Photo by ProfReader
South Carolina Representative Jim Merrill faces a 30-count indictment for allegedly using his position to “illegally pocket at least $1.3 million,” which means he’s officially having a worse 2016 than you. Ethics charges against local politicians aren’t that exciting, but in this case, one of the companies named in the indictment for giving him a big chunk of change is everyone’s favorite for-profit legal educator: Infilaw. Hey, they’ve got to invest in something, and their employment numbers suggest it’s not always their students.
As you may recall, Infilaw fought an ultimately futile multi-year battle to purchase the Charleston School of Law, which was blocked at every turn by responsible officials who tried to protect South Carolina law students from a company capable of turning big tuition dollars into abysmal bar passage rates. Which is why it’s so curious that Infilaw decided to drop several thousand bucks into the coffers of the state’s former House Majority Leader.
Ready for What’s Next: 5 Ways to Strengthen Economic Resilience
Get five practical tips to spot cash flow red flags early, speed up payments, track spending in real time, and build stronger client trust through clear, transparent billing—download the ebook.
According to Infilaw, this is all just a misunderstanding. While the allegations might make it look like a bribe offered to one of the state’s most powerful politicians around the time the company faced a contentious legislative battle, they say they just wanted his help with “public relations and policy support in the Charleston area.” It’s not like they’d give such a vague statement if they weren’t entirely innocent!
In Infilaw’s defense, there are a few extenuating circumstances to back up their defense. As reported in The State:
The company, which said it is cooperating with investigators, also said it withdrew its request to buy the law school before Merrill became chairman of a House subcommittee on higher education.
For anyone with a remotely skeptical mind, this doesn’t exactly read as the best defense: “Sure, the guy who exerts tremendous influence over who gets on committees put himself on the relevant committee after we gave him money, but by the time he served there we didn’t need him any more, so it’s good.” No wonder prosecutors are, at present, unconvinced.
How Legisway Helps In-House Teams Manage All Legal Matters In One Trusted Place
Operate with AI driven insights, legal intake, unified content and modular scalability to transform efficiency and clarity.
South Carolina requires an explicit quid pro quo to convict Merrill, so we’ll have to wait and see if this whole affair ends up getting Infilaw in any trouble.
Er, beyond their bar passage and employment numbers.
Companies say they weren’t trying to buy SC legislator’s influence [The State]
Some unethical actions are illegal in SC; lots aren’t [The State]
Joe Patrice is an editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.