Gabrilowitz v. Newman
582 F.2d 100 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a university student faces a disciplinary hearing for conduct that also forms the basis of pending criminal charges, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the university to allow the student to have legal counsel present for advice and consultation.
Facts:
- Steven A. Gabrilowitz was a senior at the University of Rhode Island (U.R.I.).
- On October 18, 1977, an incident occurred between Gabrilowitz and another student.
- On November 11, 1977, the local police department charged Gabrilowitz with assault with intent to commit rape based on the October 18 incident.
- While Gabrilowitz was at the police station, a U.R.I. employee delivered a letter suspending him and barring him from campus.
- U.R.I. subsequently charged Gabrilowitz with violating the university's code of conduct for the same actions and scheduled a disciplinary hearing.
- The university's disciplinary rules explicitly prohibited students from having legal counsel present at the hearing, though they could have an advisor from the university community.
Procedural Posture:
- Steven A. Gabrilowitz sued officials of the University of Rhode Island in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, seeking an injunction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- After a hearing, the district court (trial court) granted a preliminary injunction, ordering the university not to hold the disciplinary hearing unless Gabrilowitz was allowed representation by counsel.
- The university officials (appellants) appealed the district court's injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, with Gabrilowitz as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a university's denial of a student's request to have legal counsel present for advice and consultation during a disciplinary hearing violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when the student faces concurrent criminal charges arising from the same incident?
Opinions:
Majority - Bownes, Circuit Judge.
Yes. The university's denial violates the Due Process Clause under these specific circumstances. While students in disciplinary hearings do not generally have a right to counsel, the presence of concurrent criminal charges creates a unique and perilous situation. The student is forced to choose between defending himself at the hearing, thereby risking self-incrimination in the criminal case, or remaining silent, thereby risking expulsion and the loss of his degree. The court applied the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test and found that the student's significant private interests (his degree and liberty) and the high risk of erroneous deprivation without legal advice outweigh the university's administrative interest in maintaining informal, counsel-free proceedings. The court reasoned that the student's testimony would not be considered 'compelled' under Garrity v. New Jersey, meaning it would be admissible in the criminal trial, thus making the advice of counsel essential to navigate the choice of whether to testify.
Dissenting - Campbell, Circuit Judge
No. The university's denial does not violate the Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court's decision in Baxter v. Palmigiano, which held that prisoners do not have a right to counsel in disciplinary hearings even with the threat of criminal prosecution, should control. The dissent argues that the core reasoning of Palmigiano is not limited to the prison context and applies here, making the pendency of criminal charges irrelevant to the due process right to counsel in a civil or administrative proceeding. The dissent fears this ruling will open the door for students to claim a right to counsel in almost any serious disciplinary case, as most involve conduct that could be criminal. Further, the student could obtain sufficient legal advice through consultations before the hearing or by stepping out periodically.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant, though narrow, exception to the general principle that students are not entitled to counsel in university disciplinary hearings. It holds that the presence of parallel criminal proceedings fundamentally alters the due process calculus, creating a 'dilemma' that necessitates the procedural safeguard of advisory counsel. The decision is notable for its application of the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test in the educational context and for carefully limiting the lawyer's role to consultation rather than active participation. This precedent requires universities to modify their procedures in the specific, serious instance where a student's on-campus conduct results in both a school hearing and a criminal prosecution.
