plagiarism policy



academic planning	academic resources	course offerings	certificates	concentrations	awards
clinical opportunities	semester guide	policies	dual degrees	LRW	bar exam information

Policies

Student Handbook
Student Honor Code

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

PLAGIARISM POLICY STATEMENT

This Plagiarism Policy Statement provides a uniform definition of plagiarism, with explanations and illustrations, for the purpose of giving law students notice of their obligation to acknowledge and cite their sources in written work submitted to the faculty for evaluation. In addition, this Policy Statement describes situations that give rise to plagiarism, offers guidelines for avoiding such situations and provides examples of plagiarism and correct citation. The examples illustrate citations in academic writing (such as seminar papers) based on conventions that apply in legal scholarship published in law reviews. Other kinds of legal writing, such as briefs, legal documents, opinion letters, examinations, etc., may require different citation rules, as specified by the faculty member to whom they are submitted. An alleged plagiarism offense may be considered by a faculty member as a sufficient basis for a failing grade and may be processed under the ethics regulation in the Student Honor Code to the extent the alleged plagiarism offense constitutes cheating as defined in the Student Honor Code.

This Plagiarism Policy Statement was adopted by the Faculty of Saint Louis University School of Law on April 28, 2004. It will be distributed to all students during their first year at the School.

I. PLAGIARISM DEFINED

Plagiarism results from the unacknowledged use of material found in print sources, oral presentations, or visual, electronic or other media sources. Plagiarism does not require an intention to deceive. It can result when a student submits as his or her own work ideas, language, data or other material contained in a source not acknowledged by the student, if the student knew or should have known that such acknowledgement was required. Plagiarism includes, without limitation, the following:

A. Submitting another author’s published or unpublished work, in whole, in part, or in paraphrase, as one’s own work, without fully and properly crediting the other author with footnotes, citations or other bibliographical reference.

B. Submitting as one’s own original work any material, including data, tables, graphs, charts, or other visual material obtained from any source, without acknowledgement and citation of the source.

C. Submitting as one’s own original work material produced through unacknowledged collaboration with others, unless such collaboration is
permitted by the instructor.

II. EXPLANATIONS

Plagiarism as defined above is any use of a source—for example, another person’s words, ideas, data or visual material—without proper acknowledgement and citation.

A. Acknowledgement and citation of a source must be sufficient to specify the extent of the student’s use of the source. It is not sufficient merely to cite the source in a bibliography, footnote or other reference if specific words, ideas or other material are appropriated without specific acknowledgement.

B. Plagiarism is not limited to unacknowledged copying of another author’s words. Plagiarism results from any unacknowledged use, even when ideas taken from a source are expressed in the student’s own words.

C. All material taken from a source, including citations, numerical data, formulae and equations, organization and format, graphical or visual materials, must be acknowledged and cited, just as words and ideas must be acknowledged and cited.

D. Material appropriated from any source, including the internet, speeches and lectures, or films, television, radio and other visual or audio media, must be acknowledged and cited, just as material appropriated from print sources must be acknowledged and cited.

E. Plagiarism can result when no deception could have occurred, as when a student makes unacknowledged use of a source recommended by the teacher.

III. POLICIES AND GUIDELINES

A. PURPOSE OF STUDENT WRITING

The purpose of student writing is not only to convey information but also to provide evidence of the student’s proficiency in research, analysis and verbal style. Students submit written work for evaluation and grading. Plagiarism is wrong not only because it violates the rights of the author whose work is used without acknowledgement but also because it gives the student who plagiarizes an unfair advantage over other students.

B. STRICT ENFORCEMENT

The law school community must enforce rules against plagiarism to avoid putting honest students at a disadvantage. The perception that such a disadvantage exists strengthens the temptation to plagiarize on the false ground that “everybody does it.” Therefore, the rules set forth in this Plagiarism Policy Statement are strict and must be strictly enforced. Strict enforcement applies, because plagiarism has harmful effects on other students, even when the student who plagiarizes does so without an intention to deceive.

C. SPECIFIC ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SOURCES

Student writing must contain specific and detailed acknowledgement of all sources used by the student, because the student is submitting his or her work for evaluation and grading. Unless instructed otherwise, students should not limit their acknowledgement of sources to a bibliographical list of “Works Consulted,” even though this procedure is sometimes used in academic writing not produced by students. (See, for example, the Bibliographical Note at the conclusion of this Plagiarism Policy Statement.) For evaluation purposes, the teacher must know precisely what material is original to the student and what material was obtained from other sources.

