UCLA Student Conduct Hearing Defense Under the Interim 2026 Code

If your child has been accused of misconduct at UCLA, the case is handled by the Office of Student Conduct (within the Dean of Students Office, 1206 Murphy Hall) under UCLA's Interim 2026 Student Conduct Code. The Interim 2026 Code restructured how UCLA adjudicates student conduct: most cases are now resolved administratively by a single Reviewer, and a formal Student Conduct Hearing is only convened when the Reviewer proposes Suspension or Dismissal and the student contests responsibility in writing by a specified deadline. Understanding this structure, and where the decision points actually are, is the first step in preparing a credible defense.

This guide describes the process as it stands under the Interim 2026 Code. Process information current as of April 2026.

UCLA's Office of Student Conduct: Where Your Case Lives

In short:The Office of Student Conduct sits within the Dean of Students Office at 1206 Murphy Hall.

The Office of Student Conduct sits within the Dean of Students Office at 1206 Murphy Hall. It is not the same entity as the Dean of Students Office itself, even though the two are routinely conflated, including in older guides written before the 2026 code took effect. Under the current framework, the Office of Student Conduct administers the Interim 2026 Student Conduct Code for academic and non-academic matters alike. Title IX cases follow a different track, handled by UCLA's Civil Rights Office (CRO) within Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, and are described separately below.

When a faculty member, staff member, or other complainant reports suspected misconduct, the matter is assigned to a Reviewer in the Office of Student Conduct. The Reviewer is the first and often only decisionmaker the student will encounter.

The Reviewer: Who Actually Decides Most Cases

In short:Under the Interim 2026 Code, most UCLA conduct cases never reach a hearing.

Under the Interim 2026 Code, most UCLA conduct cases never reach a hearing. They are resolved by the Reviewer, who investigates the allegation, meets with the student, weighs the evidence, and issues a determination along with a proposed sanction. For cases where the Reviewer concludes a lesser sanction is appropriate, that determination becomes the outcome unless the student challenges it through the available pathways.

This means the meeting with the Reviewer is often the single most consequential moment in the case. There is no panel waiting downstream to re-examine the evidence from scratch. Students who go into the Reviewer meeting without a clear account, without organized documentation, and without understanding what the Reviewer is weighing, routinely end the case with a finding of responsibility they never get a meaningful second chance to contest.

When a Student Conduct Hearing Is Actually Convened

In short:A Student Conduct Hearing is only convened under two conditions, both of which must be met: (1) the Reviewer proposes a sanction of Suspension or Dismissal, and (2) the student contests responsibility in writing by the specified deadline.

A Student Conduct Hearing is only convened under two conditions, both of which must be met: (1) the Reviewer proposes a sanction of Suspension or Dismissal, and (2) the student contests responsibility in writing by the specified deadline. If either condition is absent, there is no hearing. The Reviewer's determination governs.

This is the single most important structural fact about the Interim 2026 Code, and the one most at odds with older guides and pre-2026 assumptions. There is no default right to a panel hearing. The hearing is reserved for the highest-sanction, contested cases.

The Hearing Officer: A Single Decisionmaker, Not a Panel

In short:When a hearing is convened, the Interim 2026 Code assigns the case to a single Hearing Officer, not a multi-member faculty-and-student panel.

When a hearing is convened, the Interim 2026 Code assigns the case to a single Hearing Officer, not a multi-member faculty-and-student panel. The Hearing Officer receives the Reviewer's investigation file, hears the case, and issues findings and a recommendation. This is a substantial departure from the pre-2026 Student Conduct Committee structure, which did involve a panel of faculty and students.

A five-person Hearing Body is reserved for exceptional cases, and is only convened at the discretion of the Director of the Office of Student Conduct. It is the exception, not the default. Any preparation strategy that assumes a panel will hear the case is, under the current code, usually wrong.

Advisors and Support Persons

In short:Under the Interim 2026 Code, students may be accompanied by one Advisor at any meeting or proceeding in the review process, including meetings with the Reviewer and any Student Conduct Hearing.

