News 2023

Case Study

University Accused Client of Plagiarism in Research Project. Case Dismissed.

Background

Student studying for an MSc in Biopharmaceuticals (‘our client’) was accused of academic misconduct, namely plagiarism in the final research project. The module made up 1/3 of the overall degree therefore in order to achieve a merit or distinction and to go on to postgraduate studies, our client had to attain over 50 percent in this project. Our client attended a Local Academic Misconduct Procedure meeting and was given the option to accept the allegation or defend it. In the event our client accepted the allegation, our client would be awarded zero for the module and resubmission capped at 50%. RT Coopers was instructed to advise and assist as on investigation RT Coopers found that there was no plagiarism.

Grounds

Our client was requested by the university to sign a form admitting to the allegation. RT Coopers advised our client to deny the allegation. The university requested that our client sign a form admitting the allegation of academic misconduct which we advised against. This had to be done within 5 working days of the investigative meeting. The case was passed to the Misconduct Committee for a full hearing. RT Coopers drafted a document in support of our client’s defence of the allegation on the ground of procedural irregularity. The Turnitin report showed a similarity index of 44 percent. This was a science-based project, and our lawyers knowledge and understanding of the science behind the project played an extremely important role in defending the allegation.

Learn More

Link to Case Studies

Testimonial : Year 3 Medical Student on MBBS Programme - Failure of Knowledge Resit - Appeal Upheld, November 2023

Year 3 medical student (‘our client’) on the MBChB Medicine programme (‘programme’) sat and failed the end of year Knowledge exams, Paper A and Paper B which are written exams. Before resitting both Papers, our client was given two options to either (i) submit an Extenuating Circumstances form with supporting evidence; or (ii) to resit the Knowledge exams. Our client sat and failed the resit and was withdrawn from the programme. RT Coopers were instructed to draft the appeal. RT Coopers drafted a detailed academic appeal on the grounds of material procedural irregularity in the conduct of the assessment and exceptional circumstances. The appeal was upheld. First published on Google Business Profile.

‘I was going through the hardest moment of my life before my appeal, and I put my trust in Dr Cooper to help me through. She was very professional and firm, but also understanding and patient with me. Not only did she work efficiently and thoroughly on my appeal but she also checked in and still checks in on me for my well-being. she helped advise me on how to handle any barriers that came my way and no matter how difficult times seemed she encouraged me to persevere and see things through. Dr Cooper is very thorough with her research on even the most niche scenarios and topics regarding your specific case, and she goes far and beyond to provide a strong reliable case that reflects you as accurately as possible. Dr Cooper helped organise and structure so much around my case and was a voice for me and my family during times when we struggled to be that voice. For anyone going through what I went through I strongly recommend you to choose Dr Cooper to represent you for your case’. THG

Parent of THG:

‘When our daughter was withdrawn from university it shattered our lives. Dr Cooper has worked tirelessly on our case and we couldn’t have been successful in upholding our appeal without her. Not only does she have plenty of experience in what she does, but she also went the extra mile to fight our case. We are forever thankful for all the work and support Dr Cooper has given us’. Kudzie Laiza

Learn More

Link to Case Studies

Case Study : Year 4 medical student Professionalism concerns led to repeat of Year 4. Level 3 Academic Appeal upheld, November 2023.

Background

Year 4 medical student (‘our client’) on the Medicine and Surgery MB BS (‘programme’) at a UK university, failed the professionalism domain in Year 1 and was allowed to continue to Year 2. Our client then progressed to Year 3 on the quality of the reflective essay submitted. There were no professionalism issues in Year 3, and our client passed the exams and progressed to Year 4.

Our client had personal extenuating circumstances that affected our client’s behaviour as our client was facing ongoing challenges with professionalism from Year 1 to 3. Accordingly, our client received 30 professionalism points (threshold is 25 points) for the professionalism domain which was 5 points above the professionalism threshold and as a result had to repeat Year 4. The Board of Examiners had concerns about the pattern of behaviour and believed there was no insight gained during the programme.

Grounds

The grounds of appeal were based on personal extenuating circumstances and procedural irregularities on the part of the examiners.

Learn More

Link to Case Studies

Article: Food Labelling of Pre-packed Food, October 2023

Foods that are pre-packed must display food labels as stipulated under the laws of Great Britain (GB). There must be mandatory information on the product packaging of the pre-packaged food or on label attached to packaging in accordance with food labelling laws (‘label or packaging’). The retained version of EU Regulation 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers applies to food businesses in GB, not Northern Ireland.

