Dillon PLLC News

Dillon PLLC & Justin Dillon Recognized in the 2026 Chambers USA Guide

Thu, 25 Jun 2026 18:06:54 GMT

June 2026 -- Chambers and Partners, a global leader in research and rankings of law firms and lawyers, once again has recognized Justin Dillon and his firm, Dillon PLLC in its annual Chambers USA Guide .

Justin Dillon was recognized individually in two categories: Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations and Higher Education. This marks his eighth recognition in White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations and his second recognition in Higher Education. One reference noted that " Justin is one of the true experts in this field ” and that “there is no one better in the country than Justin if you have a student accused of misconduct facing university discipline.”

This year marks the second time Dillon PLLC has been ranked as a leading firm in Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations.

Chambers and Partners has been ranking leading law firms and lawyers since 1990 and is widely considered the gold standard for lawyer rankings. The qualities on which the rankings are assessed include technical legal ability, client service, depth of team, commercial astuteness, diligence, and commitment. Chambers researchers conduct in-depth interviews with lawyers and clients, as well as conduct analysis regarding matters the firm has taken on in the 12 months prior to their submission. Firms are recognized for notable achievements, impressive strategic growth, and distinguished client service.

To see the full Chambers USA 2026 rankings, please click here.

All Dillon PLLC Attorneys Recognized in 2026 Edition of Best Lawyers®

Thu, 21 Aug 2025 16:08:28 GMT

August 21, 2025 -- Dillon PLLC is pleased to announce that partner Justin Dillon and Chris Muha have been recognized by The Best Lawyers in America© (2026) for their work in Criminal Defense: White-Collar in Washington, D.C. This is the second year Dillon PLLC has been recognized in this practice area.

Additionally, Dillon PLLC is excited to announce that for the first time Kim Blasey has been names as 'One to Watch' in the focus areas of Education Law and for the second time in Criminal Defense: White-Collar.

Recognition by The Best Lawyers in America is based entirely on peer review; its lists of outstanding attorneys are compiled by conducting exhaustive peer review surveys in which tens of thousands of leading lawyers confidentially evaluate their professional peers. First published in 1983, The Best Lawyers in America highlights the top 5% of practicing attorneys in the U.S. based on more than 7.4 million evaluations.

Read more about the firm’s White-Collar Defense practice here and Education Law here .

Dillon PLLC Teams Up with the Brandeis Center to File Complaint Against Private School in Virginia

Tue, 01 Jul 2025 22:16:38 GMT

On July 1, 2025 , Dillon PLLC, in partnership with the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law , filed a formal complaint against The Nysmith School in Northern Virginia. The complaint, submitted to the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Office of Civil Rights, was filed on behalf of a Jewish family whose three children were abruptly expelled mid-year after their parents raised concerns about antisemitic harassment at the school.

Partner Justin Dillon stated:

“Expelling three young Jewish kids in the middle of the school year after their parents voiced concerns about antisemitism is beyond the pale. And don’t get me started about that picture of Hitler.”

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the parents’ 11-year-old daughter was taunted for being “Israeli” and told that “Israel and Jews are baby killers” and that “Israelis deserve to die because of what is happening in Gaza.” The complaint also alleges that during a class project in which the students drew a composite photo of a “strong historical leader,” the face on the drawing was Adolf Hitler’s—and a photo of the project was later shared with the entire school community. And according to the complaint, around the same time that the school cancelled its annual tradition of hosting a Holocaust survivor to discuss the Holocaust, it hung a Palestinian flag in the gym.

The complaint alleges that just two days after the parents met with the head of school to discuss their concerns, their children were summarily expelled—with no notice whatsoever, and right in the middle of the school year.

Dillon PLLC is proud to stand with the Brandeis Center and the family to seek justice in this case. To read the complaint, click here .

Justin Dillon Recognized in the 2025 Chambers USA Guide

Thu, 05 Jun 2025 18:14:39 GMT

June 05, 2025 -- Chambers and Partners, a global leader in research and rankings of law firms and lawyers, once again has recognized Justin Dillon in its annual Chambers USA Guide in the category Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations and Education Law.

This marks his seventh recognition in White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations and his first recognition in Education Law. One reference noted that Justin "can handle disputes in all contexts and is certainly a go-to person in this field.” and that “there is no one better in the country than Justin if you have a student accused of misconduct facing university discipline.”

To see the full Chambers USA 2025 rankings, please click here.

The Defense of Freedom Institute Quotes Partner Justin Dillon in Its Press Release Announcing the RESPECT Title IX Act.

Mon, 19 May 2025 01:34:17 GMT

On May 19th 2025, the Defense of Freedom Institute released its model Title IX law, the Respect Equality in Sports, Privacy, and Education and Campus Transparency (RESPECT) Act, which is intended to end, once and for all, the era of back-and-forth regulation in which the Title IX rules change depending on which party controls the presidency. DFI asked Dillon PLLC Partner Justin Dillon to review the proposed law prior to its release, and he provided the following comment:

“The Defense of Freedom Institute’s RESPECT Title IX Act is brilliant. It takes a smart, sensitive, and balanced approach to the handling of difficult issues ranging from gender ideology to due process. Should it pass, DFI’s model law would end, once and for all, the era of whipsaw regulations we’ve been in for the last decade and a half.”

Read the full press release here.

Partner Justin Dillon Successfully Defends James Madison University Professor in Academic Freedom Case

Fri, 21 Mar 2025 20:43:46 GMT

Partner Justin Dillon successfully defends James Madison University psychology professor Gregg Henriques after an anonymous student complained about the professor’s comments. Henriques is now back in the classroom, after having been cleared of any wrongdoing.

“Justin Dillon is one of the most principled and effective advocates I have ever encountered. His commitment to justice and the protection of academic freedom was unwavering, and I am deeply grateful for his guidance and expertise.” - Gregg Henriques

Read the full article here .

Chris Muha Featured in Franciscan Magazine: A Journey of Faith and Law

Fri, 04 Oct 2024 16:26:12 GMT

Partner, Chris Muha, is featured in Franciscan Magazine, where he shares how his faith and legal career have been shaped by his experiences at Franciscan University. Chris’s journey to becoming an attorney was deeply influenced by his faith and the tragic loss of his brother, which led him to reflect on how the law impacts and shapes people and communities. This reflection fueled his desire to help individuals in their most difficult moments, a calling he now fulfills through defending those wrongfully accused of Title IX violations.

Discover how Chris balances faith, family, and his legal career while honoring his brother’s legacy through the Brian Muha Foundation . Read the full article 'At the Intersection of Faith, Law, and Franciscan' on the Franciscan website here .

How Can You Effectively Appeal a Disciplinary Sanction While Navigating Tight Deadlines and Procedural Challenges?

sophia@royalsadvertising.com (Sophia Royals) — Fri, 20 Sep 2024 21:25:19 GMT

If you lose your hearing and are sanctioned, just about every school gives you the right to an appeal. Generally, you are given very narrow grounds on which to appeal. You’re also normally only given a matter of days to file an appeal. Some schools even impose a page count on how long an appeal can be. In short, they don’t make it easy.

When we, as lawyers, ghostwrite an appeal for a client, sometimes we use it to show how we would sue the school later: the appeal is long on case citations and legal threats. Obviously, if you’re doing an appeal without the help of a lawyer, you are less likely to do that.

If you’re working without a lawyer, the first thing you should do is sit down with the school’s code of conduct and make sure you understand the specific bases it outlines for an appeal. If you can only argue that there was a procedural defect or that the sanction was excessive, and you argue that the decision was wrong even though the process was basically fair and consistent with the school’s rules, you give the school a very easy basis to dismiss your appeal. So make sure the arguments in your appeal fit within the categories that the school outlines for an appeal.

Here are some of the common grounds on which schools will let you appeal:

Substantial Evidence

Some schools allow you to appeal because the decision wasn’t supported by substantial evidence. If yours is one of them, you can make a broader attack on why the decision was wrong. But note that you generally need to say more than just this: “The panel believed my accuser, not me, and that shouldn’t be enough to find me responsible.”

But it is—in courtrooms across the country every day, people are convicted on nothing more than “he said, she said” evidence. So do your best to go beyond the mere fact that you lost a swearing contest—what other evidence undermines the finding? Be as specific as possible, and try to explain why no reasonable panel could have found against you given that evidence.

Procedural Defect

Almost all schools will let you appeal if you can show there was a problem with the process in the hearing. Generally, school codes say that these are limited to arguments that the process was substantially flawed—so you can’t make ticky-tacky arguments.

There are generally two kinds of arguments to make here.

1. The School Didn’t Follow Its Own Policies

For example, if the school’s code says that you have a right to question your accuser by posing questions through a hearing officer but the hearing officer refused to ask most or all of your questions, that can be a strong argument, especially if you can articulate why asking those questions would have made a difference. Or if the code says you have a right to call witnesses, but the hearing panel refused to hear from your witnesses, that could be another productive ground for appeal.

2. The Schools Actions Are Unfair

Things may happen in the hearing that don’t technically violate the code but that are simply unfair. If new charges are brought against you the night before the hearing, but the code doesn’t say anything either way about that, you can argue that it would simply be unfair to force you to defend an allegation that you had no knowledge of the morning before the hearing. (At a public school, you’d also have a due process right to more notice than that.)

The bottom line is that when you’re identifying a procedural defect, be as specific as possible about what went wrong.

New Evidence

Most schools will let you appeal if you have new evidence that you couldn’t have put on in the initial hearing. This evidence has to be pretty important, and it has to be evidence that you couldn’t have presented in the hearing for some reason.

We’ve seen schools construe the “not available before the hearing” part of this test very strictly. They take the position that if there is any argument that you could have found the evidence earlier, then you’re simply out of luck.

This can be a difficult standard to meet, which is why your prehearing investigation should be thorough. However, if there is new evidence that you simply couldn’t have known before the hearing, this can be powerful.

Excessive Sanction

Especially in a marginal case that didn’t involve sexual intercourse, arguing that your sanction was excessive can be a very strong argument. We’ve seen cases where our clients are punished with an expulsion for relatively minor touching—say, in the course of making out, the client touches the accuser’s bottom or breasts, is told to stop, and does so immediately. In a case like that, an excessive sanction argument is often particularly forceful.

When arguing that a sanction was too harsh, make sure you tell the school how the excessive punishment will unjustly affect you: whether you will lose a scholarship, lose a job you’ve already accepted, and so on. It may not care, but it can’t hurt you to argue the point.

What Are 10 Tips for Defending Yourself During a Title IX Campus Misconduct Investigation?

Fri, 16 Aug 2024 18:52:16 GMT

1. Don’t Be Pressured Into Doing Something Dumb

Often school officials will tell you they need to meet with you very soon – sometimes the same day that they reach out to you or the next morning.

Do not go to that meeting.

Every school is required by the federal government to let you have an advisor. The school may want you to go to a meeting so they can tell you what the accusations are and get you to tell them something they can use against you. Don’t let them.

If a school official is pressuring you into meeting with them immediately, simply respond that you want to talk to your parents and get an advisor and that you will get back to them very soon. Then talk to your family immediately about what’s happening.

2. Lock Down Your Social Media

Expect that the school and your accuser will look at every bit of social media you have – Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, Pinterest, Facebook, and so on. Every social media platform will let you protect your content. You should do that – immediately.

Do not delete your content, though. See number 4 below. Just make sure you control access to your information.

3. Preserve Other People’s Social Media

Other people may have content on their social media platforms that would help your case. Go through the social media account of each person who may be involved and save anything that might be relevant. Maybe there’s a video of a party on Facebook that you need. Or a late-night tweet that shows whether someone was sober enough to send a tweet. Or a friend request that shows that how someone felt changed over time.

Whatever it is, know that cases are won or lost on facts. And the information on social media can be locked away as soon as the user decides that should happen. Before it’s too late, save everything you can on social media.

One note – make sure you are anonymous when you do. If the other user can see that you’re on his or her page, think carefully about whether the benefits of saving the information are worth the risks of having someone see what you’re doing.

4. Do Not Delete Anything

Do not delete any information that you have that could be at all relevant to what the school is looking into. Don’t delete text messages or social media posts or emails.

This doesn’t mean you should share it with anyone else, but make sure every bit of information you have is retrievable.

5. Comply with the no-contact order

Once you’ve been accused, the school will impose a no-contact order between you and your accuser. Make sure you comply with it. The no-contact order will feel incredibly unfair. If you didn’t do anything wrong, why should you have to change where you go on campus or who you hang out with? But schools take these very seriously.

There is nothing more frustrating than beating a sexual assault allegation but losing on a no-contact order violation. We’ve had students accused of violating no-contact orders by talking to their friends, who also happen to be friends of the accuser. We once had a client who was accused of violating a no-contact order by performing in public, just because he could have known his accuser would be in the audience. To be sure, that’s ridiculous—but it shows how seriously schools take these things.

