Filing a false-report complaint against your accuser.
Nearly every campus policy prohibits knowingly false statements in a grievance process, and nearly every respondent asks about invoking it. The honest answer is that it is rarely the right move and frequently a costly one.
Why the bar is high.
The provision requires a statement that is knowingly false - not mistaken, not exaggerated, not inconsistent. Complainants who are honestly wrong about details, whose accounts shift as memory settles, or who describe an encounter differently than the respondent does are not making knowingly false statements. Establishing knowledge requires documentary proof, which in practice means a message or record in which the person acknowledges the falsity.
Why timing is the real problem.
A counter-complaint filed while the original matter is pending is read as an attempt to pressure a participant, and the regulation’s retaliation provision is broad enough to capture it. In our experience it is the single most reliable way for a defensible respondent to acquire a second, easier charge against them - one that is documented, timestamped, and frequently sustained when the first is not.
What a dismissal does and does not establish.
A dismissal, or a determination of not responsible, means the institution did not meet its burden. It does not mean the complaint was fabricated, and treating it as though it did is both analytically wrong and a poor basis for further filings. Respondents who pursue a counter-complaint on that footing generally lose it and damage a record they may still need.
The better route.
Credibility is attacked where credibility is assessed: in the ten-day evidence response and in cross-examination, with divergences charted and cited. A determination that records unresolved inconsistency in the complainant’s account is worth considerably more to a respondent than a counter-complaint that fails. And if a claim is genuinely available after everything resolves - a defamation action, in a narrow set of cases - it is available then, built from the file, without the retaliation exposure.
Why you should call us.
If you are scrolling through search results trying to find someone to defend you, your search is over. You have found Spodek Law Group P.C. - and we are not your average defense firm. We know a thing or two about defending the accused in campus cases - and in the criminal courts that run alongside them. Over 50 years of combined experience, some of the toughest cases in the country, and we have come out on top. We have seen it all, and we empathise with you. We understand how frightening this is, and we have a legal team who can fight and win.
Unlike other attorneys who care about their reputation with the administrators and the prosecutors, our only goal is getting you the best outcome. We owe loyalty to only you. Our lawyers listen to you, your fears, and your goals. We care about your story, and that is where the work begins - by understanding and listening to you.
On billing, we are transparent about our fees, and there are no surprises. Choosing a lawyer is a big deal and cost is a real issue, so we are committed to being your champion irrespective of your ability to pay. Our firm has a simple belief: lawyers should only take on clients whom they can truly help. Many firms are mills that take every case through the door. We do not.
Working with us starts with a risk-free consultation, in person or over the phone. You can ask us anything, for as long as it takes, and we encourage you to ask the tough questions. We are available 24/7, we practise coast to coast, and every client has direct access to a partner. Call 212 300 5196 - an attorney answers.