01 January 2024, is the deadline for making changes to labelling or packaging.

From 01 January 2024, a pre-packaged food or casein sold in GB must include a UK address for the Food Business Operator (‘FBO’). If the FBO is not based in the UK, the address of the UK importer must be inserted on the pre-packaged food label or packaging, writes Dr Rosanna Cooper.

Learn More

Case Study : Year 6 final phase medical student was withdrawn from medical school after failing one module having attended medical school for 7 years. The number of years added up to 7, due to a retake of year 1. RT Coopers were instructed to draft appeal and the appeal was upheld - October 2023.

Summary

Year 6 final phase medical student withdrawn from the Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery and Bachelor of Science in Medical Sciences (‘MBBS programme’) for unsatisfactory academic progress. Our client passed the Prescribing Safety Assessment, Written Paper, Surgery Practical Assessment of Clinical Examination Skills (‘PACES’) and failed the Medicine PACES for the third time. RT Coopers drafted an appeal to allow a fourth attempt to retake the medicine PACES exam which the client narrowly failed. The appeal was upheld.

Background

In the first year, our client failed an open book exam and had to repeat the year, which was a problem-based learning paper. Our client passed the resit and progressed to the next year. Our client passed year 2 and failed the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCEs’) in year 3. In the first attempt of the year 3 OSCEs, the client failed 6 stations. Our client was successful in passing year 4 exams. In year 5, our client failed the surgery PACES and medicine PACES exams and the resits for both PACES exams. Our client was allowed to carry on into the final phase. Our client failed the resit and took an interruption of studies in year 5. Our Client had to pass 4 written papers including the PACES exams. Our client sat and passed two written papers, failed both PACES exams as our client was affected by extenuating circumstances.

Learn more

Link to Case Studies

Case study : RT Coopers instructed by MPharm student on two occasions. The first case was an appeal against exclusion. The second case was an appeal against a repeat year. RT Coopers drafted appeal based on grounds of procedural irregularities and mitigating circumstances. Appeal upheld - September 2023.

Case 1

This student was on the second year of the Master of Pharmacy (MPharm) programme (‘our client’) and failed a module. Our client was allowed to move to the next academic year and was asked to write a personal reflection for the ‘trailed’ assignment. Our client failed to submit the reflection on the first submission date, missed the second submission date. The Board of Examiners sent a letter to our client advising that our client was placed in jeopardy and was given a new date to submit the reflection. By this time our client was not accessing university emails and the final submission date set by the Board of Examiners passed with no submission. Interestingly, our client had done the reflection, yet did not hand it in. Subsequently, our client was withdrawn from the MPharm programme.

Our client could not face accessing emails and only opened these emails after withdrawal from the MPharm programme by the Board of Examiners.

RT Coopers conducted a review of the case. Our client had stayed cooped up in one room for days and weeks went by without our client showering or brushing our client’s teeth. There was tremendous weight loss. Our client did not contact wellbeing as our client grew up knowing that at some point the tears had to wiped away and to not be a coward. Our client did get some support from flatmates.

Grounds

RT Coopers drafted the appeal on grounds of procedural irregularity and mitigating circumstances.

Outcome

The appeal was upheld and client repeated the year.

Learn more

Link to Case Studies

Case Study : Final Year language student initially found guilty of academic malpractice. RT Coopers instructed thereafter to draft a Review to Deputy Vice-Chancellor. Successful outcome as Allegations dismissed and first-class degree awarded - September 2023.

Final year student (‘our client’) studying BA (Hons) languages. Our client was wrongly accused of plagiarism in two assignments. Following an investigation by the Investigative Panel No 1 into plagiarism, it was decided that there was no plagiarism.

Introduction
The module leader (tutor) was convinced that there was academic malpractice, and our client was then wrongly accused of academic malpractice. A second hearing held by the Investigative Panel No 2 found that it was extremely probable that our client had received support in the preparation of the assignments. The outcome letter stated that:
‘Based on your previous academic writing and performance, it was considered that you were not the sole author.’