6. Do Not Talk About Your Case to Anyone But Your Lawyer

Your friends may be a good source of support, but we’ve seen friends become former friends because they repeat what one of our clients has said about a case to someone else.

Please, for your sake, don’t talk about your case or what happened or the person who is accusing you to your friends, your professors, people from high school, or anyone except for your lawyer, a mental health professional, and your parents.

7. Tell Your Lawyer Everything

Sometimes a person caught up in a Title IX proceeding doesn’t want to share everything with his lawyer. This is a mistake.

Even minor things can matter later, and it’s good for your lawyer to know what’s going to happen. If you bump into your accuser on campus, or if you hear someone talk about the case, or if something happens in the case—all of these are things you need to let your lawyer know.

8. Be Wary of the School Officials

Even if the school people are nice, don’t trust them. Most people who work at colleges or universities are nice people. People, in general, don’t like conflict.

School officials are not there to help you. They are looking out for the school’s interest, not yours. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that someone who acts like your friend is your friend. Those are the people who can often do the most damage.

9. Do Not Put Your Head in the Sand

College life has a lot of demands. You have homework and extracurriculars and a social life. It’s hard enough to think about classes and everything else that goes along with college, let alone thinking about your disciplinary case.

Moreover, thinking about your disciplinary case is unpleasant. It is completely understandable to not want to deal with it.

But, as understandable as it is, you need to be actively engaged with your case. You’ll have to represent yourself, which means you need to prepare for any interview or hearing. It may be that you have a test that you need to study for. Any lawyer will work with you as much as possible, but it may be that there are times when your case has to come first.

10. Come Together as a Family

Some of our clients’ parents tell us that having a child face an allegation of sexual assault on campus is the hardest thing they have been through as a family. Other times, we see people who told their parents too late that they are facing a disciplinary charge, and their case can suffer tremendously.

Giving advice about being a family is, of course, far outside of our expertise. But we’ve seen a lot of different families go through this, and the ones who emerge on the other side—to our eyes—are the ones who support each other, try to understand each other, and have each others’ backs. We’ve also seen families who use an allegation as a way to dredge up past events, or talk about things that could have been different. To our eyes, that adds stress to an otherwise very stressful situation.

Every family is different, and navigating how much should be shared within the family is difficult for everyone. But we’ve seen people do better when there’s no question that the family is in this together.

All Dillon PLLC Attorneys Recognized in 2025 Edition of Best Lawyers®

Fri, 16 Aug 2024 16:09:18 GMT

Dillon PLLC is proud to announce that Justin Dillon and Chris Muha have been honored in the 2025 edition of Best Lawyers® . This prestigious recognition is awarded to only about 6% of private practice attorneys in the United States, based solely on peer reviews. Best Lawyers® aims to reflect the consensus opinions of leading attorneys regarding the professional capabilities of their colleagues in the same geographic and practice areas.

We extend our congratulations to our distinguished attorneys:

Justin Dillon
Recognized in Best Lawyers® since 2018
Practice Area: Criminal Defense: White-Collar

Christopher C. Muha
Recognized in Best Lawyers® since 2023
Practice Area: Criminal Defense: White-Collar

We are also thrilled to acknowledge Kimberly Blasey , who has been named as 'One to Watch' in the area of Criminal Defense: White-Collar.

For more information about these honors, please visit Best Lawyers® .

What Organizations Can Help When You Are Facing Campus Disciplinary Action?

Sun, 11 Aug 2024 18:20:47 GMT

FACE

FACE is the country’s best-known organization advocating for change in how schools handle sexual assault cases. It is a network of families who have been through the campus sexual misconduct process as well as friends of those families.

FACE is a frequent first stop for families who are going through the trauma of a campus sexual assault charge. If you’re looking for people to talk you through the process and tell you that you’re not crazy—that the process disciplinary process really is that insane—FACE is a wonderful resource run by wonderful people.

Learn more at FACE here >

FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS IN EDUCATION (FIRE)

FIRE is the nation’s pre-eminent organization working to protect the rights of students. It is active in a number of areas, including due process in campus disciplinary matters.

Learn more at FIRE’s website here >

Its guide to Due Process on Campus is downloadable here >

HANNA STOTLAND

Hanna is a college counselor who has helped a number of students with disciplinary findings with college planning. Her e-mail address is ivyspice@gmail.com.

MARK ZAID

Mark is an attorney who helps people with security clearance issues. His web address is http://www.markzaid.com/.

Dillon PLLC

Attorney's at Dillon PLLC have been representing students accused of violating Title IX policies on University campuses since 2010. We have represented scores of students at dozens of schools all over the country, from Maine to California and from Florida to Alaska. We’ve represented students when they’ve first been given a no-contact order, and we’ve represented them all the way through a victory in court. .

Our lawyers have written on Title IX and the problems with how schools implement Title IX guidance in national publications including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, and Time magazine. We’ve taught other lawyers how to do these cases and even given presentations to Title IX coordinators about how to set up a fair process at their schools.

Our lawyers have gone to the best law schools in the country. We have been handling these cases at schools and in court before most lawyers even knew this was a real practice area.

When you choose a lawyer, you want someone who understands that and will climb right in the foxhole with you. That’s what we do at Dillon PLLC—we fight for you, and we fight with you.

For more about Dillon PLLC full range of legal services, click here >

NOTE: Many people who face disciplinary charges on campus are unable to afford legal representation; we hear from such people every week. Because we are a small firm, our resources are limited, but we are committed to helping a limited number of families facing campus disciplinary actions on a pro bono basis every year. For more information contact us today.

What Are the Legal Grounds for Suing a University Over Unfair Campus Disciplinary Proceedings?

sophia@royalsadvertising.com (Sophia Royals) — Sun, 11 Aug 2024 18:12:50 GMT

People accused of sexual assault charges on college campuses generally don’t find any sympathy for their due process rights in the U.S. Department of Education, from their schools, or from public opinion. But the courts are increasingly giving relief to men who have had their rights trampled.

Of course, getting to court is expensive. Sometimes attorneys’ fees are available at the very end of the litigation, but to get to the end of a lawsuit can be an incredibly expensive undertaking.

It’s also an uncertain one. The courts have shown some sympathy, but there are many losses along the way.

Often, when considering a lawsuit, it makes sense to think about what you would settle for. It makes sense to be clear about what you want. If you want a complete exoneration, you will likely have to go the distance—few schools will simply take away a finding or reverse a disciplinary decision without an order from a judge. A modification of the sanction would require the accuser to be notified, and schools fear that if an accuser is told, she’ll then complain to the U.S. Department of Education, which will land the school in trouble. But sometimes, with a good deal of effort, a school will agree to change how the charge is reflected on the student’s transcript or what records would be disclosed to another school in the future.

If you’re interested in a lawsuit, though, here are the basic claims people bring in lawsuits with schools. Keep in mind that this is a very cursory overview. If you have more questions, you should do more research or consult with a lawyer. Most lawyers will require you to hire them before they do a full review of whether you have a lawsuit that is likely to win. We are often hired by people who’ve already gone through the disciplinary process and want us to tell them whether they have a valid legal case against the school.

TITLE IX

Title IX protects men as well as women from discrimination on the basis of sex in educational opportunities. Courts have been relatively hostile to arguments that because these processes are unfair, and because most of the accused people put through them are men, that must be due to gender bias. In other words, if all you did was lose a swearing contest before a kangaroo court, you probably won’t have a valid Title IX claim.

However, there are two kinds of claims under Title IX that can work: you may have a claim if you can prove that the outcome was erroneous and put forth some actual evidence of gender bias (not just assumptions), or if you can find statements by the school suggesting such bias. If you win the claim, the school could be forced to pay all or part of your attorneys’ fees.

BREACH OF CONTRACT

Some states have laws that say that a school’s code of student conduct is a contract between the student and the school. If the school violates its code, that can give rise to a breach of contract lawsuit. Normally, this would happen when the school gives a student a certain process and then simply ignores that part of its code when it holds the hearing. This happens far more often than you would expect; in fact, we rarely see a case in which the school does everything that it’s promised to do.

One tricky aspect to these claims is that you will generally have to prove that any violation from the school’s code was material—that is, that it mattered to the result.

For example, if you sign a contract to have your roof fixed by Thursday and the contractor finishes it on Friday, that’s probably not a material breach of the contract. You got your roof, and absent a hurricane, one day probably didn’t make a difference.

In the same way, if you’re guaranteed a five-minute break between witnesses and you only get a four-minute break, you’d have to show that the extra minute would have mattered. Generally, that means you’d have to show you’d have a decent chance of getting a different result if you’d been given a break of the right length.

So, when you’re thinking about whether you might have a good breach of contract claim, use common sense, and put yourself in the judge’s shoes: if you were the judge, would you really think this violation mattered? Or would you think the plaintiff is being a bit ticky-tacky? Judges tend not to like ticky-tacky.

DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS

Public schools are branches of the government. The U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions require schools to give you due process before they punish you. (By contrast, and contrary to what many people think, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t apply to private schools.) Generally speaking, due process means that you must have notice of the charges against you, that the notice must be specific enough so you can defend against the charges, and that you must have a meaningful opportunity to plead your case in front of a neutral decision-maker.

FREE SPEECH/FIRST AMENDMENT

We are seeing a rise in “intimate partner violence” claims coupled with sexual assault allegations. Basically, many schools believe they should be policing their students’ romantic relationships. So when one person in a romantic relationship says something mean or offensive to his or her partner, schools sometimes charge that as a separate violation.

Leaving aside that this is an insane policy, it may also violate the First Amendment in some cases. If you have been found responsible and punished for saying things to your girlfriend, you may have a viable claim under the First Amendment.

ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS

State schools are branches of state governments. Many state governments set up a process to challenge, in state court, a state government decision. The rules can be a little complex, and they depend a lot on the laws of the specific state at issue, but they frequently allow for a challenge to a decision because it was not based on “substantial evidence.” Again, the details of what that means and how it’s been interpreted vary significantly from state to state. An experienced lawyer should be able to tell you whether administrative mandamus is available to you.

What Happens if You Are Suspended or Expelled in a Campus Disciplinary Proceeding?

Sun, 11 Aug 2024 18:10:35 GMT

The consequences of being found responsible are dramatic. First, it will disrupt the current semester and derail your immediate plans. Second, it will radically alter the course of your future. We are constantly surprised when our clients tell us that they can’t prepare for a hearing that may decide whether they are expelled because they have to study for a test. The hearing matters a whole lot more than the test. These cases can destroy your educational future. A bad test result might set you back a little in class. You should recognize that and act accordingly.

Generally, we see two punishments for campus sexual assault: suspension and expulsion. We are starting to see suspension much less frequently as schools crack down more aggressively on sexual assault on campus.

SUSPENSION

With a suspension, there are three big concerns:

What will the gap in your educational history look like?
What will your transcript say?
What educational records will be given to any school you decide to transfer to?
With each of these issues, we tend to look at the sanction with an eye toward how it will affect our client’s future. Of course, that depends on what kind of future you want. If your life’s goal is to earn a PhD or, worse yet, to become a lawyer, then a suspension could be a big deal. It will likely affect your ability to get into another school later, and it will come up if you apply to be a member of the bar so you can practice law. Similarly, if you want to do work that requires a security clearance or if you want to work in another highly regulated industry, there may be more questions about what happened.

We advise all of our clients to tell the truth to any future school or employer if they’re asked about their disciplinary history. It’s the right thing to do, and the consequences of lying can be much worse than what happens if you’re honest upfront. (We know of a case in which the accused lied about his reason for transferring to a new school, only to be expelled from that school a few months later when his accuser wrote the school a letter asking whether it knew about his sexual misconduct finding.) That said, if there is a way to be honest and avoid disclosing what happened, that can be a viable approach. This won’t work if there’s a question on a later application about whether you’ve been found responsible for a sexual assault, but if you aren’t asked that question, you likely have no obligation to voluntarily disclose it.

Many students have gaps in their time in college. They have these for many reasons: a medical emergency, a family situation, a valuable life experience, or an employment opportunity. If you are suspended, you will be much better off trying to find something else to do during your suspension. Get an internship. Volunteer to help the poor. Do something that you can talk about later as an example of why you are a good, contributing member of society. Sitting in your parents’ basement playing Xbox for a year, no matter how appealing that might seem at the time, isn’t likely to advance the ball for you.

Be particularly aware of how your transcript reflects your suspension. Some schools simply don’t disclose the suspension; it’s as though it never happened, aside from the gap in your academic record.

Find out how the school will note a suspension on your transcript. It’s a crucial part of what employers and other schools will see.

If you apply to go to another school, that school will very likely ask you to release your rights to keep your educational records private and ask you to execute a FERPA release. You can refuse, but often that refusal will be the end of your application. In the same way that you can’t get life insurance without letting the insurance company see all of your medical records, no school we’re aware of will consider your application without seeing your educational records.

