310. DETERMINATION OF CREDIT HOURS FOR COURSEWORK

(a) A law school shall adopt, publish, and adhere to written policies and procedures for determining the credit hours that it awards for coursework.

(b) A “credit hour” is an amount of work that reasonably approximates:

(1) not less than one hour of classroom or direct faculty instruction and two hours of out-of-class student work per week for fifteen weeks, or the equivalent amount of work over a different amount of time; or

(2) at least an equivalent amount of work as required in subparagraph (1) of this definition for other academic activities as established by the institution, including simulation, field placement, clinical, co-curricular, and other academic work leading to the award of credit hours.

Interpretation 310-1

Based on the fifty minutes of classroom or direct faculty instruction and two hours of out-of-class student work per week over the fifteen-week (or its equivalent) period required by the Standard, at least 42.5 hours of total in-class instruction and out-of-class student work is required per credit [15 x 50 minutes + 15 x 2 hours]. Time devoted to taking a required final examination may count toward the in-class time required, and time devoted to studying for a required final examination may count toward the out-of-class time required. However, merely scheduling a general “exam week” or “exam weeks” does not permit allocating “exam time” to every class. In order to count time spent studying for and taking a final examination, an exam of appropriate length must be required for the particular class.

Interpretation 310-2

A school may award credit hours for coursework that extends over any period of time, if the coursework entails no less than the minimum total amounts of classroom or direct faculty instruction and of out-of-class student work (42.5 hours) specified in Standard 310(b).

Transfer of Credit Policy:

Policies on the acceptance of transfer credits are outlined in the Academic Regulations and can be found on the following page on Visiting Another Law School.

Application requirements can be found on the Transfer Student page.

UC Law SF has articulation, exchange, 3+3, or concurrent degree agreements with different institutions for the following programs:

Concurrent degrees with:

  • UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business (Concurrent JD/MBA)
  • Presidio Graduate School (Concurrent JD/MBA)
  • UC Davis Graduate School of Management (Concurrent JD/MBA in the process of being formalized/approved)

Exchange Programs with:

  • Vermont Law School
  • Austral University
  • University of New South Wales
  • Peking University Law School
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University, KoGuan Law School
  • University of Copenhagen
  • Bucerius Law School
  • Freie University
  • Central European University
  • Tel Aviv University
  • Bocconi University
  • The International University College of Turin
  • Waseda University
  • Hitotsubashi University
  • Leiden University
  • Instituto de Empresa Law School
  • The School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)

Concurrent JD/LLM Programs

  • University Paris II
  • The School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)

Library Resources:

Accreditation

The University of California College of the Law, San Francisco is an American Bar Association-approved law school and is accredited by the Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. UC Law SF is also a member of The Association of American Law Schools. Contact information is listed below.

American Bar Association (ABA):
Office of the Consultant on Legal Education /
Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar
321 N. Clark Street, 21st Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 312.988.6738
Fax: 312.988.5681
legaled@americanbar.org

WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC):
WASC Senior College and University Commission
985 Atlantic Avenue, #100
Alameda, CA 94501
Phone: 510.748.9001
Fax: 510.748.9797
Send a Message

The Association of American Law Schools (AALS):
Association of American Law Schools
1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20036-2717
Phone: 202.296.8851
Fax: 202.296.8869   
aals@aals.org

Contact Andrea Bing, Director of Accreditation and Assessment if you have questions.

Complaint Process

The University of California College of the Law, San Francisco takes very seriously complaints and concerns regarding the institution. Most complaints should be resolved at the campus level.

The Student Complaints and Grievances Procedures outlines the process for a student to file a grievance against a specific person or department at UC Law SF. The nature of the complaint determines to whom the complaint should be made.

Consult our Harassment and Discrimination Reporting Procedures page for more information with regards to harassment prevention and the complaint process.

If your complaint regarding UC Law SF has not been resolved at the campus level, you may present your complaint as follows:

1. If your complaint is associated with the institution’s compliance with academic program quality and accrediting standards you may file a complaint with WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC), the regional agency that accredits UC Law SF’s academic programs, or with the American Bar Association.