Although our client denied all allegations on appeal, the Investigative Panel No 2 referred our client to a committee. The Committee found our client guilty of academic malpractice. The main penalties were to resubmit and obtain pass grades for the new assignments. Once our client passed the assignments, the university would zero the marks for each assignment. Zero marks would have changed the degree classification from a predicted first class to a 2:1. The Committee further stated that if our client failed any of the assignments then our client would be excluded. The Committee stated (i) the outcome of academic malpractice was based on academic judgment; and (ii) the work was of such a high standard that it had to be written by a native person (which was not the case). Another firm represented the client up to this outcome.

RT Coopers were instructed at this point to prepare the Review to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor. Our client was being penalised for working hard and exceeding the expectations of a tutor who clearly thought our client was a mediocre student, which was not the case. The tutor had previously referred to our client as an ‘average student’, which fitted the narrative that our client would not be capable of achieving this high standard of work, despite having a record of high achievements

RT Coopers drafted a robust Review document to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor on grounds of procedural irregularity and new evidence. It was our view that our client deserved a first as our client always strived to reach high standards in academic work and showed persistence in the face of adversity.
There was no question that our client drafted these assignments. The Committee had based the outcome on the tutor’s academic judgment...

Outcome
On review by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, our client’s assignments were marked and given the correct grades. There were two remaining assignments for our client to submit and pass. On passing these assignments, our client was awarded a BA (Hons) first class in languages.

Learn More

Link to Case Studies

Case Study : Decision not to award MSc in Materials Science and Engineering and to award a Postgraduate Diploma overturned. Client awarded MSc - August 2023

Case summary

RT Coopers were instructed to investigate the decision not to award an MSc. Having conducted a thorough investigation we found that there was no reason whatsoever for the decision not to award our client an MSc. As there was no option to appeal due to the circumstances of the case RT Coopers wrote on behalf of our client to the university as explained below.

In the first semester of the MSc programme, our client was accused of plagiarism in a number of essays for three different modules. Our client attended an academic integrity meeting before a Panel. The Panel found our client guilty of plagiarism and agreed that our client could be given a written warning, complete the university plagiarism test, be given a zero mark for each essay and a capped mark of 50 percent after submitting and passing four fresh essays (based on new titles for each one). At which point all of the offences of plagiarism would be expunged. New essays were completed and submitted and passed for three modules with no further allegations of plagiarism. Despite this, there was an error in the minutes of the meeting of the Panel as all of the offences ought to have been expunged. They were not and this led to an error on our client’s records still showing that our client was guilty of plagiarism.

Our client was unable to sit an exam due to mitigating circumstances. The mitigating circumstances were accepted. Our client then reapplied to sit the exam and submitted the research project (mitigating circumstances were granted for an extension to sit).

Our client was then informed by the university that in order to achieve an MSc the Board of Examiners had decided that our client had to retake the year (a full-time internal retake) and repeat all of the 4 components including resubmission of the research project as a fresh project (undertaking a presentation, interim report and final report that had already being submitted). The alternative to repeating the year was a PGCert Pass. Our client decided to repeat the year.

Confusion then arose as to whether our client was eligible to re-sit all of the three modules as the special case committee having considered the case was now falsely claiming that our client was only eligible to resit one module as our client had been found guilty of plagiarism in two modules (receiving 0 for two modules totaling 30 credits). The special case committee wrongly decided that as our client was found guilty of plagiarism, our client was unable to achieve an MSc and no longer able to progress on the master’s programme. By this time our client had started the research project with a new supervisor and was getting on well. Our client was informed that a PGCert Pass was all that was available. This was inaccurate. RT Coopers were instructed at this point.

Learn More

Link to Case Studies

Case Study : Accused of suspected Academic Misconduct - Studying Emerging Digital Technologies - July 2023

A postgraduate student (‘our client’) studying Emerging Digital Technologies was accused of suspected academic misconduct, in particular, collusion. Our client sought advice from RT Coopers as to how to defend the allegation and the advice given was to refute the allegation. RT Coopers prepared a statement in support of the defence of the allegation. The allegation was dismissed following the investigation meeting.

Summary

The MSc Emerging Digital Technologies programme client accused of suspected academic misconduct (collusion) in an open book examination. There were a number of exam questions where the marker identified similarities and concluded that such similarities had to be attributed to collusion with another student. This was a complex case. The module was in relation to database design. The examination for this module tested coding for the database design, logical design, normalisation for relational algebra, database transactional management and linear algebra. RT Coopers drafted a robust statement denying any allegation of collusion. The client submitted the statement to the investigation officer prior to the investigation hearing and attended the hearing. The allegation was dismissed following the investigation hearing. The case did not go beyond the investigation stage.