This means you need to be very clear with the school about what educational records it will release when it gets a request from a school you’re applying to. Will the requesting school get only the finding or also the investigative report? Will it see any other raw materials from the case? These are things it is very helpful to know.

EXPULSION

If you have been expelled, you still have the same concerns that someone who has been suspended has about what’s on your transcript and what educational records the school has.

You will need to apply to a new school to get your undergraduate degree. Virtually every school will want to know about your expulsion, and virtually every school you apply to will learn—either through a question on the Common Application, through a note on your transcript, or through a FERPA release—that you were expelled.

Often, your transfer application will have to talk about why you were expelled. If the educational records that are released are minimal—such as information about the finding but not the raw materials that went with it—then you can control what information the school has and you can control the narrative. If, by contrast, what’s released includes every single one of the emotionally charged documents in the case, the narrative will be much harder to control.

It used to be that when a person was charged with a sexual assault on campus, the student could simply transfer, and the investigation and process would stop. For most schools, those days are over. However, it still makes sense to ask. This can be a complicated tactical question.

If the school is going to continue the investigation and you transfer, it will likely find you responsible in your absence. You won’t be there to defend yourself, and every inference will simply be drawn against you. Many schools would then send notice of your later disciplinary action to a school where you have applied or transferred. Simply put, that finding can haunt you later, so make sure you find out what will happen if you transfer before you decide to go through that process.

How Do You Choose the Right Adviser for a Campus Disciplinary Proceeding?

Sun, 11 Aug 2024 17:58:53 GMT

You have the right to have an “adviser of your choice” with you in a campus disciplinary proceeding. Of course, that adviser can be a lawyer, which is what we recommend if you are able to afford one. If not, choose your adviser carefully. Your adviser can make a big difference in your case.

In general, for most schools where the adviser has to sit mute, you want someone who meets the following criteria:

a person you will be comfortable with,
a person who can talk to you intelligently about what’s happening in the hearing and how to respond,
a person who will take good notes about what happened in the hearing in case that becomes useful later,
a person who will be able to critically evaluate what’s going on in the hearing and not sugarcoat things, and
a person who is unfailingly on your side.

As you might imagine, these people can be hard to find. We suggest that you make a list of all people who could serve as an adviser, think through how they’d rank using the above factors, then choose among them.

In almost every case, the school will either give you a list of advisers or will tell you it can give you one if you’d like one. Many people have a knee-jerk reaction that these folks are stooges who are there only to help the school. Unfortunately, that may often be true. But if you don’t have a lawyer helping you with this process, it is probably worthwhile to at least interview a few of the school’s proposed advisers. There are good people of conscience everywhere. It may be that the people at the school who are volunteering for this duty are doing it because they believe students should have a fair process.

Here’s what to look for:

Independence

You want to make sure that the person you choose is not overly beholden to the school. Professors with tenure may not care about what the school thinks about them, while an untenured professor or low-ranking administrator keen on promotion might feel differently. You should obviously avoid anyone who reports, directly or indirectly, to anyone else in the disciplinary process.

Confidentiality

When you interview potential advisers, ask whether they will keep what you say confidential. If you hire a lawyer or a counselor, you should get that. The adviser’s role is most closely related to those two roles, and you should get the same duty of confidentiality there. If the person gives you the willies on this score, think about asking whether he or she would be willing to sign a confidentiality agreement.

On Your Side

You absolutely need someone who is on your side. Ask the potential advisers explicitly about that. You’re going into a foxhole with this person, so you need to make sure they have your back.

Smart

You don’t want to bring someone with you who isn’t able to think through the process with you. By talking to the prospects and learning a little about them, you can probably tell whether they’re smart enough to give you good advice about a complex proceeding.

Knowledgeable

People who have been through this before with other students can be a real asset. Ask about their prior experience with the disciplinary process. If they’ve just had a two-hour training, that’s a reason to be less enthusiastic than if they’ve done this many times in the past.

Known to Those Involved in the Process

We all make subtle decisions about credibility based on how well we know people. If you can find an adviser who truly has your back and who has a positive relationship with the members of the hearing panel, that can be tremendously valuable. If someone sees your adviser picking her kids up every day at the same preschool and then sees her sitting next to you at the hearing, he or she may subconsciously think of you as a more credible and likable person.

A lawyer can be an obvious choice for an adviser—and federal law now allows lawyers to serve as advisers. As you might imagine, we strongly believe that people who can afford to have a lawyer represent them at their hearing should hire one. Time and again, clients and their families have told us that if we hadn’t been there, they don’t know what they would have done.

Having a lawyer as an adviser has many advantages. We tend to be good at thinking through how to present evidence and how to question witnesses. If things go truly off the rails, we can object and try to change things. For example, an accuser once tried to qualify the supposedly neutral investigator (a campus police officer) as an “expert” in whether someone is telling the truth, based on his “years of experience investigating crimes.” If we hadn’t loudly objected and demanded to call the school’s attorney to put a stop to that kind of nonsense, the evidence would have been allowed. Instead, the school’s attorney took our side and told the Title IX coordinator not to allow the testimony.

Having a parent serve as your adviser is generally not a good idea. A hearing is an incredibly stressful time for everyone—especially the student who has to defend himself. Regrettably, parents can sometimes increase stress rather than reduce it—not because they mean to, but because there is nothing more stressful to parents than watching their child suffer. There may be exceptions to this general rule, perhaps when the parent is also a lawyer who has experience as an advocate. But in general, we recommend that parents not act as a student’s formal adviser.

Of course, there are others who may fit the bill: perhaps a coach or a professor at the school who is not on the school’s list or a good friend of the family. Really, any person who meets the criteria above can be a good candidate for an adviser.

What Questions Should You Expect in a Campus Disciplinary Proceeding?

Sun, 11 Aug 2024 17:53:41 GMT

Questions For You

In a disciplinary hearing, you should be prepared to answer questions about what happened. Recruit people—your parents, your friends, or anyone you trust—to ask you questions about what happened that night. Ask them to tell you how they think you reacted when you answer.

Your ability to handle questions will improve with practice. You wouldn’t play a soccer match or perform in a musical without practicing; testifying at a hearing is no different.

Have people ask you the most difficult questions they can. Try to think about the hardest part of the case. You’ll be better off if you get questions that you aren’t anticipating. It will slow you down and force you to think about what happened in different ways. You want to be challenged when you’re practicing more than when you’re in the moment.

You’ll also be better off if someone watches how you answer questions. Make sure your tone doesn’t change from when you give your statement to when you’re answering questions. It can be deadly if you go from empathetic and understanding in your statement to angry and defensive when the questions come.

Questions For Your Accuser

You will likely get to ask questions of your accuser. In general, there are some questions you want to make sure you ask and some you want to avoid. If the accuser willingly went to your room and can’t possibly deny that, it’s fair to ask about that. In general, if there are questions that draw out a part of the story that is helpful to you, so long as she can’t say anything damaging, then ask them.

There are two kinds of questions you don’t want to ask:

1. Don't Give The Accuser a Chance to Explain Her Side

Don’t ask questions that will get you burned. Basically, ask questions that force your accuser to stick to facts, not her explanations for facts. Don’t ask her questions about why she did things: that is never going to go your way. Despite what you may have learned from A Few Good Men, no one ever actually admits to ordering the Code Red.

2. Don't Ask Questions About Your Good Evidence

Second, don’t ask questions that allow your accuser to explain away evidence that is good for you. If you have great text messages that help establish your innocence, don’t ask any questions about them. If you have three witnesses who said they saw her at the party that night and thought she seemed completely sober, don’t ask her why what she’s saying conflicts with what the witnesses saw. Just wait for your closing statement and argue these things to the panel.

How Does Intoxication Affect Consent in Sexual Assault Claims?

Sun, 11 Aug 2024 17:50:12 GMT

In a growing number of cases, we see claims that a sexual encounter was not consensual because the accuser claims to have been so intoxicated that she was unable to consent.

Frankly, these are hard cases. The line between merely being intoxicated and incapacitated—so intoxicated that you can’t consent—is not finely drawn in criminal courts, much less in campus proceedings.

To be sure, unconscious people can’t consent to sex. Nor can people who are so intoxicated that they can’t understand what they’re doing. But being so drunk that your judgment is impaired isn’t the same thing as being so drunk that you don’t know what you’re doing. People—even married couples!—have been having drunk, enjoyable sex since the beginning of time. Drunk people have also been making bad decisions—but conscious decisions nonetheless—since the beginning of time. These distinctions are often lost on college campuses, however. We’ve seen a number of cases where an accuser who’s been drinking—but is far from falling-down drunk—has initiated sexual activity, only to have the person who responded to those entreaties later be charged with sexual assault.

The standard language on intoxication in many schools’ student codes is generally not helpful. Normally, the codes just say that students who are incapacitated can’t consent. But of course they can’t: that’s the definition of incapacitation. Circular definitions tend to be about as enlightening as definitions that are circular.

As a result, these cases often turn on whether you can show that although your accuser may have been drinking, she was not so drunk that she didn’t know what she’s doing. Alcohol-impaired judgment isn’t the same thing as incapacitation.

To that end, you want to find witnesses who may have seen you both that night and can testify to how you looked. Were either of you stumbling? Slurring your words? Acting more than just a little drunk?

These cases become more difficult the more dramatic the signs of intoxication are. If your accuser vomited at any point in the night, your case may be hard to win. That’s not necessarily fair—not everyone who vomits is incapacitated, and the passage of time is important—but that distinction may be lost on a campus disciplinary panel. Similarly, if other people tried to intervene to stop your accuser from leaving the party with you or tried to keep you away from her, that can make your case very hard.

The challenge with incapacitation cases is that the line between intoxication and incapacitation is hard to draw. And schools spend almost no time trying to clarify where that line is. In one case we handled, the investigator took the following approach: she ballparked the accuser’s weight (not even bothering to ask her) and the number of drinks she’d had, used a little chart you can buy online to estimate her blood alcohol content, and then declared that level to constitute incapacitation, without explaining how she reached that conclusion. As this example suggests, intoxication cases often give schools carte blanche to discipline students in close cases. This is deeply unfair—particularly in light of how much drinking happens on college campuses—but it substantially limits the school’s liability.

Often, your temptation in a case like this may be to defend yourself in one of two ways:

by saying that your accuser initiated the sexual contact, or
by saying that you were really drunk too.

These make sense as a defense; if someone comes up to you and says that they want to have sex, your natural assumption may be that you are allowed to have sex with them. However, if someone is so drunk that the school is going to discount those indicators of consent, you should think carefully about how much you want to base your defense solely on what your accuser did to initiate sex. After all, people who are actually incapacitated cannot give valid consent, no matter how enthusiastic they may seem. Focusing on objective signs that your accuser was not drunk may be more fruitful.

Similarly, it is natural to argue that you were drunk too (assuming you, in fact, were), and that it’s therefore unfair for the school to take your accuser’s side just because she filed first. This is a good argument at first glance: if a college equates drunkenness with incapacitation, then two drunk people who have sex are technically raping each other. Of course, that is absurd, but it shows how far through the looking glass we have gone.

But that argument is unlikely to get you far in a campus proceeding. Some schools, unfortunately, take the view that violating their disciplinary codes while drunk is an aggravating circumstance, not a mitigating one. Read the code at your school carefully to learn how this defense will affect you. You also don’t want to damage your own credibility by saying that you couldn’t have consented when you know in your heart that you did. Honesty tends to be the best policy, even in the upside-down world of campus misconduct cases.

That said, if you do have doubts about whether you were able to consent, you may want to think about asking the school to investigate your accuser for sexual assault. Just keep in mind that such a counter allegation may be construed as retaliation. It very much depends on the facts of your case.

What Are 5 Things You Should Never Do if You Are Accused of Sexual Misconduct on Campus?

Sun, 11 Aug 2024 17:39:29 GMT

1. Do Not Talk About Your Case to Anyone But Your Lawyer

Your friends may be a good source of support, but we’ve seen friends become former friends because they repeat what one of our clients has said about a case to someone else.

2. Don’t Withhold Information from Your Attorney

Sometimes a person caught up in a Title IX proceeding doesn’t want to share everything with his lawyer. This is a mistake.

3. Don’t Trust School Officials

Even if the school people are nice, don’t trust them. Most people who work at colleges or universities are nice people. People, in general, don’t like conflict.

4. Do Not Put Your Head in the Sand

Moreover, thinking about your disciplinary case is unpleasant. It is completely understandable to not want to deal with it.

5. Don’t Shut Your Family Out

Some of our clients’ parents tell us that having a child face an allegation of sexual assault on campus is the hardest thing they have been through as a family.

Other times, we see people who told their parents too late that they are facing a disciplinary charge, and their case can suffer tremendously.