A. To file a complaint with WSCUC, go to http://www.wascsenior.org/comments.

B. To file a formal complaint that the Law School is not in Compliance with American Bar Association (ABA) Standards, please use the following process:

  1. A Student who wishes to assert that the College is not in compliance with one or more ABA Standards should file a written complaint with the Academic Dean, specifying the College’s alleged failure to comply and citing to the specific ABA Standard or Standards at issue.
    • The complaint may be submitted by email, US Mail, or personal delivery.
    • The complaint should include the Student’s contact information to facilitate further communication.
    • The absence of contact information may prevent a thorough investigation and/or resolution of the matter. When contact information is available, the Academic Dean shall acknowledge receipt of the complaint within 5 business days.
  2. The Academic Dean shall investigate the alleged failure to comply with the ABA Standard and provide the Student with a written response within 30 calendar days of receipt of the assertion. The written response shall provide a substantive response to the complaint, describing the steps taken to investigate.
  3. If the complaint is found to be valid, the written response shall include steps to be taken or already taken to address a failure to comply.
  4. If the Student is dissatisfied with the Academic Dean’s response to or resolution of the complaint, the Student may file a written appeal with the Dean. The appeal must be filed within 30 calendar days of the Academic Dean’s response.
  5. The Dean shall either affirm or reverse, in whole or in part, the Academic Dean’s determination. The Dean’s response will be communicated to the Student within 30 calendar days of receipt of the appeal. The Dean’s decision shall be final.
  6. The College shall maintain a record of each complaint and its resolution in the Academic Dean’s office for a period of 8 years from the date of final resolution of the complaint.

2. For all other complaints about UC Law SF that are not about compliance with academic program quality and accrediting standards, you may file a complaint:

a. At this website: https://secure.ethicspoint.com/domain/media/en/gui/23531/index.html.  Your complaint will be conveyed to appropriate college officials and may be shared with other relevant parties.

b. To the State Attorney General by contacting the Public Inquiry Unit of the California State Department of Justice using on‐line forms available at:

*UC Law SF has provided this disclosure to you in compliance with the requirements of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, as regulated in CFR 34, Sections 600.9 (b) (3) and 668.43(b).

Academic Freedom

Adopted by the Faculty Executive Committee in 2011;
Updated and Approved by the Faculty on April 26, 2023

Preamble

Recognizing that robust First Amendment principles in the United States Constitution and corresponding provisions in the California Constitution bind UC Law SF, as a public institution, and, moreover, that the free exchange of ideas is essential to a free society;

Considering the UC Law SF Faculty Executive Committee’s endorsement in 2011 of the American Association of University Professors’ Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure (1940);

Recognizing also that institutions of higher education may experience pressure from private donors and public funders to exclude, or to amplify, particular viewpoints;

Believing that individual faculty members should be able to engage in teaching (including the selection of clinical projects and clients), scholarly research, and public engagement without fear of institutional sanction or retribution for expressing or eliciting viewpoints that others disagree with;

Noting the particular vulnerability of pre-tenure, contract, and adjunct faculty and the need to ensure that these vital contributors to the mission of UC Law SF can speak, teach, and research freely;

Affirming that the Code of Faculty Rights and Responsibilities (Faculty Code), as enacted by the Faculty on May 4, 1992, and amended most recently by the Faculty on April 13, 2018 (Document VI of the Faculty Rules and Procedures), sets out core professional rights of faculty essential to the preservation of academic freedom at the law school, including, but not limited to, free inquiry and exchange of ideas;

Affirming also that the Faculty Code also sets out faculty responsibilities and standards for assessing and addressing unacceptable or incompetent conduct;

Underscoring that the Faculty Code not only directs UC Law SF to refrain from interfering in the core professional rights of faculty, but also places an affirmative duty on UC Law SF, in support of its central function as an institution of higher learning, to proactively protect and encourage the faculty in their teaching (including the selection of clinical projects and clients), scholarly research, and public engagement by preserving such professional rights;

Emphasizing that this affirmative duty requires UC Law SF to ensure that rights enumerated in the Code are protected in practice, so that faculty may provide a forum for, and express, a full spectrum of ideas and viewpoints in the classroom and in their research;

The UC Law SF Faculty affirms the following guiding principles for the promotion and protection of academic freedom:

Purpose

1.1 The faculty of UC Law SF is committed to the principle that the pursuit of knowledge and the free expression of a full spectrum of ideas and viewpoints is at the heart of the academic mission, whether in the context of research and scholarship, in the classroom (including the selection of clinical projects and clients), and in faculty contributions to public discourse.

1.2 The principles of academic freedom protect the faculty’s freedom of inquiry and research, freedom of teaching (which, at a law school, includes the selection of clinical projects and clients), and freedom of expression and publication. These freedoms enable the faculty to advance knowledge and to transmit it effectively to students and to the public.

1.3 The faculty also seeks to foster in our students a mature independence of mind, and the ability to understand, analyze, and debate positions that may differ from their own. This purpose cannot be achieved unless faculty are free to express and to elicit a full spectrum of ideas and viewpoints, consistent with their rights, standards of scholarly inquiry, and professional ethics. The law school has a special responsibility to equip the next generation of legal professionals with analytical, advocacy, and communication skills crucial to their professional success. When members of the academic community are fearful of expressing or engaging with ideas, the law school cannot advance this mission.