D. CITATION FORMS AND METHODS

Citations are usually provided by footnotes, except in briefs and other documents submitted to courts, where citations are usually embedded in the text. Procedures for citing sources in law review articles and other writing intended for publication or for submission to courts are described in The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (17th ed. 2000), and in the ALWD Citation Manual: A Professional System of Citation (2nd ed. 2003). Other reference works describe proper citation methods to be used in student writing. See, for example, Elizabeth Fajans and Mary R. Falk, Scholarly Writing for Law Students (2nd ed. 2000). (These books are frequently updated. Be sure to use the most recent edition.)

E. QUOTATION AND PARAPHRASE

When a student uses the exact words of another author or duplicates a chart, diagram, table or other production of another author, the student must indicate that such duplication has occurred. Thus it would be insufficient to use another author’s words (or substantially the same words) and merely acknowledge in a footnote that the other author was a source of the idea expressed. Direct appropriation of another author’s words must be indicated by quotation marks, a block quotation or other formatting, and a footnote or other reference must identify the source from which the quoted material was taken. Duplication of charts, diagrams, tables and other material from a source must also be acknowledged, for example by a textual reference (“Reproduced below is Professor Smith’s diagram.”) by a caption (“Figure 3. N. J. Smith’s Diagram of Litigation Alternatives”), or by other means. In addition, a footnote or other reference must identify the publication where the diagram or other material was found.

Paraphrase occurs when a student expresses in his or her own words information found in a source. The student must cite the source of the information, even though the student has restated the information in different words not used by the original author.

F. CITATION OF AUTHORITY

Students sometimes plagiarize because they fear that complete acknowledgement of their sources will deprive them of any claim to be “original,” and that originality (in the sense of ideas not previously expressed by anyone else) is the principal criterion of excellence in writing. Whatever the case might be in other disciplines, such originality is seldom attainable in law.

Legal writing normally contains a citation to authority for every proposition stated in the text. The amount of citation in legal writing may appear excessive to entering law students familiar with the different citation rules used for most undergraduate writing assignments. Because law is not only an academic discipline but also (and primarily) a social institution for governing behavior, law must have recourse to principles established by authority in the society to be governed. The fact that authority (whether accepted or challenged) has great importance in law may account for the expectation that legal writers should cite every authority they used and should also find authority to support their own original ideas.

Students should not fear that citations will deprive them of their claim to originality. Excellence in legal writing owes less to novelty than to critical analyses of the existing authorities that constitute or interpret the law. It is an original contribution to find and cite authority for a proposition that legal scholars and judges would reject without authority. The student who cites authority for each proposition in his or her paper can make an original contribution by effective selection of material, especially where critical choices must be made among inconsistent authorities that support or disapprove the propositions under consideration. The soundness and persuasiveness of a student’s choices among different authorities are the hallmarks of good legal writing.

G. AVOIDING PLAGIARISM BY TAKING CAREFUL NOTES

Students must take careful notes when doing legal research in order to retain information they will need later on to acknowledge their sources. It is a dangerous practice to “read around” for background information or intellectual stimulus and make only general notes that combine information from the sources with your own emerging ideas. The use of such impressionistic notes in writing a paper may result in plagiarism, if the notes do not distinguish your own ideas from the ideas found in sources and do not preserve information needed to cite the sources. A student’s notes should be sufficient to identify material used for background information or intellectual stimulus as well as material to be cited as authority.

H. PROCRASTINATION LEADS TO PLAGIARISM

Time management is important both in law school and in practice. In the practice of law, poor time management results in ineffective representation of clients, malpractice and violations of professional conduct rules. In law school, poor time management leads to academic dishonesty, including plagiarism.

It takes time to assimilate legal authorities, choose among them, analyze them and produce a clearly written response. If such time is not available, plagiarism may result from poor note taking and hasty writing. Plagiarism often results from desparation. Students who do not manage their time effectively and are faced with multiple deadlines they cannot meet are vulnerable to the temptation to plagiarize on the ground that they have no other choice.

I. SEEK HELP WHEN YOU NEED IT

Students who find themselves unable to meet deadlines because of poor time management, personal problems or other unanticipated disruptions should seek help from their instructor or the Assistant Dean of Students. There is always an alternative to plagiarism. Ask for an extension. If none is granted, seek other remedies. If none are found, accept the penalty for submitting your work late. Penalties for academic deficiencies are much less serious than penalties for plagiarism.

IV. EXAMPLES

The following paragraph was written by a student author, Mary M. Wynne, and published as a Comment in The Saint Louis University Law Journal: Primary Liability Amongst Secondary Actors: Why the Second Circuit’s “Bright Line” Standard Should Prevail, 44 St. Louis U. L.J. 1607, 1608 (2000).

