r Examiners conducted a routine accreditation visit, they gave the school a checklist of items to fix within one year. Failure to fix all of the problems listed would result in a loss of accreditation. The school then received funds from the local community and other sources intended to save the school. The school made a full disclosure to the incoming students concerning the accreditation problems.
When the year was up, however, the school had failed to make all of the required changes and its accreditation was revoked. Instead of closing, the school remained open and continued to remedy the problems. The students in the incoming class were fully informed of the lack of accreditation. However, significant number of first-year students failed to pass the First Year Law Students' Exam and problems have continued.
The respondents, Anita Torres and Tomas Ramos, entered Bentworth on full scholarships the year it lost its accreditation. Both respondents chose to enroll in the three-year full-time program, rather the four-year part-time program. They did so even though Bentworth warned them that it could not assure accreditation by the time they graduated. After their graduation, both respondents applied to sit for the next California Bar Exam. Their applications were denied, however, because they had not complied with the education requirements of Section 6060(e)(3).
After the California Committee of Bar Examiners denied their petitions to sit for the bar exam, the respondent students filed a petition with the California Supreme Court for review of the Bar Examiners' decision. The Court transferred the case to the Court of the Appeal of the Third District, a power available under Section 12 of Article VI of the California Constitution.
The students argued that Section 6060, as applied, denied them equal protection of the law under both the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1 of the Cal...