What Is a No Contact Order in Campus Disciplinary Proceedings, and How Should You Handle the Restrictions?

Sun, 11 Aug 2024 17:32:06 GMT

The U.S. Department of Education has said that a college is obligated to keep an accuser separate from the person she is accusing, based solely on the fact that she is bringing the charge. Schools can face scrutiny from the government and from the accuser herself if they aren’t seen as doing enough on this front.

In practice, what this means is that schools can impose draconian restrictions on the accused simply because he faces a charge, without any finding that he did anything wrong. Schools generally don’t want to tell the accuser that she needs to alter her life or schedule, so they tell the accused that he needs to stay away from her.

We are sympathetic to these concerns. For example, it would certainly be traumatic for a sexual assault complainant to live on the same hallway as her alleged assailant. And schools have to walk a delicate line between showing concern for the accuser while, at the same time, not treating the accused as if he’s guilty from the start. It is not an easy situation. Unfortunately, in our experience, schools all too often err on the side of guilt-assuming restrictions that can radically change the accused’s entire college experience.

Here are some of the restrictions schools often impose on the accused:

• no-contact orders,

• orders not to talk to the accuser’s friends or people she may know,

• orders to stay away from common areas at the school,

• orders not to use campus dining facilities,

• orders to avoid classes with the accuser,

• orders not to go on certain parts of campus or to stay away from campus entirely except for academic purposes,

• orders not to go on campus at all,

• orders to avoid certain sororities, and

• orders to avoid fraternities or sororities in general.

Many of these restrictions are overly broad and absurd. It is outrageous that someone who has not been found responsible for any wrongdoing can be prevented from going to campus, participating in college life, enjoying extracurricular activities, and attending classes—all because of an accusation that hasn’t even been investigated yet.

That said, because of the U.S. Department of Education’s mandate, it can be very hard to overturn these restrictions. In some cases, we’ve been able to get them modified to be less strict, though it’s nearly impossible to get them eliminated entirely. If you’re in every class with your accuser and you are prohibited from going to class at all, the school should make some accommodation to let you participate in class, even if it isn’t by actually going to class. Similarly, if your accuser lives in one dorm and you live in another, it isn’t a reasonable accommodation to kick you off campus—you could simply be barred from going to that dorm.

The biggest, fairest, and most important of these rules is the no-contact order. And it is simply good judgment to follow this—not only because it’s the rule the school has laid down, but also because it just makes sense.

You should not be seen in any way as retaliating against your accuser for bringing this charge. There are a lot of ways to do that, and you should avoid them all. Don’t talk to the accuser’s friends about what’s happening—or, better yet, at all. Don’t send anonymous e-mails. Don’t complain on Facebook. Don’t text your accuser to ask why they would do something like this.

You likely have a lot of things you want to say to her. That’s normal. But actually saying them could torpedo your case. Stay away from your accuser. Go out of your way to avoid places where they might be. Err on the side of not seeing them, even if it means you have to change your schedule or modify your life. If you normally cut through a quad by her dorm on your way to class instead of going a longer way, go the longer way. Do what you have to do to make sure you don’t run into them. It may affect your life for a few months, but not taking these steps can affect your life for years.

Schools take these restrictions extremely seriously. It can be a separate disciplinary violation to break an interim restriction or a no-contact order. These rules are often irrational and unfair. But you must play by them to avoid winding up in even more trouble. The last thing you need is to fight two separate sets of charges: one for the underlying accusation, and one for the no-contact order. Two-front wars often end poorly.

Princeton University Student Files Lawsuit Against University for Due Process Violations

Mon, 29 Jul 2024 19:45:00 GMT

July 25, 2024 -- Justin Dillon, a renowned attorney specializing in due process and Title IX cases, represents a Princeton University student who has filed a lawsuit against the institution. The lawsuit alleges that Princeton violated the student's constitutional rights during a biased and flawed disciplinary process that led to his suspension.

The student, referred to as John Doe in the lawsuit, was suspended for two years following accusations of misconduct by two female students. Despite presenting substantial evidence that contradicted the allegations, including text messages and witness statements, Princeton found him responsible.

The lawsuit highlights several critical issues:

Biased Investigation: Princeton's investigator interviewed the accusers multiple times and allowed them to alter their statements, while John Doe was interviewed only once and denied the opportunity to respond to new allegations.
Lack of Due Process: John Doe was not given proper notice of the charges, was denied legal representation during the disciplinary process, and was not allowed to cross-examine his accusers.
Procedural Errors: The disciplinary hearing was rushed, and the evidence packets were repeatedly updated at the last minute, depriving John Doe of adequate time to prepare his defense.
Discriminatory Practices: The lawsuit alleges sex-based discrimination, noting that Princeton's disciplinary process overwhelmingly finds male students responsible.

In a statement to The Daily Wire , Justin Dillon said, “Princeton shouldn’t be allowed to toss a good student out of school for two years on the basis of a biased investigation and almost comically flawed hearing. And don’t even get me started about the Stalinist whiff surrounding the 98% conviction rate. Our client deserved more than the kind of ‘Yes, Comrade!’ process Princeton gave him.”

The case has garnered significant attention, the lawsuit seeks to hold Princeton accountable for its actions and to ensure that similar injustices do not occur in the future. Dillon is confident that the court will recognize the merits of the case and provide the justice that his client deserves.

For more information or to schedule an interview with Justin Dillon, please contact jdillon@dillonpllc.com

Visit The Daily Wire to review the full article >

Chris Muha Quoted in Law.com Discussing a Lawsuit Against Princeton University

sophia@royalsadvertising.com (Sophia Royals) — Mon, 24 Jun 2024 14:02:24 GMT

June 24, 2024 -- A Princeton University freshman suspended for allegedly assaulting two female friends filed a federal complaint against the Ivy League institution last week, claiming the disciplinary committee has been notoriously prejudicial against such claims brought by women against men.

Dillon PLLC and Ford O’Brien Landy attorneys filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of the plaintiff, John Doe. The 79-page complaint asserts allegations including breach of contract, gender-based discrimination under Title IX (20 U.S.C. §1681), and negligence in the case Doe v. The Trustees of Princeton University. According to the complaint , Doe contends that his disciplinary investigation was marred by bias and prejudgment, citing Princeton’s Committee on Discipline's purported 98% conviction rate among students undergoing its conduct process.

Chris Muha stated, “We think Princeton rushed him through an unfair process where the only eyewitness said it never happened and one of the members of his panel literally fell asleep during the hearing. He deserved to be treated more fairly and we look forward to exonerating him through this process.”

To read the full article visit Law.com

Justin Dillon Recognized in the 2024 Chambers USA Guide

Thu, 06 Jun 2024 10:42:22 GMT

June 06, 2024 -- Chambers and Partners, a global leader in research and rankings of law firms and lawyers, once again has recognized Justin Dillon in its annual Chambers USA Guide in the category Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations.

Justin Dillon was recognized for the sixth time. One reference noted that Justin “is an outstanding lawyer with exceptional analytical skills” and that he “is a phenomenal litigator. It is not a job, it is a passion for him.” While another stated, "Justin is a very smart lawyer who finds incredible resolutions for his clients."

Chambers and Partners has been ranking leading law firms and lawyers since 1990 and is what many refer to as the ‘gold standard’ of legal research in the marketplace. The qualities on which the rankings are assessed include technical legal ability, client service, depth of team, commercial astuteness, diligence, and commitment. Chambers’ researchers conduct in-depth interviews with lawyers and clients, as well as conduct analysis regarding matters the firm has taken on in the 12 months prior to their submission. Firms are recognized for notable achievements, impressive strategic growth, and distinguished client service.

To see the full Chambers USA 2024 rankings, please click here .

Justin Dillon Quoted in The Free Press

Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:46:59 GMT

April 23, 2024 -- Last Friday, the Biden administration followed through on a promise: to roll back civil rights for college students accused of sexual misconduct. The new regulations come under Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education. Set to go into effect in August, they will restore some of the worst excesses introduced when Biden was vice president under Obama.

One of the most concerning is the return of the “single-investigator” model that was barred under Trump. This means “one administrator can act as detective, prosecutor, judge, and jury on a Title IX complaint.”

Justin Dillon, a D.C. attorney who has represented accused students for a decade, says of the rollback, “You arrive at truth by asking hard questions. But single investigators have no incentive to do that, which is why they are the worst possible model if you want to get to the truth. This is going to lead to more erroneous outcomes, and more lawsuits.”

The new rules damage due process in more ways than one:

Accused students will lose the right to have access to all evidence gathered in the university’s Title IX investigation.
They will lose the right to have a live hearing to adjudicate the claim against them;
They will no longer be able to have an adviser or attorney cross-examine adverse witnesses;
And the Biden administration has voided the basic requirement that any investigation open with a written complaint.

Read the full article at The Free Press >

Justin Dillon & Chris Muha Recognized in 2024 Edition of Best Lawyers® Peer Review Guide

Tue, 26 Sep 2023 12:37:05 GMT

Dillon PLLC is pleased to announce that Justin Dillon and Chris Muha have been recognized in the 2024 edition of Best Lawyers® . The guide recognizes approximately 6% of the top private practicing attorneys in the United States, and inclusion is based solely on peer review. Best Lawyers® attempts “to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area.”

Justin Dillon is recognized for the sixth consecutive year in White-Collar Criminal Defense. To learn more about Dillon PLLC and White-Collar Defense click here >

Conn. Ruling May Force Colleges To Rethink Title IX Hearings

Wed, 28 Jun 2023 14:33:31 GMT

By Aaron Keller (June 28, 2023, 9:05 PM EDT) -- A Connecticut Supreme Court opinion critical of a Yale University sexual misconduct proceeding will likely cause colleges to scramble to examine whether criminal-law-style adversarial processes should be added to Title IX hearings where they typically don't appear and arguably don't belong, several experts told Law360...

Read the full article at law360.com >

Recognized by The Legal 500 for Corporate Investigations and White-Collar Criminal Defense

Tue, 13 Jun 2023 13:06:45 GMT

Justin Dillon has been recognized again by The Legal 500 in the category of “Corporate Investigations and White-Collar Criminal Defense: Advice to Individuals” in the United States.

The Legal 500 has been reviewing the global corporate legal market for over 30 years, producing annual rankings and descriptions of standout practitioners across more than 150 jurisdictions. According to The Legal 500, each year its research team gathers detailed self-assessments from corporate law firms worldwide and conducts interviews of attorneys, clients, and others in the legal market to form a “standard level and quality of data which, in turn, enables us to benchmark legal services providers with both more precision and more assurance.” The resulting rankings “highlight the practice area teams who are providing the most cutting edge and innovative advice . . . . The purpose of The Legal 500 is to help corporate counsel find the right advisers.”

Justin Dillon Individual Lawyer Recognitions in the 2023 Chambers USA Guide

Thu, 01 Jun 2023 13:18:06 GMT

Chambers and Partners, a global leader in research and rankings of law firms and lawyers, once again has recognized Justin Dillon in its annual Chambers USA Guide in the category Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations.

Justin Dillon was recognized for the fifth time. One reference noted that Justin “is an outstanding lawyer with exceptional analytical skills” and that he “is a phenomenal litigator. It is not a job, it is a passion for him.”

Justin Dillon Recognized by Super Lawyers

Mon, 24 Apr 2023 13:27:31 GMT

We are pleased to announce that Justin Dillon has been recognized by Super Lawyers in its 2023 listing.

According to Super Lawyers , the recognitions stem from “a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.”

Super Lawyers claims that “[e]ach year, no more than 5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor.” For Rising Stars, “Candidates are eligible for Rising Stars if they are 40 or younger or have been in practice 10 years of less. No more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor.”

For more information or to view the awards on the Super Lawyers website, click here .

Justin Dillon & Chris Muha Recognized Best Lawyers®

Thu, 10 Nov 2022 14:34:38 GMT

We are pleased to announce that Justin Dillon and Chris Muha have been recognized in the 2023 edition of Best Lawyers® .

The guide recognizes approximately 6% of the top private practicing attorneys in the United States, and inclusion is based solely on peer review, “designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area.”

Justin Dillon is recognized for the fifth consecutive year in White-Collar Criminal Defense. Chris Muha is a new addition to Best Lawyers’ list this year.

Justin Dillon Discusses the Biden Administration’s Proposed Title IX Regulations with the Defense of Freedom Institute and the Federalist Society

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 15:53:45 GMT

On September 20, 2022, Justin Dillon addressed the Defense Policy Institute’s inaugural Education Law & Policy Conference in Washington, DC, co-sponsored by the Federalist Society. Former Attorney General William Barr and former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos were the featured speakers at the event.

Mr. Dillon’s panel addressed the Administration’s proposed Title IX regulations, which would gut current procedural protections for respondents. Among other things, the proposed regulations would eliminate a respondent’s right to a live hearing; abolish cross-examination of witnesses; and allow schools to share only the evidence that they deemed “relevant”—not all of the evidence they had actually collected.

