Brett Sokolow stated that he takes exception to the narrow characterization of his role in this article. On Friday, on the front page of the NY Times, he defended the actions of Hobart and William Smith Colleges in their well-publicized case. His ability to vouch for Hobart and William Smith would mean nothing if he always took the side of colleges. He’d be nothing more than a shill for them. Because Brett’s firm takes cases for victims, cases for accused students and cases for colleges, it has the ability to claim impartial expertise. Anything less would neutralize the value of NCHERM Group consultants in court as experts on Title IX. The fact is that The NCHERM Group rejects most of the cases it is offered, so they aren’t just guns for hire for anyone who can pay. Instead, each case The NCHERM Group undertakes, no matter what side it may be on, is based on a principled stand behind the client’s position. Both the esteem in which The NCHERM Group is held and its winning case record attest to the care in which it undertakes cases. Further, while the article makes it seem odd that The NCHERM Group and the White House are on the same page about the merits of the civil rights investigation model, it was The NCHERM Group that suggested the idea to the White House. The NCHERM Group has long been a champion of this approach as the right solution to the problematic due process hearing panel model in widespread use on college campuses to address sexual misconduct, and is pleased that the White House sees the merits in this approach enough to commend it to colleges and universities.
Click here to read the full article.