Background

The students were encouraged to work collaboratively on the module in question and we were able to argue that there was Authorised Collaboration. Our client had extenuating circumstances including contracting Covid -19.

During lockdown, the our client could not seek help from the module leader, there was no feedback and was unable to receive feedback for solutions for past papers attempted. Our client was in a heightened state of anxiety leading up to the exams. As our client and the other student had worked on a part of the module together, they continued working together and supporting each other. Making their notes and practicing together.

During the open book exam, they used their independent notes (which had similairites as they had worked closely together). There was no conferring. At no point were the students informed that studying together was disallowed.

Denial of the Allegation

Our client denied academic misconduct during the exam, in particular, collaboration with another student during the exam. Our client submitted a detailed statement substantiated by evidence.

The allegation was defended on the grounds of (i) mitigating circumstances; and (ii) procedural irregularities. We demonstrated that the university did not adduce sufficient evidence to prove collusion, taking into account the fact that this was an open book exam.

More

See Testimonial related to this case from PIA

Link to Case Studies

Testimonial: GPST3 VTS trainee (‘trainee’) was awarded an ARCP Outcome 3 after appeal upheld - May 2023.

The trainee having reached the end of training to become a GP was given ARCP Outcome 4 (‘Outcome 4’) by an ARCP Panel. Although the trainee had passed the Applied Knowledge Test , the Recorded Consultation Assessment was recorded as fail after 4 attempts. RT Coopers drafted the appeal for the trainee against ARCP Outcome 4 and represented the trainee at the ARCP Appeals hearing. The appeal to the ARCP Appeals Panel was upheld. The ARCP Appeals Panel reversed the decision and awarded the GP trainee ARCP Outcome 3.

ARCP Outcome 4 = removed from training

ARCP Outcome 3 = reinstated, and training extended.

RT Coopers drafted a detailed and robust appeal on grounds of mitigating circumstances and procedural irregularities. The uniqueness of this case is that the education supervisor report stated that the GP trainee met one out of 13 competencies (1/13). The GP trainee was rated as incompetent. We were able to demonstrate in the appeal that the GP trainee was competent and that the GP trainee had met a number of competencies, despite what was reported by the educational supervisor.

The GP trainee was allowed to progress following the hearing before the ARCP Appeals Panel as the appeal was upheld.

‘I had an excellent experience with Dr Cooper. She is very intelligent and prepared my ARCP Appeal to the highest standard to ensure that my appeal would be upheld. Dr Cooper is very kind and supportive. She truly understands the importance of ARCP appeal to trainee doctors and the stress they are going through. She was very kind and reassuring when preparing my appeal. I rate Dr Cooper/ RT Coopers Firm 5 Star. Dr Cooper was very thorough in preparing my ARCP appeal. She initially prepared a draft of my ARCP appeal then went through it with me several times ensuring that all the points are covered. I am grateful to her as she spent so many hours making sure that I was happy with the process. I highly recommend Dr Cooper/ RT Coopers in ARCP matters. I highly rate Dr Cooper/ RT Coopers Firm 5 Star’. Nadim Rafiq

Testimonial End of Registration. Appeal Upheld. Grievance accepted. Return to medical school. - March 2023

Year 3 medical student on the MBChB (Hons) programme failed the OSCE and knowledge paper comprising Single Best Answer questions and had to resit. The medical student then sat resit for the Knowledge paper and OSCE and failed the resit. At this point, the student had reached the maximum period of registration for medicine at the university. The medical student was excluded from the programme although the student had extenuating circumstances some known and some undiagnosed when RT Coopers were instructed. The unprecedented situation was that because the student had reached the maximum period of registration for medicine, the university could not consider the extenuating circumstances. According to the regulations of this university, in very exceptional circumstances, as a result of an academic appeal, a student may be granted a further two-year extension to the maximum period of registration at the discretion of the Pro Vice-Chancellor. These were very exceptional circumstances as the student was seeking an extension to the maximum period of registration provided the academic appeal was upheld.

The student had already submitted a stage 1 appeal against the exclusion seeking the discretion of the Pro Vice-Chancellor for a one year extension to the maximum period of registration, which was rejected. RT Coopers were instructed to draft the stage 2 appeal against the exclusion and based on the strength of the appeal, prepared a grievance seeking the extension to the registration. The appeal was upheld. The grievance was accepted, and a two-year extension was granted. The medical student is returning to medical school.