“I’m honored to have been invited to speak at such an important conference,” said Mr. Dillon. “It’s incredibly disheartening to see an Administration that claims to care about ‘equity’ flagrantly picking sides in Title IX matters, which is precisely what the proposed regulations are intended to do.” Earlier this month, Mr. Dillon teamed up with Brooklyn College Professor KC Johnson and fellow Title IX practitioners Patricia Hamill and Lorie Dakessian to submit a 75-page comment on the proposed regulations. A copy of the comment is available here .

Dillon has represented hundreds of students and professors nationwide in Title IX matters.

Biden's Title IX changes would roll back fairness and due process on campus

Tue, 05 Jul 2022 15:44:32 GMT

By Justin Dillon and K.C. Johnson (July 05, 2022, 02:27 PM EDT) -- The Biden administration has given formal notice of its intent to overhaul the Title IX regulations issued by former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos in August 2020. DeVos's regulations brought much-needed procedural safeguards in how colleges and universities across the country handle sexual misconduct allegations. And to absolutely no one’s surprise, the Biden administration now seeks to gut them.

The driving force behind the regulations is Catherine Lhamon, who heads the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights. Every single Republican senator voted against Lhamon’s confirmation. When the DeVos regulations were released, Lhamon falsely tweeted that they would take schools “back to the bad old days, that predate my birth, when it was permissible to rape and sexually harass students with impunity.”

Read the full article at WashingtonExaminer.com >

Recognized by The Legal 500 for Corporate Investigations and White-Collar Criminal Defense

Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:45:04 GMT

The Legal 500 recognized Justin Dillon in the category of “Corporate Investigations and White-Collar Criminal Defense: Advice to Individuals” in the United States for the fourth consecutive year.

“Justin Dillon is one of my go-to colleagues when I need advice about difficult issues.”

The Legal 500 has been reviewing the global corporate legal market for over 30 years, producing annual rankings and descriptions of standout practitioners across more than 150 jurisdictions.

According to The Legal 500, each year its research team gathers detailed self-assessments from corporate law firms worldwide and conducts interviews of attorneys, clients, and others in the legal market to form a “standard level and quality of data which, in turn, enables us to benchmark legal services providers with both more precision and more assurance.” The resulting rankings “highlight the practice area teams who are providing the most cutting edge and innovative advice…The purpose of The Legal 500 is to help corporate counsel find the right advisers.”

Justin Dillon Recognized by Super Lawyers

Thu, 02 Jun 2022 13:57:13 GMT

Pleased to announce that Justin Dillon has been recognized by Super Lawyers in its 2022 listing.

For more information or to view the awards on the Super Lawyers website, click here .

Justin Dillon Recognized by The Best Lawyers in America for Criminal Defense: White-Collar in D.C.

Sun, 22 Aug 2021 14:56:36 GMT

August 17, 2020 -- Dillon PLLC is pleased to announce that partner Justin Dillon has been recognized again by The Best Lawyers in America© (2022) for their work in Criminal Defense: White-Collar in Washington, D.C.

Justin Dillon can be reached here . Read more about the firm’s White-Collar Defense practice here .

FIRE Taps Attorneys Justin Dillon & Chris Muha to Author “Title IX Hearings and Litigation: A Practitioner’s Guide”

Thu, 24 Jun 2021 12:58:51 GMT

June 24, 2021 -- Today, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education released Title IX Hearings and Litigation: A Practitioner’s Guide, a book designed for lawyers who handle campus sexual misconduct cases both on campus and in court. The book’s lead co-authors Justin Dillon and Chris Muha , who together have represented scores of students in such cases at more than 100 schools nationwide. It is available in both print and electronic form here for members of FIRE’s legal network.

Drawing on their extensive experience in Title IX matters, Mr. Dillon and Mr. Muha wrote the book at FIRE’s request to help students and their lawyers defend themselves both on campus and in court. They hope that it will help even the playing field for both students accused of Title IX violations and the lawyers who seek to help them.

“I never say ‘no’ to FIRE and am honored that they asked our firm to write this book for them,” said Mr. Dillon. “Chris and I truly hope it will make a difference as students fight both on and off campus to vindicate their rights in Title IX cases.”

Mr. Dillon and Mr. Muha co-authored the book with attorneys Patricia Hamill and Lorie Dakessian from the Philadelphia firm Conrad O’Brien, P.C.. In its press release announcing the book’s release, FIRE called Mr. Dillon and Ms. Hamill “the best of the best” and stated that “[a]ll attorneys should have this guide on hand from the moment they’re hired by a campus client.”

The Future of Title IX: A Conversation with Justin Dillon

Tue, 15 Jun 2021 15:57:50 GMT

By Washington Examiner Staff (June 15, 2021, 01:44 PM EDT) -- In May, President Biden announced he was naming controversial nominee, Catherine Lhamon, to retake her old Obama-era job as Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office of Civil Rights (OCR). She is widely known - and disparaged by critics - for implementing the 2011 Title IX standards for investigating and adjudicating college sexual misconduct and assault cases. Those standards deprived the accused of a bedrock principle of American jurisprudence - the right to cross-examine one’s accuser and the right to due process. After the implementation of those policies hundreds of students, mostly male and many of them black who were found guilty in college tribunals, had their convictions undone in real courts of law. President Trump’s Secretary of Education, Betsy Devos rescinded the Obama-era standards, but if Catherine Lhamon is confirmed by the Senate, many fear she will re-instate the flawed standards. Doug McKelway interviews defense attorney, Justin Dillon , who has represented many falsely accused, about Lhamon’s upcoming nomination.

Read the full article at WashingtonExaminer.com >

Ending due process: Reinstating Catherine Lhamon at the Dept. of Education is a mistake

Mon, 14 Jun 2021 16:01:39 GMT

By Justin Dillon and Stuart Taylor Jr. (June 14, 2021, 05:00 PM EDT) -- It is now so common in Washington to oppose even a president’s lower-level nominees that no one takes such opposition seriously anymore. It’s just more partisan background noise. The problem with crying “wolf,” of course, is that when the wolf finally comes, no one listens.

Now, however, the wolf is at the door. Her name is Catherine Lhamon, and she is being nominated to retake her old job – head of the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) . She played a major role during the Obama administration in ruining the educations and often the lives of countless students – almost all of them male – who were found guilty of sexual assault under flagrantly unfair, effectively guilt-presuming rules dictated by her office. Her commands also pressured universities to ignore or discount powerful evidence of innocence.

Read the full article at USAToday.com >

Why Does Joe Biden Hate Due Process?

Thu, 25 Mar 2021 16:12:18 GMT

By Justin Dillon and Candice Jackson (March 25, 2021, 06:30 AM EDT) -- With a new executive order, the president suggests changes that may weaken Title IX protections for students on campus.

The New York State Assembly has selected the lawyers who will investigate allegations against Governor Andrew Cuomo that could result in his impeachment. The allegations include sexual-harassment charges made by at least nine women.

Read the full article at NationalReview.com >

Campus Disciplinary Cases | Pro Bono Year 2020

Tue, 08 Dec 2020 14:13:54 GMT

Campus Disciplinary Cases

Justin Dillon knows how earth-shattering a disciplinary finding can be for a college student. That’s why Dillon PLLC committed pro bono hours and multiple attorneys to fight for students who could not afford lawyers in campus proceedings.

Chris Muha , supervised by Justin Dillon , represented these college students facing serious consequences based on misconduct allegations.

Mr. Muha is also currently representing a student pro bono, who is facing serious consequences as a result of an erroneous disciplinary finding against him.

Justin Dillon Quoted In The New York Times and Washington Post About New Title IX Regulations

Thu, 07 May 2020 13:06:44 GMT

When the Education Department issued its long-awaited Title IX regulations on May 6th, prominent media outlets asked J ustin Dillon to share his view of the new rules, given the firm’s deep experience in representing students in Title IX cases nationwide. He told The New York Times that the new regulations are a “huge victory for basic fairness and long overdue.” In The Washington Post , he noted that “[t]he cross-examination requirement means that if you’re going to accuse someone of a terrible crime, you’re finally going to be asked hard questions about that. That’s how it should be, given the stakes.” And in Reason , he praised the Education Secretary behind the rules, explaining that “[n]othing Betsy DeVos has done since she took office will have a more lasting effect on people’s lives than this. It’s frankly inspiring to see how hard she and her staff have worked to get these regulations done and get them right.”

Finally, to help people, students, and professors understand what the new regime will mean for them, Justin has authored Guide to the New Title IX Regulations , a thorough examination of how the regulations will work in practice.

DeVos’s Rules Bolster Rights of Students Accused of Sexual Misconduct

Wed, 06 May 2020 16:25:01 GMT

By Erica Green (May 6, 2020) -- Education Secretary Betsy DeVos released final regulations for schools dealing with sexual misconduct, giving them the force of law for the first time and bolstering due-process rights.

Read the full article at NYTimes.com >

Coronavirus Is No Excuse to Delay the Education Department’s New Title IX Regulations

Mon, 30 Mar 2020 16:19:47 GMT

By Justin Dillon and KC Johnson (March 30, 2020, 02:35 PM EDT) -- Those making this argument are taking advantage of a crisis to try to keep due process out of college campuses.

Many disingenuous things have been said during the coronavirus crisis, some of them by the president of the United States himself. But right near the top must be three letters issued last week — from the American Council on Education (ACE), activist groups led by the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), and 18 Democratic attorneys general — calling for the Department of Education to halt the release of long-anticipated regulations that will restore due process to the handling of sexual-assault cases on college campuses. DeVos’s proposed rule would ensure basic rights for accused students — notice, access to evidence, a live hearing, and the ability to have a lawyer or advocate cross-examine adverse witnesses — that are often or almost always absent in the current Title IX process imposed by Obama-era guidance. That system has yielded more than 170 university setbacks in lawsuits filed by accused students in state or federal court.

Read the full article at NationalReview.com >

The ACLU vs. due process: The nonprofit takes a surprising stand against more rights for those accused on campus

Sat, 21 Mar 2020 16:16:23 GMT

By Justin Dillon (March 25, 2020, 11:26 AM EDT) -- T his month, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos unveiled new Title IX regulations, the most important advancement in campus civil liberties in a generation. While still being legally bound to address students’ sexual assault allegations, colleges now must respect the rights of accused students as well. The regulations also define sexual harassment more narrowly, lest Title IX enforcement create campus...

Read the full article at NYDailyNews.com >

Chris Muha Co-Authors Bipartisan Amicus Brief in the Supreme Court

Fri, 06 Mar 2020 14:28:30 GMT

March 6, 2020--Counsel Chris Muha authored an amicus brief in two of the most high-profile cases in the Supreme Court this term, Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP and Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG. The cases ask whether, and under what circumstances, Congress may investigate suspected wrongdoing by a sitting President. They promise to shape the balance of power between Congress and the President, and the methods by which Congress may conduct its investigations, for years to come.

The brief was filed on behalf of The Lugar Center, founded by six-term former Republican Senator for the State of Indiana- Richard Lugar, and the Levin Center at Wayne Law, founded by the six-term former Democratic Senator for the state of Michigan- Carl Levin. It argues that, no matter which side the Court ultimately rules, it should make sure to preserve an important congressional tool: the use of “case studies”- investigations into suspected wrongdoing by individual persons- to inform itself regarding broad legislative needs. Such investigations, the brief argues, are not improper “law enforcement” actions, but instead are catalysts for important legislation, including certain landmark legislation enacted over the last 20 years.

The full brief is available here.

Justin Dillon and Chris Muha Win “Pathbreaking” Title IX Case in the Sixth Circuit

Mon, 11 Mar 2019 14:55:30 GMT

In a decision that one prominent commentator calls “ pathbreaking ”, Justin Dillon and Chris Muha secured victory in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for a client whose expulsion from Oberlin College was, in the words of the appeals court, “arguably inexplicable.” John Doe sued Oberlin College under Title IX after being expelled for sexual assault, and when his Title IX claim was dismissed by the trial court, he appealed to the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit reversed the trial court, holding that, “for any number of reasons,” Mr. Doe had adequately pled that his expulsion was due to unlawful gender discrimination.

In a final paragraph that will make it easier for wrongly disciplined students to vindicate themselves, the appeals court enshrined the “common sense” idea, resisted by many courts, that when a school’s disciplinary decision cuts strongly against the weight of the evidence before it, “the merits of the decision itself” can be evidence that the decision was due in part to gender bias, as required to bring a Title IX claim. A student’s ability to assert a Title IX claim significantly affects the kind of damages available in a lawsuit and the strength of a student’s bargaining position with a school throughout the course of litigation. The Sixth Circuit’s decision helps to level the field between disciplined students and their schools.

The full opinion in John Doe v. Oberlin College can be found here .