Excerpt from Comment by Mary Wynne:

Although the need for securities regulation may be obvious today, such was not always the case. ⁵ It was not until the beginning of the 20th century that "[t]he idea that the general public ha[d] an interest in the operations and performance of the stock market sufficient to justify public control of the exchanges" came into fruition. ⁶ A want of federal regulations and a lack of uniformity in state legislation prior to this point provided breeding grounds for fraudulent and deceptive securities transactions. ⁷ However, it was not until after the problem came to a head with the "Great Crash" of October 1929 that the necessary federal securities legislation came about. ⁸

____________________

5. See generally Steve Thel, The Original Conception of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, 42 Stan. L. Rev . 385, 394 (1990).

6. Id.

7. Kyle M. Globerman, The Elusive and Changing Definition of a Security: One Test Fits All, 51 Fla . L. Rev . 271, 277 (1999) (Globerman noted the problems of the securities market prior to federal legislation, stating: "The absence of federal regulations and disparity in state legislation provided fertile ground for fraudulent and deceptive trading in securities leading to illusory market strength.").

8. Id. at 278-80.

The following examples illustrate plagiarism in the shaded boxes followed by correct use of the Mary Wynne article in the non-shaded boxes.

EXAMPLE 1: DIRECT QUOTATION WITHOUT QUOTATION MARKS

Plagiarism:

Although the need for securities regulation may be obvious today, the idea that the general public had an interest in the operations and performance of the stock market did not emerge until the beginning of the 20th century. ¹

______________________

1. See generally Mary M. Wynne, Comment, Primary Liability Amongst Secondary Actors: Why the Second Circuit’s “Bright Line” Standard Should Prevail,” 44 St. Louis U. L.J. 1607, 1608 (2000), and Steve Thel, The Original Conception of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, 42 Stan. L. Rev. 385, 394 (1990).

Example 1 is plagiarism because the writer does not indicate by quotation marks that he took the exact words of the two authors, Wynne and Thel, he cites as the sources of his ideas. His footnote merely indicates that the two articles support his own statement. The writer needed to use quotation marks to identify the phrases he duplicated from the two articles. He should also have used an internal quotation to indicate that the Thel article was quoted in the Comment by Mary Wynne. Example 1 could be rewritten as follows to avoid plagiarism by indicating with quotation marks the language taken from Wynne and Thel:

Correct identification of quoted language:

As noted by Mary Wynne, while “the need for securities regulation may be obvious today . . . [it] was not until the beginning of the 20th century that ‘[t]he idea that the general public had an interest in the operations and performance of the stock market’ came into fruition”. ¹

_______________________

1. Mary M. Wynne, Comment, Primary Liability Amongst Secondary Actors: Why the Second Circuit’s “Bright Line” Standard Should Prevail,” 44 St. Louis U. L.J. 1607, 1608 (2000), quoting Steve Thel, The Original Conception of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, 42 Stan. L. Rev . 385, 394 (1990).

EXAMPLE 2: PARAPHRASE WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

PLAGIARISM:

The need for securities regulation is quite evident today but was not apparent before the early years of the 20th century. The stock market crash of 1929 taught everyone that there was a strong public interest in securities regulation. In addition, the 1929 crash was caused by the false appearance of market vitality resulting from widespread fraud in stock trading practices.

Example 2 is plagiarism because the writer has taken ideas from Wynne, Thel and Globerman without acknowledgement. The fact that the writer expressed these ideas in different words does not excuse the lack of citations to Wynne, Thel and Globerman, since these authors were the source of the ideas.

Example 2 could be rewritten to avoid plagiarism by citations to Wynne that noted her use of Thel and Globerman.

Correct citation of sources:

As noted by Mary Wynne, the need for securities regulation is quite evident today but was not apparent before the early years of the 20th century. ¹ The stock market crash of 1929 taught everyone that there was a strong public interest in securities regulation. ² In addition, the 1929 crash was caused by the false appearance of market vitality resulting from widespread fraud in stock trading practices. ³

____________________

1. Mary M. Wynne, Comment, Primary Liability Amongst Secondary Actors: Why the Second Circuit’s “Bright Line” Standard Should Prevail,” 44 St. Louis U. L.J. 1607, 1608 (2000), citing Steve Thel, The Original Conception of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, 42 Stan. L. Rev . 385, 394 (1990) (emergence of public interest in securities regulation).

2. Wynne, supra note 1, at 1608, citing Kyle M. Globerman, The Elusive and Changing Definition of a Security: One Test Fits All, 51 Fla . L. Rev . 271, 278-80 (1999) (noting the importance of the 1929 crash and illusory market strength resulting from fraudulent practices.).