‘I started Medicine as a school leaver in 2016, however after several resits as well as a leave of absence, found myself facing exclusion from the course in 2022 if I did not pass my third year resit exams. This was due to reaching maximum registration period for students in the UK- we are given three extra years from our anticipated graduation date to actually graduate, and my previous repeat of Year 1 as well as a leave of absence after leaving Year 2 early + subsequent Year 2 resit had taken up those three years. This caused me extreme anxiety when preparing for the exams.

After failing my resits and being excluded from the course due to reaching the maximum registration period, RT Coopers was recommended to me by a fellow medical student. I am so grateful to have Dr. Cooper on my side while going through the Grievance process. After my initial appeal that I wrote myself was rejected, I knew the Grievance would be my last chance to make my case to have my extension granted and be able to complete my medical degree. I was exhausted and extremely stressed out, but the minute I spoke to Dr Cooper I knew I was in the right hands.

Dr Cooper is kind but firm in her approach, and her determination motivated me to put my best foot forward for the grievance. Throughout the grievance process Dr Cooper was always checking in on me while working tirelessly on my case. She works extremely hard and this shows in the difference between the appeal I wrote and the document produced with Dr Cooper was truly impressive. Rosanna treats each of her clients on an individual basis and truly fights for them- there are no cookie cutter cases with her! Even after the Grievance was submitted, Dr Cooper continued to check in on me to see how things were progressing. It brought me immense comfort to know that I had someone as dedicated as her in my corner. Rosanna is unlike any lawyer I have ever met; anyone who has been through the Grievance process at University will tell you just how draining it is. It's easy to feel lost in a sea of paperwork and reduced to just a number from your school, but her sense of humour and empathy are what got me through sleepless nights working on my case. In addition to this, she took the time to advise me on how to set myself up for success via my mindset and work ethic for when the Grievance hopefully would be accepted. I am now delighted that after a long wait and a lot of hard work, my Grievance has been accepted and I will be able to continue my medical studies!

With Rosanna you have a supporter for life, incredibly she has still been a source of advice on further proceedings and continues to check in even after my positive outcome. I cannot recommend RT Coopers enough, the Medical School appeals process can be a lengthy and overwhelming one, but I was at peace knowing that with Dr Cooper I had the best shot possible at another chance. I can say without a doubt that she is the best in the business, and I will be forever grateful to her’. Yagik

More

Case Study: ST8 Paediatrics and Subspecialty Trainee awarded ARCP Outcome 6 (certificate of completion of training (‘CCT’)) - February 2023.

On appeal, ST8 paediatrics and subspecialty trainee was granted ARCP Outcome 6. The ARCP Appeals Panel upheld the appeal drafted by RT Coopers overturning the original ARCP Outcome 3 and awarding ARCP Outcome 6.

To achieve ARCP Outcome 6 means that the trainee gained all required competencies, to be awarded CCT.

One month prior to the end of training in paediatrics and a subspecialty, the educational supervisor (‘ES’) recommended ARCP Outcome 3 in the Educational Supervisors Report. The ST8 trainee was derailed on receiving this feedback as the trainee doctor was expecting the ES to recommend Outcome 6. There was never any discussions with the ES about the risk of an ARCP Outcome 3. Throughout training from ST1 to ST8, the feedback was ‘excellent clinician’ and other extremely positive feedback. By the time RT Coopers were instructed to draft the appeal, the ST8 trainee had sought a review of the ARCP Outcome 3 given by the original ARCP Panel. The ARCP Outcome 3 was upheld. RT Coopers were instructed at this point. RT Coopers drafted an appeal against the decision/rejection to review and overturn the decision. A detailed appeal was drafted to give the ST8 trainee an opportunity to be signed off for satisfactory completion of CCT without having to complete a further six months of training. The trainee doctor did not wish to do any further training and was ready to become a consultant. Once the appeal was submitted, the next stage was to attend an ARCP Appeals Panel hearing. Following the Appeals hearing, the ARCP Appeals Panel upheld the appeal. The outcome was ARCP Outcome 6, to be awarded CCT.

