Contact: Alta Levat, 212.431.2325, alevat@nyls.edu

May 5, 2003

By Dean Richard A. Matasar

Truth matters. Those charged are innocent until proven guilty. Contracts must be respected.

These principles were tested over the last several months while the New York Law School community was derided in the tabloid press over issues that led to the resignation of Edward Samuels from the faculty.

I would like to take this opportunity to address three important questions that I have been asked since this matter arose. First, why did the law school refrain from public comment in the face of negative tabloid coverage of these events? Second, why didn't the law school immediately dismiss Professor Samuels once he was charged? Third, did Collegis, an outside independent company that provides information technology services to the law school, fire the two computer technicians because of their involvement in the Samuels case?

Why has the law school refrained from public comment?

The answer to this question is straightforward and principled, resting on the law school's rules and the norms of the legal profession. New York Law School's tenure policies precluded us from making public statements while Professor Samuels' status at the law school was being determined. With Professor Samuels' resignation, I am free to address some of the distortions of fact reported by the media about our response to his case.

With regard to the civil lawsuit filed by the two former employees of Collegis, New York Law School did not comment out of respect for the civil justice process, which requires that we refrain from talking to the press about matters pending in court. Because the plaintiffs chosen to play their case to the press, however, I feel it is necessary to correct their false statements.

Why wasn't Professor Samuels immediately dismissed when he was charged with possession of child pornography?

Professor Samuels was a tenured member of the faculty. As at most academic institutions, tenure at New York Law School is not a mere label or courtesy; tenure is a contract between the law school and its faculty. Tenure here cannot be unilaterally rescinded, for any reason. Our contracts provide due   process before a faculty member can be stripped of tenure. The rule is that tenure, once granted, cannot be arbitrarily removed and that evidence, not conjecture, is required to do so.

The law school first became aware of the existence of potentially prohibited materials on Professor Samuels' law school computer on June 3, 2002. A technician employed by Collegis, Inc. found, while he was servicing Professor Samuels' computer, what he believed to be inappropriate material-what appeared to be some 30 pictures of unclothed children in suggestive poses. This fact was reported to the Collegis supervisor on site, who in turn reported it to a law school administrator and explained to him the circumstances under which the material was discovered.

Press reports of thousands of images on Professor Samuels' computer give the impression that they were discovered at the law school. This is false. Those thousands of images were discovered much later after police executed a search warrant at Professor Samuels' home and confiscated his computer.

Immediately after being contacted by the Collegis supervisor the law school determined what its obligations were. After consulting with outside counsel, the administration concluded that the pictures should be reported to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office so that the experts in that office could determine if the pictures were unlawful.

After several preliminary contacts with the District Attorney's Office, the law school turned over Professor Samuels' computer to them and thereafter cooperated fully in the investigation.

The District Attorney's Office requested that the law school maintain confidentiality so as not to interfere with its investigation. Accordingly, the law school did not disclose its contact with the District Attorney's Office nor the fact that it had turned over the computer to law enforcement authorities.

Throughout, the law school acted in full accord with its obligations to all concerned. It made the initial report to law enforcement authorities and cooperated in their investigation. At the same time, it afforded Professor Samuels the presumption of innocence to which he was legally entitled, and fulfilled its contractual obligations to him by keeping him on payroll even after he was arrested and subsequently indicted. The law school acted in the interests of its educational program by placing Professor Samuels on administrative leave and by calling on other members of the faculty to complete his courses.

Some media reports, however, questioned whether New York Law School acted appropriately. Tabloid journalists demonstrated complete disregard for the presumption of innocence-a fundamental concept of fairness built into the American criminal justice system-by wrongly suggesting that the school had an option other than to continue to carry him on its payroll. These journalists ignored Professor Samuels' entry of a not guilty plea and the presumption of innocence to which, as a matter of law, he was entitled. They ignored the school's contractual obligations to its tenured faculty and its need to observe internal rules that preclude summary and immediate sanctions beyond that of administrative leave. In the face of this criticism from some members of the media and the public, New York Law School could not ignore the law and its own rules.

Was the firing by Collegis of its two employees in any way related to their role in the Samuels case?

In January 2003, two former employees of Collegis filed a lawsuit against Collegis and New York Law School, claiming that Collegis had terminated them because they had discovered and complained about the pictures on Professor Samuels' school computer.

The law school has denied these allegations because they are false. The plaintiffs have not provided a shred of evidence to support their allegations. Their employer, Collegis, has informed the law school that it had ample reasons to dismiss these employees based upon matters that preceded and followed the discovery of the Samuels material; that Collegis acted pursuant to its personnel policies; and that Collegis' decisions had absolutely nothing to do with the Samuels matter.

Although Collegis' motion to dismiss the action is pending, the plaintiffs have chosen to try their case in the press. The plaintiffs' unprofessional and publicity-seeking tactics have generated unfair and unbalanced reporting by the tabloid media, but the litigation process ultimately will demonstrate that their claims have no merit.

Faithful to our educational mission to "advance professionalism and integrity," New York Law School does not try lawsuits in the press. The evidence will speak for itself and, in this matter, will demonstrate that the law school acted honorably, did nothing wrong, and has been subjected to false claims.

Acting with integrity, following rules, and showing restraint can exact a high toll on all of us-administrators, faculty, students, and graduates. That is the price of respecting our legal system.

The experience leads us to ask the most important and fundamental question: If lawyers cannot live by the law, who can or even should? Only in authoritarian regimes are people convicted without a trial. Only in corrupt legal systems are contracts voided when convenient, or to mollify negative public opinion. Only when institutions are cowardly and weak do they cave in to public pressure to avoid criticism and bad press. Only irresponsible journalists foment public sentiment that would subvert the rule of law.

New York Law School will continue to respect our legal system and our core institutional values. Law lived right is often painful, but necessary.