Interview Published With Title IX Lawyer Justin Dillon On What It’s Like Working In This Growing Field

Thu, 10 Jan 2019 14:35:16 GMT

January 10, 2019--When researching 41 Legal Practice Areas That Didn’t Exist 15 Years Ago , MyShingle.com looked to Justin Dillon to address what it’s like practicing in the ever-growing field of Title IX Defense Law. Their profile of Mr. Dillon shines a light on both his experience and passion to ensure all students, both the accuser and the accused, receive fair treatment in sexual assault cases.

“Many schools’ Title IX processes are so infected with gender bias that it would blow your hair back,” Mr. Dillon told MyShingle.com . “We also see a lot of schools violating basic principles of due process, by doing things like giving accused students insufficient notice of the charges against them or denying them access to the evidence that’s going to be used against them. We’re not supposed to convict people based on secret evidence in America. But some schools still think that’s OK when you’re charged with a sex offense on a college campus. It’s shameful.”

Mr. Dillon also spoke about what drives him when it came to Title IX work, sharing that “it’s one of the most deeply personal kinds of law you can practice. You’re holding someone’s future in your hands. And you’re fighting an institution that, nine times out of ten, doesn’t give a tinker’s damn about treating them fairly.”

National News Outlets Turn to Justin Dillon for Comment on Proposed New Title IX Rules

Wed, 21 Nov 2018 14:42:28 GMT

When Education Secretary Betsy DeVos proposed new rules governing campus sexual assault on November 16, 2018, major news outlets turned to Justin Dillon of Dillon PLLC to comment. Both The New York Times and National Public Radio interviewed Mr. Dillon about what the changes might mean for both accusers and accused students on college campuses.

“There is no better way to test the truthfulness of an accusation than by questioning the accuser during a live hearing,” Mr. Dillon told The Times. “If colleges are going to adjudicate what are essentially crimes, then accused students deserve to have the tools to defend themselves effectively.”

Mr. Dillon also published an opinion piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education , praising the reforms as “an important step toward restoring common sense and sanity in how these cases are handled…[and] a significant step forward” for both accusers and accused students.

New Title IX Proposal Would Restore Fairness in Sexual-Misconduct Cases

Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:30:42 GMT

By Justin Dillon (November 19, 2018) -- Thank God for Betsy DeVos. With the release on Friday of the proposed new rules for adjudicating campus sexual-misconduct cases, the education secretary has taken an important step toward restoring common sense and sanity in how these cases are handled.

My firm has represented more than 100 students and professors at more than 80 institutions across the country — from world-famous academics at major institutions to anonymous 18-year-olds at tiny religious colleges. Mostly, we represent the accused, male and female alike, because they tend to need lawyers more than the accusers do. (Plus, a host of nonprofits are eager to represent people who call themselves victims; not so if someone has called you a rapist.) But we’ve also represented accusers, and we fight just as hard for them as we do for the accused.

Read the full article at Chronicle For Higher Education >

Justin Dillon in The Washington Post: Proposed Title IX Reforms Do Not Go Far Enough To Protect Due Process

Thu, 06 Sep 2018 13:45:49 GMT

On September 5, 2018, Justin Dillon published an opinion piece in The Washington Post regarding the Education Department’s proposed new rules aimed at improving due process in campus sexual misconduct cases. While they are pleased with some aspects of the proposed reforms, they are concerned that the changes won’t do enough to restore fairness in Title IX cases.

Using examples from their experience in defending more than 100 students and professors nationwide, Mr. Dillon said that the current process on university campuses is in “shambles.” They endorse some of Betsy DeVos’s proposed reforms, like allowing parties in Title IX proceedings to cross-examine each other and obtain evidence like text messages and electronic communications. But they challenged the usefulness of the idea that schools will be allowed to choose which standard of proof to apply in these cases, selecting either the “preponderance of the evidence” or the higher, “clear and convincing evidence” standard:

“In light of the cultural and political climate on campus, particularly in the aftermath of #MeToo, giving schools the option to choose among evidentiary standards is a meaningless gesture: Schools will always choose the lower standard, lest they be branded safe havens for rapists.”

Because of the life-altering ramifications of both sexual assault and being accused of this crime, Mr. Dillon argue that the most effective system should protect both those who have been assaulted and those who are wrongfully accused, and that the final regulations should have “sufficient teeth to protect the due process rights of every student and professor accused on campus.”

The Education Department wants to make campus sexual misconduct hearings fairer. It should go further.

Wed, 05 Sep 2018 16:35:08 GMT

By Justin Dillon (September 5, 2018 at 2:45pm EDT) -- The administration is right that due process has been trampled on.

Read the full article at WashingtonPost.com

Justin Dillon Comments on Betsy DeVos’s Proposed Title IX Reforms in The Atlantic

Tue, 04 Sep 2018 14:02:19 GMT

S eptember 4, 2018 -- Justin Dillon was quoted in an article in The Atlantic analyzing Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s proposed reforms to Title IX as an effort to roll back what he viewed as the wild overreach that took place during the Obama era.

Mr. Dillon expressed skepticism that the draft changes would go far enough in protecting due process, calling the proposal to give schools a choice about the burden of proof used in Title IX cases “completely hollow.” No school, he said, would be willing to run the publicity risk of choosing the lower burden unless compelled to do by the government.

He also questioned the usefulness of the proposal to “require schools to share the evidence in the case with the complainant and respondent….[I]n Dillon’s experience, schools don’t know how to gather or weigh evidence, and often they are not interested in exculpatory texts or other materials offered by the accused.”

For the full article, click here.

Justin Dillon and Scott Bernstein in The Washington Post Declare That Changes in Common App for Colleges Do Not Go Far Enough

Thu, 23 Aug 2018 13:48:27 GMT

On Aug. 23, Justin Dillon and Scott Bernstein published an opinion piece in The Washington Post addressing the Common Application’s recent revision, which no longer requires applicants to college to disclose whether they have criminal records. The authors point out the disparity between removing that question but still asking about a student’s on-campus disciplinary history, a process that offers far less due process and far fewer protections for the accused than does the criminal justice system.

Referencing their deep experience defending clients facing Title IX claims, the authors question the reasonableness of asking about past accusations.

“If bad things that people are accused of doing in the past shouldn’t be relevant to a school’s evaluation of that student, then shouldn’t that apply with even more force when that finding is made without any due process rights and with the lowest burden of proof used to find facts in law?”

To access the full article, click here .

Justin Dillon Recognized Again by The Best Lawyers in America for Criminal Defense: White-Collar in D.C.

Fri, 17 Aug 2018 13:42:52 GMT

August 17, 2018 -- Dillon PLLC is pleased to announce that partner Justin Dillon has been recognized again by The Best Lawyers in America© (2019) for their work in Criminal Defense: White-Collar in Washington, D.C.

Justin Dillon can be reached here . Read more about the firm’s White-Collar Defense practice here .

Justin Dillon Discusses Title IX Issues before the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

Tue, 31 Jul 2018 13:37:15 GMT

July 31, 2018 -- On July 27th, 2018, Partner Justin Dillon spoke to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Miami about Title IX issues. Along with Ohio-based attorney Susan Stone of Kohrman Jackson Krantz, Mr. Dillon addressed what criminal defense lawyers should know about Title IX work.

Some criminal defense practitioners, he told the audience, tend to take a one-size-fits-all approach to their campus cases. But what works in a criminal courtroom, he said, does not necessarily work in on a college campus. In a criminal courtroom, for example, a defendant receives all of the rights owed him by the U.S. Constitution—he can cross-examine the witnesses against him, subpoena evidence, and request a full-blown trial. But the U.S. Constitution doesn’t apply to private schools. At a private school, the only rights to which an accused student is entitled are whatever the Education Department requires (which is very little) and whatever rights the school chooses to give him (which also tends to be very little). Knowing how to operate effectively within the confines of such a system is crucial for anyone who defends Title IX cases.

Mr. Dillon also discussed the pros and cons of hiring a private investigator to assist with the case. Although they can sometimes be useful, he warned that they can also scare off nervous witnesses and, if they’re too aggressive, do things that could result in a retaliation complaint against the accused.

Finding creative ways to seek out and preserve evidence is also important, given that students in Title IX cases lack subpoena power. Text messages, Facebook posts, and Tweets are often fertile ground for the defense in these cases, and knowing how to obtain such evidence is often key.

Justin Dillon can be reached here . Read more about the firm’s Title IX Defense practice here .

Justin Dillon Featured in NPR Story on New Title IX Guidance

Tue, 31 Jul 2018 13:32:26 GMT

July 31, 2018 -- NPR recently interviewed Dillon PLLC partner Justin Dillon about a lawsuit that some victims’ rights groups filed against the Department of Education for issuing guidance intended to increase due process protections for students accused of sexual misconduct on campus. Dillon did not mince words.

“It is completely frivolous,” Dillon said of the lawsuit.

Dillon explained that although schools are awaiting permanent guidance from the Department before changing their policies, some schools have already taken steps to make their rules fairer – such as by giving accused students more detailed notice of the charges against them or imposing less draconian interim measures on them.

Where the rules haven’t changed, Dillon said, the new guidance makes it easier to fight unfair treatment of accused students. For example, when a school kicked one of his clients off campus, Dillon used the guidance to fight back. “I went to them and cited the guidance, and said, ‘You can’t do this, you’re interfering with his education,’” Dillon told NPR. “And in that case, I was able to persuade them to let him back on campus.”

Justin Dillon can be reached here . Read more about the firm’s Title IX Defense practice here .

Fri, 03 Nov 2017 13:23:32 GMT

November 3, 2017 -- Partner Justin Dillon have been individually recognized in the 2017 edition of The Best Lawyers in America© for his work in Criminal Defense: White-Collar.

The Best Lawyers in America® was first published in 1983. Since then, the same tried and tested peer-review process has been used consistently for more than 40 years. While the scope and scale of this publication has dramatically grown over the past four decades, the core mission of Best Lawyers to highlight the top legal talent in America has remained unchanged. The rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, and peer review from leading attorneys in their field.

Justin Dillon Discusses Title IX Enforcement at Harvard Law School Bicentennial

Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:16:33 GMT

October 27, 2017 -- Dillon PLLC partner Justin Dillon took part in Harvard Law School’s bicentennial celebration, joining Supreme Court Justices, Senators, and a former Attorney General among the speakers at the historic event.

The centerpiece of a year-long celebration, the “HLS in the World” summit was conceived as a forum for “exploring big ideas” and “address[ing] the hard questions.”

Dillon, an HLS alumnus who has gained national prominence representing students accused in campus disciplinary processes, was the only defense practitioner selected for a panel entitled “Perspectives on Title IX Enforcement on Campus.”

Alongside five Harvard Law professors and a victims’ rights activist, Dillon discussed the importance of fair procedures during on-campus investigations and common shortcomings he has seen in the dozens of such cases he has handled nationwide.

Participants at the event included current and former Supreme Court Justices (Neil Gorsuch, Elena Kagan, David H. Souter, Stephen G. Breyer, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.), Senators (Elizabeth Warren, Tom Cotton, and Tim Kaine), and former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Justin Dillon provides additional insight on Title IX guidelines in his interviews with The New York Times and BuzzFeed News.

To reach out to Justin please click here .

Justin Dillon Talks Football And The First Amendment In The Washington Post

Sun, 24 Sep 2017 13:13:00 GMT

September 24, 2017 -- Following President Trump’s recent suggestion that NFL players protesting the national anthem should be fired by their teams’ owners, The Washington Post asked several attorneys whether the comments crossed any legal lines.

Not so, according to Dillon PLLC partner Justin Dillon . “Even the president has a First Amendment right to be obnoxious.”

“What would be a problem,” Dillon said, “is if he went beyond using the bully pulpit and actually ordered the government to take action against any of these teams or their players.”

That’s because while the president has a constitutional right to speak his mind, he has no right to use government power to punish those he disagrees with.

Quoted alongside legendary First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams and constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, Dillon warned that the public shouldn’t confuse someone’s right to free speech with whether their speech is right.

“I’m not saying we shouldn’t condemn remarks like this,” said Dillon, “but we should defend his right to say them. That’s an important distinction that’s being lost in our increasingly speech-suspicious society.”

To reach out to Justin please click here.

The New York Times and BuzzFeed News Quote Justin Dillon on the New Title IX Guidelines

Fri, 22 Sep 2017 13:10:21 GMT

September 22, 2017 -- On September 22, 2017, the Department of Education rescinded federal guidelines governing how universities investigate allegations of sexual misconduct, saying the Obama-era rules “lacked basic elements of fairness.” In their place, it issued new guidance that is designed to strike a better balance between the rights of both accused students and their accusers. One important difference is that schools will now have the option of using a higher burden or proof when deciding whether someone is guilty of sexual misconduct on campus.