1.4 Learning to engage in dialogue concerning a full spectrum of ideas and viewpointsis a developmental skill that faculty should be committed to teaching and improving.Faculty should strive both to cultivate and to model these skills.

Promoting and Protecting the Free Exchange of Ideas

2.1 Academic freedom and freedom of expression are at the heart of the law school’s mission as an institution of higher learning. The goal of education, and especially legal education, is to develop a broad and deep understanding of, and ability to engage on the merits with, a full spectrum of ideas and viewpoints. Vigorous disagreement provides opportunities for us to more effectively articulate, defend, and reflect on our own positions.

2.2 Academic freedom is especially important when the ideas or viewpoints are controversial or unpopular, as orthodox or popular ideas need no protection. It is not appropriate for a law school to prevent or punish the expression of ideas and viewpoints on the grounds that they are controversial, disagreeable, or even offensive.

2.3 Members of the academic community should aspire to civil discourse and to good faith reflection on the different views of others. However, this aspiration may not operate in practice as a restraint on academic freedom and expression, or as a requirement that any faculty member endorse, amplify, or include any particular view.

2.4 The Faculty Code sets out the core professional rights of faculty essential to the preservation of academic freedom at the law school, including, but not limited to, free inquiry and exchange of ideas; the right to present controversial material relevant to a course of instruction; the enjoyment of constitutionally protected freedom of expression; and the right to be judged by one’s colleagues, in matters of promotion, tenure, and discipline, solely on the basis of the faculty member’s professional qualifications and professional conduct and in accordance with fair procedures.

2.5 With the rights and privileges of academic freedom come corresponding responsibilities, as defined in the Faculty Code. Members of the faculty must also comply with legal obligations to refrain from discrimination and harassment.

Freedom from Interference

3.1 The law school may not use assessments of or discipline for incompetence or other unacceptable conduct as a pretext for interfering with, limiting, or sanctioning a faculty member’s exercise of academic freedom or freedom of expression. No provision of the Faculty Code or other law school policy should be interpreted or applied in order to interfere with, limit, or sanction an individual faculty member or academic appointee’s freedom of expression if that expression is legitimately related to that faculty member’s course content, teaching, scholarship, or contributions to public discourse.

3.2 No person or organization outside the academic community shall be permitted to dictate which ideas or projects may be taught, explored, expressed, supported, or endorsed by UC Law SF.

3.3 The law school should recognize that access to institutional resources and opportunities for professional development could be granted or denied in an inappropriate manner that chills academic freedom and freedom of expression. Law school administrators, in exercising their discretion to distribute law school resources and opportunities for professional advancement (including but not limited to salary increases; faculty development funds; research and case management stipends; sabbaticals; new or continued funding for centers, clinics, and similar programs; the renewal or extension of contracts; administrative roles for faculty; or other generally available resources or opportunities), should base their decisions solely on a faculty member’s professional qualifications and performance and, where applicable, the professional merits of the faculty member’s proposal. The law school may not use such assessments, or the related distribution of law school resources and opportunities, to interfere with, limit, or sanction a faculty member’s exercise of academic freedom or freedom of expression.

3.4 Nothing in Sections 3.2 or 3.3 is meant to preclude access to external project or topic-based contributions, grants, or other awards, including third-party sponsored research, subject-specific chairs, or external donations to law school centers or programs with specific missions.

3.5 Members of the academic community have a responsibility to exercise independent judgment on academic decisions free from interference. Other members of the academic community should endeavor to protect the right of fellow members to make such independent judgments based on the standards of the profession.

Non-Endorsement and Institutional Expression

4.1 The comments or opinions expressed by speakers at events held on the UC Law SF campus are the speakers’ own and should not be taken as a statement, opinion, position, or endorsement by UC Law SF.

4.2 The comments or opinions expressed by UC Law SF faculty or other employees engaged in teaching, research, or scholarship, whether in publications, courses, or public fora, are their own and should not be taken as a statement, opinion, position, or endorsement by UC Law SF.

4.3 Administrators, and faculty in administrative positions, occasionally speak on behalf of the law school and to the law school community. The faculty encourages administrators to remain mindful that the endorsement of particular viewpoints on matters not directly related to the business of the law school may convey that there is only one acceptable viewpoint on such matters. This can have a chilling effect on academic freedom and on the expression of a full spectrum of ideas and viewpoints within the academic community.

In an age where public funding of universities has diminished vastly, it becomes acutely important to ensure that the influence of money not be permitted to dictate academic decisions.  Private donors may, of course, give or withhold gifts as they see fit, but members of the academic community have a responsibility to exercise independent judgment on academic decisions, and it is further the responsibility of other members of the community to protect the right of fellow members to make such independent judgments.