3. Wynne, supra note 2, at 1608, citing Globerman, supra note 2, at 277.

EXAMPLE 3: INCOMPLETE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND PARTIAL CITATION

PLAGIARISM:

The need for securities regulation, although obvious today, was not always recognized.¹ Fraudulent securities regulations resulted from the absence of federal regulations and uniform state regulations.² The need for such regulations became evident only after the stock market crash of 1929.
____________________

1. Steve Thel, The Original Conception of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, 42 STAN. L. REV. 385, 394 (1990).

2. Kyle M. Globerman, The Elusive and Changing Definition of a Security: One Test Fits All, 51 FLA. L. REV. 271, 277 (1999).

Example 3 is plagiarism for two reasons. (1) The writer does not acknowledge that Mary Wynne was the actual source of his information about the need for securities regulations and the contributions of Thel and Globerman to this topic. (There is no indication that the writer read either Thel or Globerman, since he says nothing about them beyond what Wynne reports.) The writer’s citations to Thel and Globerman are deceptive, since he relies entirely on Wynne and presents her work as his own. It was her idea to combine the insights of Thel and Globerman into a more comprehensive statement about securities regulation. (2) The last sentence of Example 3 has no footnote and appears to be the writer’s own conclusion, when in fact it is a conclusion reached by Globerman as reported by Wynne.

Example 3 could be rewritten to avoid plagiarism by supplying appropriate citations:

Correct citation and complete acknowledgement of sources:

As noted by Mary Wynne, the need for securities regulation, although obvious today, was not always recognized. ¹ Fraudulent securities regulations resulted from the absence of federal regulations and uniform state regulations. ² The need for such regulations became evident only after the stock market crash of 1929. ³

____________________

1. Mary M. Wynne, Comment, Primary Liability Amongst Secondary Actors: Why the Second Circuit’s “Bright Line” Standard Should Prevail,” 44 St. Louis U. L.J. 1607, 1608 (2000), citing Steve Thel, The Original Conception of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, 42 Stan. L. Rev . 385, 394 (1990)

2. Wynne, supra note 1, at 1608, citing Kyle M. Globerman, The Elusive and Changing Definition of a Security: One Test Fits All, 51 Fla . L. Rev . 271, 277 (1999).

3. Wynne, supra note 2, at 1608, citing Globerman, supra note 2, at 278-80.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

This Plagiarism Policy Statement is indebted to all of the documents described in this Bibliographical Note. All of these plagiarism policy statements have the same substance and format, offering detailed definitions of plagiarism, with explanations, guidelines and illustrations. All have the same purpose: to “teach . . . students what plagiarism is and how to avoid it.” Terri Le Clercq, Failure to Teach: Due Process and Law School Plagiarism, 49 Journal of Legal Education 236 (1999) (describing surveys and recommendations by a committee of the Legal Writing Institute).

Most law school plagiarism statements are based on a document now entitled What Is Plagiarism? from Sources: Their Use and Acknowledgement, published by Dartmouth College in 1998 (first edition, 1960). (Copyright © 1998 Trustees of Dartmouth College www.Dartmouth.edu/~sources.) An earlier edition of the Dartmouth statement, which combines definitions, explanations, and illustrations of plagiarism, is reproduced as an appendix in a NOLPE monograph by Ralph D. Mawdsley entitled Legal Aspects of Plagiarism (1985 edition) and Academic Misconduct: Cheating and Plagiarism (1994 edition). The Dartmouth model was the basis for a plagiarism policy statement provided by Robert D. Bills, Plagiarism in LawSchool: Close Resemblance of the Worst Kind?, 31 Santa Clara Law Review 103, 123-30 (1990). See also Patsy W. Thomley, In Search of a Plagiarism Policy, 16 Northern Kentucky Law Review 502 (1989). Thomley’s article contains on pp. 516-19 a statement by Louis J. Sirico, Jr., entitled Primer on Plagiarism. Explanations and examples of plagiarism are also provided in Elizabeth Fajans and Mary R. Falk, Scholarly Writing for Law Students (2nd ed. West 2000), pp. 112-14. In addition, the Plagiarism Policy and Guidelines prepared for the University of Missouri— Kansas City Law School by Julie M. Cheslik in 1990 also uses explanations, guidelines, and illustrations and is available on the UMKC website (http://www.law.umkc.edu). More elaborate examples of the same basic format are: (1) Law School Plagiarism v. Proper Attribution (2003) by the Legal Writing Institute, available at http://www.lwionline.org; and (2) Citing Responsibly: A Guide to Avoiding Plagiarism (2002) by the George Washington University Law School’s Committee on Academic Integrity, available at http://www.law.gwu.edu.