For an understanding of what these changes mean and why they were made, The New York Times turned to partner Justin Dillon , an attorney who has represented dozens of students in Title IX investigations. “The vast majority of campus sexual assault cases involve a lot of alcohol and no witnesses, so you essentially have two people who were probably drinking trying to recall events that may have happened weeks, months, or even years before.” That is why, Dillon said, it makes sense to require a higher burden of proof in these cases.

To that end, the Department will no longer require colleges to use the lowest legal standard of proof – “preponderance of the evidence” – in deciding whether a student is responsible for sexual assault. Under that lowered standard, students accused of sexual misconduct faced an uphill battle to avoid life-altering punishment.

Going forward, universities are free to choose to raise the standard of proof required to find misconduct to the higher “clear and convincing evidence” standard, a choice Dillon thinks campus administrators will welcome.

“I would bet most [college] general counsels’ offices are afraid of their Title IX office, not the other way around,” Dillon told BuzzFeed News in a separate interview. “I think that’s about to change in a good way.”

To reach out to Justin please click here.

Justin Dillon Co-Authors Washington Post Op-Ed on the Future of Title IX Investigations

Fri, 15 Sep 2017 04:55:56 GMT

September 15, 2017 --In a recent op-ed published in The Washington Post partner Justin Dillon welcomed coming changes to federal rules governing how universities investigate alleged sexual misconduct.

“This is extraordinarily good and long-overdue news for anyone who cares about due process on college campuses,” Dillon wrote of U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s announcement this week that her department would reconsider 2011 guidance that imposed sprawling investigatory duties on university officials.

As Dillon explained, the Department of Education “has essentially required college administrators — few of whom have any legal training — to be police, lawyer, judge, jury and often executioner for both sides whenever an allegation of sexual misconduct is raised. Unsurprisingly, schools aren’t very good at this. They err often . . . usually in favor of the accusers, not the accused.”

Although DeVos did not say what the Education Department’s new rules might look like, Dillon cheered the even-handed tone of her speech.

“As lawyers who have represented scores of students in campus sexual misconduct proceedings across the country,” Dillon wrote, “we applaud the secretary’s careful, evenhanded, and sympathetic approach to a very difficult problem. Her compassion for both those who have been affected by sexual violence, and those who have had their lives shattered by a false complaint was moving and inspiring.”

For Dillon, the coming public discussion of the future rules is a victory in and of itself and a vindication of their decision, along with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education , to sue the Department over its illegal promulgation of the previous guidance. “Last year, we sued the department to have the prior regulations disregarded because they weren’t subject to notice and comment,” they wrote. “The secretary is right to follow the law with these proposals.”

The current guidance “is gone; that much is clear,” Dillon concluded. “What isn’t clear is what will replace it as the notice-and-comment process marches on.”

Justin Dillon Recognized by Best Lawyers in America for Criminal Defense: White-Collar

Wed, 16 Aug 2017 04:30:04 GMT

August 16, 2017 -- Justin Dillon has been recognized in the 2017 edition of The Best Lawyers in America© for their work in Criminal Defense: White-Collar.

A former Assistant United States Attorney, Justin Dillon defends clients in complex, high-stakes white-collar criminal cases. He is frequently quoted and published in national media like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times; most recently, articles in both The Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press featured his comments about President Trump and the ongoing investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Mr. Dillon also has gained nationwide attention for his work representing students and professors in campus misconduct cases.

First published in 1983, the Best Lawyers in America© highlights the top 5% of practicing attorneys in the U.S. based on more than 7.4 million evaluations.

Kushner to Face Intel Committee on Monday Behind Closed Doors

Sun, 23 Jul 2017 16:40:13 GMT

By Devlin Barrett (July 23, 2017 at 6:25pm EDT) -- Access the full article at WashingtonPost.com

Justin Dillon’s Comments on Trump-“Morning Joe” Feud Featured in BuzzFeed News

Wed, 12 Jul 2017 04:25:07 GMT

July 12, 2017 -- Justin Dillon recently said in an interview with Buzzfeed News that no criminal laws appear to have been broken in the feud between President Donald J. Trump and MSNBC hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough, regarding President Trump’s alleged promise to have the National Enquirer quash a story about the two morning-show hosts in exchange for an apology from Ms. Brzezinski.

The article interviewed legal experts on whether any of the alleged activities rose to the level of extortion, blackmail, or bribery.

Mr. Dillon said, “I would call it icky horsetrading, but it is not blackmail. It’s more like, ‘You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.’ Blackmail is, ‘If you don’t scratch my back, I’ll stab you in the back.’”

He also did not see a case for extortion: “It would be one thing if [Trump] were saying, ‘If you don’t apologize to me, I will make the Enquirer run this story.’ But there’s a difference between sort of refusing to intervene to prevent a bad thing from happening and affirmatively making a bad thing happen, and that is a distinction that matters under the law.”

To read the entire article, Visit BuzzFeed News >

The Associated Press Interviews Justin Dillon about President Trump’s Legal Strategy

Tue, 20 Jun 2017 04:18:17 GMT

June 20, 2017 -- Justin Dillon was recently interviewed by the Associated Press about President Trump’s aggressive legal strategy in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s ongoing investigation. Mr. Dillon noted that whether Mr. Trump actually committed obstruction of justice, as some have argued he did, will turn on his state of mind at the time:

“If you can prove that there was something there and the president knew about it, then the obstruction case looks far stronger,” said Mr. Dillon. “But if it’s just, he’s acting impetuously because he doesn’t like having himself or his friends investigated for something he genuinely believes he didn’t do, then I think that’s a much harder case for obstruction.”

Mr. Dillon also noted that the President should probably rethink his Twitter-heavy approach to the case, cautioning that less is typically more when responding to a government investigation: “He probably can’t say nothing, but I think he should say as little as possible–and it should be so boring that it makes for bad copy,” he said.

The Wall Street Journal Quotes Justin Dillon on the Trump Investigation

Mon, 12 Jun 2017 04:13:12 GMT

June 12, 2017 -- Justin Dillon was recently quoted in The Wall Street Journal regarding a recent argument made by Jay Sekulow, an attorney for President Trump, that President Trump must not be under investigation because the Justice Department has never told him that he is under investigation.

Mr. Dillon, a former Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia who has represented many clients under government investigation, called any such inference “ridiculous.” Adding that “Many don’t know they are being investigated until the government is quite far down the evidence-gathering path.”

Access the full article at The Wall Street Journal >

Justin Dillon Speaks at Harvard Law School Regarding Title IX Issues

Mon, 12 Jun 2017 04:10:08 GMT

June 12, 2017 -- On April 8, Justin Dillon spoke on a panel at Harvard Law School regarding current issues in Title IX enforcement on college campuses. During the panel—Title IX and Campus Sexual Assault: A View from the Trenches—Mr. Dillon drew from his experience in defending dozens of students nationwide accused of sexual misconduct on campus. “One of the biggest lies that schools tell in these processes,” said Mr. Dillon said, “is that this isn’t a criminal process, it’s an ‘educational’ process. That is ridiculous. Because it is life-changing.”

Mr. Dillon also noted that the breadth of most sexual misconduct policies winds up lumping in one category a wide variety of behaviors that look nothing like each other. “I think we’ve radically defined rape down. We’ve defined sexual assault down,” Mr. Dillon said. “If everything is sexual assault, then nothing is sexual assault. And I think that’s a problem, and I think that’s you end up often in some of these cases with absurd results that don’t track how people have sex or interact in the real world.”

Mr. Dillon has also been invited by the Dean of Harvard Law School to speak on Title IX issues at the school’s 200th anniversary celebration, to be held in October of 2017.

Watch the video here >

Everything You Think You Know About Campus Sexual Assault Is Wrong: A Review Of 'The Campus Rape Frenzy'

Thu, 23 Mar 2017 16:44:56 GMT

By Justin Dillon (March 23, 2017 at 10:05 AM EDT) -- The most terrifying book you will read this year isn’t written by Stephen King. It’s written by a lawyer and a history professor, and it will blow your hair back.

The book is The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America’s Universities , by KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor, Jr. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

By way of background, my firm does a lot of work in this area . At this point, we’ve represented students accused of campus misconduct at more than 60 colleges across the country. I write and speak frequently about these issues, and my firm has sued several schools for mishandling these cases.

Access the full article at AboveTheLaw.com >

The Hidden Perils of Affirmative Consent Policies

Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:56:00 GMT

By Justin Dillon and Hanna L. Stotland (March 23, 2017 at 10:05 AM EDT) -- As Harvard alums who have represented dozens of students involved in sexual misconduct accusations on campuses nationwide, we read with concern the March 10 Crimson article revealing that Harvard College may adopt an affirmative consent policy in sexual misconduct cases. This would be a grave mistake.

The main problem with affirmative consent policies is that they don't match how people have sex in the real world, including on college campuses. They are a classic example of policies that sound good in theory but break down in practice.

After all, isn’t it important that people make sure that they have consent for sex? How could it be bad to codify that requirement in the clearest possible terms?

The problem is that what seems clear in principle is often decidedly less so in practice. Most affirmative consent policies, for example, say that consent may only be expressed through unambiguous words or actions. On its face, that is clear enough. Expressing unambiguous verbal consent only takes one word: “Yes.”

Requiring verbal consent seems that it would simplify proof in sexual assault accusations, but it doesn’t. We have seen multiple cases where the complainant acknowledged that they said yes, but claimed that they did not mean it, or that they non-verbally withdrew the consent later. The accused was found responsible for sexual assault in these cases.

Access the full article at The Harvard Crimson >

The Chronicle of Higher Education Interviews Justin Dillon On Title IX Due Process

Fri, 10 Mar 2017 04:56:38 GMT

March 9, 2017 -- As part of a lengthy piece examining the increase in lawsuits being filed on behalf of accused students in sexual misconduct cases on campus, The Chronicle of Higher Education interviewed Partner Justin Dillon , who has represented accused students nationwide in such cases. Mr. Dillon explained that schools appear to have been surprised by the number of accused students who were willing to fight back, and that seeing them sue had been a wake-up call.

“There was a problem,” he said, with how schools handled sexual assault cases in the old days. “But I think it was wildly overcorrected,” he noted, leading to a system in which only one student is penalized for engaging in conduct that both students were “equally into,” usually while equally intoxicated.

To read the full article visit The Chronicle of Higher Education >

When Should Prosecutors Act Like People? A Case Study

Fri, 16 Dec 2016 04:50:46 GMT

December 15, 2016 -- In this Above the Law, Justin Dillon poses the question “When should prosecutors act like people?” and explores the issue using a recent District of Columbia case.

To read the full article visit Above the Law >

The Associated Press Quotes Justin Dillon on Push for Colleges to Note Sexual Misconduct on Transcripts

Fri, 09 Dec 2016 04:48:07 GMT

December 08, 2016 -- Drawing on his experience defending dozens of students accused of sexual misconduct, Justin Dillon was recently quoted by the Associated Press about a growing push for colleges to note sexual misconduct findings on student transcripts.

States like New York and Virginia have already enacted these efforts into law, and California is considering similar legislation. Proponents of the legislation argue that it will help colleges and employers identify potential sexual predators, but Justin said that’s not true and that the legislation would simply magnify the life-ruining impact on the wrongly accused, given the low burden of proof to find someone responsible and the lack of due process provided in these proceedings.

“It is an uneven playing field from the start,” Justin was quoted as saying. “Regardless of what colleges want to say, the burden is always on the accused student to prove his innocence, not the other way around.”

To read the full article visit Associated Press >

Justin Dillon Discusses the Two Paths Forward for the Trump DOJ

Sat, 12 Nov 2016 04:42:56 GMT

November 11, 2016 -- In this Above the Law article, Justin Dillon discusses Trump Justice Department appointees, and many of the unknowns surrounding how President Elect Trump’s pursuits will impact white-collar law.

To read the full article visit Above the Law >

Justin Dillon Publishes a Guide for Students Accused of Campus Sexual Assault

Wed, 02 Nov 2016 03:38:22 GMT

November 01, 2016 -- Justin Dillon has published a Guide for students who have been accused of sexual assault on campus.

The free Guide is available for download here.

If you know someone caught up in the campus disciplinary system, we encourage you to download the Guide now.

Justin Dillon named to Board of Advisers of Families Advocating for Campus Equality (FACE)

Sun, 02 Oct 2016 03:35:33 GMT

October 01, 2016 -- Proud to announce that partner Justin Dillon joined the Board of Advisers of Families Advocating for Campus Equality (FACE).

FACE is a non-profit dedicated to the advancement of due process for all who live and work in university systems. As an Director of FACE, Justin will guide the organization in its mission to raise public awareness of unfair campus disciplinary procedures, especially regarding allegations of sexual misconduct. Justin states that “I am honored to join FACE’s Board of Directors and aid them in the fight to bring real due process protections to colleges’ handling of sexual assault cases”

The Campus Rape Lawsuit That Could Destroy Title IX Has Finally Arrived

Thu, 23 Jun 2016 03:31:15 GMT

June 22, 2016 -- Justin Dillon is quoted by Reason discussing the Federal Lawsuit against the Department of Education.