Background: This was the case of an ST8 trainee doctor with over 8 years of training in several district general, tertiary and quaternary hospitals across four different deaneries. The ST8 trainee had to meet the learning outcomes for the main specialty and subspecialty in order to gain CCT in both specialties. The ST8 trainee met each of the key mandatory capabilities. RT Coopers were instructed to draft the appeal after the ST8 trainee received ARCP Outcome 3 and the Outcome 3 decision was maintained even after requesting a review of the ARCP Outcome 3 decision. The appeal was based on grounds of procedural irregularity as training was extended unfairly with no justification.

Issue: No concerns were ever raised throughout the 8 years of training. Unsubstantiated issues were highlighted as concerns only one month before final ARCP. This was a difficult case as the trainee had been exemplary throughout training and it was only at the final stage of training that the ES recommended extension of training.

During training there were never any concerns raised, in fact, the ST8 trainee tended to exceed expectations for a number of learning outcomes and key capabilities and, in some cases, rated as “Excellent” by educational supervisor. Where areas for development were highlighted (as is the case for any trainee), the ST8 trainee would always address those areas.

The ST8 trainee had an exemplary training record in relation to both the main and subspecialty. The first time the ST8 trainee was informed that the training would be extended was one month before the final ARCP meeting.

Reasons extension of training flawed: RT Coopers were able to show that the ST8 trainee had met the minimum regulatory standards for satisfactory completion of CCT.

Excerpt from email from trainee following hearing: 'Just finished the appeal hearing. Unanimous decision. Outcome 6, I will be getting my CCT. Thanks for all your help' Then ST8, now consultant.

Case commentary: RT Coopers drafted a robust appeal that enabled the ST8 trainee to avoid an extension of training and to be awarded ARCP Outcome 6 – to be signed off for satisfactory completion of CCT.

More

Testimonial - Medical Student Appeal Upheld - February 2023

Medical student repeating Year 3 on the MBBCh Medicine programme (‘programme’) failed to pass Summative Assessments despite repeating Year 2 and Year 3. the medical student failed the resit for the written assessment in repeat Year 3 and was withdrawn from the programme. RT Coopers were instructed at this point. RT Coopers drafted a robust appeal on grounds of procedural irregularities and extenuating circumstances. Appeal upheld. Student allowed to recommence programme.

‘I recently appealed a decision made by my university and used RT Coopers to help me draft it. Rosanna has been amazing through the entire process, not just professionally, but also personally. She has been there every step of the way, providing advice, showing support and alleviating all my concerns. I couldn't recommend her enough. Because of her experience she knew exactly what arguments carry weight in the appeals procedure. The appeal was very detailed, clearly showing the time and effort she took into drafting it and showing that she had been listening’. A Rev

More

Testimonial - Medical Student Appeal Upheld - January 2023

Year 3 medical student on the MBChB (Hons) programme failed resit for repeat Year 3 written paper comprising Single Best Answer questions. The medical student was excluded from the programme although the sudent had extenuating circumstances some known and some undiagnosed when RT Coopers were instructed. The unprecedented situation was that the student had reached the maximum period of registration for medicine and the University could not consider the extenuating circumstances as this was the end of the road for the student. These were very exceptional circumstances as the student was seeking an extension to the maximum period of registration provided the appeal was upheld.

The student had already submitted a stage 1 appeal which was rejected. RT Coopers were instructed to draft the stage 2 appeal against the exclusion and based on the strength of the appeal, to seek the extension to the registration. The appeal was upheld. First Published in Google Business Profile Review.

NB: Extraordinary outcome. One of the most difficult appeals due to the unprecedented nature of the case.

‘I had an extremely difficult case involving the medical school. I had disabilities both known and unknown, lots of personal issues that happened last year, and had reached the end of my registration period. During this difficult and stressful time, Dr Cooper was amazing with her work, persistence, and effort for my case. I also appreciate that she would call and get me involved as well with working my case so that she could make me the best case. I am still awaiting my results, but I appreciated working with her so much and would recommend that anyone in a similar situation reach out. Dr Cooper is not only a great solicitor, but she is also an amazing person inside and out. She was a great support.
UPDATE: My grievance went through and I will be returning to medical school! I cannot thank Dr Cooper enough for her help and support. She was as happy and delighted as me when she heard the news. We spent a lot of time together building our 100+page case and never did she let anything slip. Attention to every detail, research, and most of all, a strong proposal, is what I believe made a precedent in this case’. E

More

Links to Testimonials click here

Related Services