To read the full article visit Reason >

The difficulties of bringing a cold case to trial

Mon, 20 Jun 2016 03:26:14 GMT

June 19, 2016 -- Justin Dillon is quoted by the Washington Post regarding the difficulties of bringing a cold case to trial and specifically comments on the trial of the man accused of the 1983 New Year’s Eve murder of Rachel Cox.

To read the full article visit Washington Post >

Justin Dillon and Chris Muha Files a Federal Lawsuit Against the Department of Education

Sat, 18 Jun 2016 03:20:21 GMT

June 17, 2016 -- Partner Justin Dillon and Chris Muha have filed a Federal Lawsuit in the District Court of the District of Columbia on behalf of a former UVA law student in a case sponsored by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) . As reported by the Washington Post, the suit challenges the April 4, 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter issued by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, which mandate a specific process for adjudicating allegations of sexual assault, and undermine the due process rights of those accused on campus.

Op-Ed: Absurdity reigns in campus sexual assault trials

Thu, 21 Apr 2016 17:01:34 GMT

By Justin Dillon and Matt Kaiser (April 21, 2016 at 4:30 AM PT) -- There’s an old legal adage that good facts make good law, and bad facts make bad law. In the case of campus sexual assault, it may be that absurd facts will — eventually — make good law too.

About five years ago, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued a letter that would change the face of campus sexual misconduct proceedings at colleges across the country.

The letter directed university administrators to judge allegations according to the lowest burden of proof available: the preponderance of the evidence, a mere 50.01% certainty that whatever the accuser claimed actually happened. It also highly discouraged cross-examinations, suggesting they might violate federal anti-discrimination law.

Access the full article at LATimes.com >

Why We Are Suing the Government on Behalf of Students Accused of Sexual Misconduct

Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:48:14 GMT

The book is The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America’s Universities , by KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor, Jr. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Access the full article at AboveTheLaw.com >

Justin Dillon Wins Federal lawsuit Against George Mason University

Tue, 05 Apr 2016 03:13:09 GMT

April 04, 2016 -- Justin Dillon , won a game changing case in Federal court against George Mason University . The case involved a student wrongfully expelled for sexual misconduct and is a noted win in an area of law with little precedent. In an article published by the the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Justin noted that “it’s all the more important that the judge fashion a remedy that will deter Mason and other schools from trampling on students’ rights.”

Read the full article at HuffPost >

Justin Dillon Interviewed by HuffPost on George Mason University Legal Victory

Thu, 31 Mar 2016 03:02:48 GMT

March 30, 2016 -- The Huffington Post interviewed Justin Dillon about the law firm's recent first-of-its-kind victory against George Mason University in a campus sexual misconduct case.

Read the full article at HuffPost >

The Washington Post Interviews Justin Dillon about the Erin Andrews Case

Tue, 08 Mar 2016 04:00:15 GMT

Partner Justin Dillon was interviewed at length by The Washington Post regarding the curious defense strategy in Erin Andrews’s “peeping Tom” lawsuit.

Op-Ed: How to punish campus sexual assault

Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:03:18 GMT

By Justin Dillon and Matt Kaiser ( April 21, 2016 at 4:30 AM PT) -- There’s an old legal adage that good facts make good law, and bad facts make bad law. In the case of campus sexual assault, it may be that absurd facts will — eventually — make good law too.

About five years ago, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued a letter that would change the face of campus sexual misconduct proceedings at colleges across the country.

Access the full article at LATimes.com >

Op-Ed: Why it’s unfair for colleges to use outside investigators in rape cases

Tue, 15 Sep 2015 17:08:37 GMT

By Justin Dillon and Matt Kaiser (September 15, 2015 at 5:00 AM PT) -- In recent months, public attention has focused on campus sexual assault like never before. As a result, the way that colleges and universities handle rape allegations is evolving rapidly.

Some of these reforms are good — students should have ready access to counseling and support services, and colleges should have conversations with their students about the norms of consent on campus. But as lawyers who have represented dozens of accused students nationwide, we believe that many of these changes are warping traditional ideas of due process. One especially worrisome development is the move by schools to use outside investigators to decide cases.

We’re sympathetic to school administrators, who are in a no-win situation. Finding a student responsible for sexual assault may ruin his life — most of the accused are men — and put the school at risk of a lawsuit. Finding a student not responsible can result in an expensive inquiry from the Department of Education — currently 124 schools and counting — a Title IX lawsuit, or public shaming along the lines of what happened to Columbia University when one of its hearing panels exonerated Emma Sulkowicz’s alleged assailant. Hers was the mattress seen ‘round the world.

Access the full article at LATimes.com >

Justin Dillon appointed to D.C. Bar Continuing Legal Education Committee

Mon, 15 Jun 2015 02:36:30 GMT

Dillon PLLC is pleased to announce that partner Justin Dillon has been appointed to the D.C. Bar’s Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Committee. This committee oversees the D.C. Bar’s CLE Program and the education component of the Mandatory Course on the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct and District of Columbia Practice. It is responsible for evaluating course proposals, generating course ideas, and recommending course chairs and faculty members. The committee also evaluates and approves requests from D.C. Bar sections to cosponsor programs for continuing legal education credit with outside CLE sponsors.

"Continuing education is a critical component of good legal practice, and DC has the best CLE program in the country," said Justin. "I look forward to doing my part to help it continue this tradition of success."

Chris Muha co-authors an Amicus Brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

Sat, 27 Sep 2014 02:27:18 GMT

Chris Muha has co-authored an amicus brief on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyer in the Eleventh Circuit case of United States v. Clay. The brief argues that the federal government should not be able to prosecute a business person who makes a statement that is based on an objectively reasonable interpretation of the law.

In United States v. Clay, a number of executives were prosecuted for statements made by the company they worked for about health care services that relied on an objectively reasonable interpretation of a health care law. They were convicted of a felony for those statements.

Justin Dillon Featured in The Torch, FIRE’s Legal Newsletter

Tue, 26 Aug 2014 02:22:52 GMT

Justin Dillon was featured in The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE’s) Legal Network Newsletter. For 15 years, FIRE has championed the free speech and due process rights of students and faculty at colleges and universities across the country. The interview highlighted Justin's ongoing work defending students within campus disciplinary systems.

The White House Flunks a Test on Sexual Assault

Mon, 05 May 2014 17:15:03 GMT

By Justin Dillon and Matt Kaiser (September 15, 2016 at 5:00 AM PT) -- In January, President Obama convened a White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault and charged it with creating a set of recommendations commensurate with its title. Last Tuesday the task force released its report.

Those of us who handle these cases professionally had hoped that the report would strike a thoughtful balance between respecting the experiences of victims...

Access the full article at The Wall Street Journal>

Dillon PLLC News

Dillon PLLC & Justin Dillon Recognized in the 2026 Chambers USA Guide

All Dillon PLLC Attorneys Recognized in 2026 Edition of Best Lawyers®

Dillon PLLC Teams Up with the Brandeis Center to File Complaint Against Private School in Virginia

Justin Dillon Recognized in the 2025 Chambers USA Guide

The Defense of Freedom Institute Quotes Partner Justin Dillon in Its Press Release Announcing the RESPECT Title IX Act.

Partner Justin Dillon Successfully Defends James Madison University Professor in Academic Freedom Case

Chris Muha Featured in Franciscan Magazine: A Journey of Faith and Law

How Can You Effectively Appeal a Disciplinary Sanction While Navigating Tight Deadlines and Procedural Challenges?

What Are 10 Tips for Defending Yourself During a Title IX Campus Misconduct Investigation?

1. Don’t Be Pressured Into Doing Something Dumb

2. Lock Down Your Social Media

3. Preserve Other People’s Social Media

4. Do Not Delete Anything

5. Comply with the no-contact order

6. Do Not Talk About Your Case to Anyone But Your Lawyer

7. Tell Your Lawyer Everything

8. Be Wary of the School Officials

9. Do Not Put Your Head in the Sand

10. Come Together as a Family

All Dillon PLLC Attorneys Recognized in 2025 Edition of Best Lawyers®

What Organizations Can Help When You Are Facing Campus Disciplinary Action?

What Are the Legal Grounds for Suing a University Over Unfair Campus Disciplinary Proceedings?

What Happens if You Are Suspended or Expelled in a Campus Disciplinary Proceeding?

How Do You Choose the Right Adviser for a Campus Disciplinary Proceeding?

What Questions Should You Expect in a Campus Disciplinary Proceeding?

Questions For You

How Does Intoxication Affect Consent in Sexual Assault Claims?

What Are 5 Things You Should Never Do if You Are Accused of Sexual Misconduct on Campus?

1. Do Not Talk About Your Case to Anyone But Your Lawyer

2. Don’t Withhold Information from Your Attorney

3. Don’t Trust School Officials

4. Do Not Put Your Head in the Sand

5. Don’t Shut Your Family Out

What Is a No Contact Order in Campus Disciplinary Proceedings, and How Should You Handle the Restrictions?

Princeton University Student Files Lawsuit Against University for Due Process Violations

Chris Muha Quoted in Law.com Discussing a Lawsuit Against Princeton University

Justin Dillon Recognized in the 2024 Chambers USA Guide

Justin Dillon Quoted in The Free Press

Justin Dillon & Chris Muha Recognized in 2024 Edition of Best Lawyers® Peer Review Guide

Conn. Ruling May Force Colleges To Rethink Title IX Hearings

Recognized by The Legal 500 for Corporate Investigations and White-Collar Criminal Defense

Justin Dillon Individual Lawyer Recognitions in the 2023 Chambers USA Guide

Justin Dillon Recognized by Super Lawyers

Justin Dillon & Chris Muha Recognized Best Lawyers®

Justin Dillon Discusses the Biden Administration’s Proposed Title IX Regulations with the Defense of Freedom Institute and the Federalist Society

Biden's Title IX changes would roll back fairness and due process on campus

Recognized by The Legal 500 for Corporate Investigations and White-Collar Criminal Defense

Justin Dillon Recognized by Super Lawyers

Justin Dillon Recognized by The Best Lawyers in America for Criminal Defense: White-Collar in D.C.

FIRE Taps Attorneys Justin Dillon & Chris Muha to Author “Title IX Hearings and Litigation: A Practitioner’s Guide”

The Future of Title IX: A Conversation with Justin Dillon

Ending due process: Reinstating Catherine Lhamon at the Dept. of Education is a mistake

Why Does Joe Biden Hate Due Process?

Campus Disciplinary Cases | Pro Bono Year 2020

Campus Disciplinary Cases

Justin Dillon Quoted In The New York Times and Washington Post About New Title IX Regulations

DeVos’s Rules Bolster Rights of Students Accused of Sexual Misconduct

Coronavirus Is No Excuse to Delay the Education Department’s New Title IX Regulations

The ACLU vs. due process: The nonprofit takes a surprising stand against more rights for those accused on campus

Chris Muha Co-Authors Bipartisan Amicus Brief in the Supreme Court

Justin Dillon and Chris Muha Win “Pathbreaking” Title IX Case in the Sixth Circuit

Interview Published With Title IX Lawyer Justin Dillon On What It’s Like Working In This Growing Field

National News Outlets Turn to Justin Dillon for Comment on Proposed New Title IX Rules

New Title IX Proposal Would Restore Fairness in Sexual-Misconduct Cases

Justin Dillon in The Washington Post: Proposed Title IX Reforms Do Not Go Far Enough To Protect Due Process

The Education Department wants to make campus sexual misconduct hearings fairer. It should go further.

Justin Dillon Comments on Betsy DeVos’s Proposed Title IX Reforms in The Atlantic

Justin Dillon and Scott Bernstein in The Washington Post Declare That Changes in Common App for Colleges Do Not Go Far Enough

Justin Dillon Recognized Again by The Best Lawyers in America for Criminal Defense: White-Collar in D.C.

Justin Dillon Discusses Title IX Issues before the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

Justin Dillon Featured in NPR Story on New Title IX Guidance

Justin Dillon recognized in the 2017 edition of The Best Lawyers in America©

Justin Dillon Discusses Title IX Enforcement at Harvard Law School Bicentennial

Justin Dillon Talks Football And The First Amendment In The Washington Post

The New York Times and BuzzFeed News Quote Justin Dillon on the New Title IX Guidelines

Justin Dillon Co-Authors Washington Post Op-Ed on the Future of Title IX Investigations

Justin Dillon Recognized by Best Lawyers in America for Criminal Defense: White-Collar

Kushner to Face Intel Committee on Monday Behind Closed Doors

Justin Dillon’s Comments on Trump-“Morning Joe” Feud Featured in BuzzFeed News