Under the Interim 2026 Code, students may be accompanied by one Advisor at any meeting or proceeding in the review process, including meetings with the Reviewer and any Student Conduct Hearing. The Advisor may provide support, guidance, and advice, but may not speak on behalf of the student. Students may also bring up to two Support Persons to hearings, in addition to the Advisor.

AdvocatED serves as the Advisor. The practical significance is that the student still does the talking. The Advisor's work happens in the preparation, the framing of the written response, the organization of documentation, and the real-time guidance during the proceeding about what to say, what to clarify, and what to leave alone. Preparing to do your own talking effectively is a different skill than handing the case to an advocate, and it is the skill UCLA's Code is specifically designed around.

Sanctions and Transcript Notations

In short:Sanctions under the Interim 2026 Code range from warning and censure-level outcomes administered by the Reviewer up through Deferred Suspension, Suspension, Deferred Dismissal, and Dismissal.

Sanctions under the Interim 2026 Code range from warning and censure-level outcomes administered by the Reviewer up through Deferred Suspension, Suspension, Deferred Dismissal, and Dismissal. The transcript consequences are the part families most often miss:

• Suspension: a notation remains on the transcript for the duration of the suspension.
• Dismissal: a notation remains on the transcript for 50 years.

These notations accompany every graduate school application, every professional licensing review, and every employer background check that requests a transcript. The 50-year dismissal notation is, for most students, effectively permanent. This is why the Reviewer's proposed-sanction phase deserves as much defense preparation as the responsibility determination itself.

Appeals to the Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs

In short:Sanctions of Deferred Suspension, Suspension, Deferred Dismissal, or Dismissal may be appealed to the Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs.

Sanctions of Deferred Suspension, Suspension, Deferred Dismissal, or Dismissal may be appealed to the Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs. The Vice Chancellor's decision is final. There is no further internal appeal within UCLA.

Appeal windows are short and the grounds are specific. A successful appeal is not a re-litigation of the facts. It is a targeted showing of procedural error, new and material evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the hearing, or disproportionality of the sanction. Drafting an appeal that actually meets the Vice Chancellor's standard of review is a different exercise from telling your side of the story again.

Title IX: A Separate Track

In short:Title IX matters are not handled by the Office of Student Conduct.

Title IX matters are not handled by the Office of Student Conduct. They go to UCLA's Civil Rights Office (CRO), part of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion. CRO investigations follow a five-step process under UCLA's Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment (SVSH), which was updated January 1, 2026:

1. Intake
2. Assessment
3. Formal Investigation
4. Fact Finding Hearing
5. Appeal

Any student facing a CRO investigation should treat it as structurally distinct from a Student Conduct Code matter. The vocabulary, the procedural protections, the evidentiary standard, and the appeal path are all different.

Graduate and Professional Schools

In short:UCLA's graduate and professional schools apply the UCLA Student Conduct Code for disciplinary matters, but several have additional academic standards processes layered on top:

UCLA's graduate and professional schools apply the UCLA Student Conduct Code for disciplinary matters, but several have additional academic standards processes layered on top:

• UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine (DGSOM) uses the Committee on Academic Standing, Progress, and Promotion (CASPP) for final academic and professional standing decisions, with Academic Performance Committees (APCs) feeding recommendations into CASPP. There is no separate "Academic Review Committee", a common misnomer in older materials.
• UCLA School of Law students are subject to the UCLA Student Conduct Code; there is no separate law school honor code process. Any disciplinary finding must be reported to governing Bar Associations or Committees of Bar Examiners in states where the student seeks bar admission. For law students, this is the critical consequence.

Students in those programs should make sure any advisor they retain understands which process applies to which kind of allegation, and which consequences flow from which decisionmaker.

What Preparation Actually Looks Like Under the 2026 Code

In short:Because the Reviewer meeting is the pivot point of most cases, preparation has to be organized around that meeting, not around a future hearing that likely will not occur.

Because the Reviewer meeting is the pivot point of most cases, preparation has to be organized around that meeting, not around a future hearing that likely will not occur. That means:

1. Pulling together a documentary record that tells a complete version of your work, drafts, research notes, version histories, communications, tutoring records, anything that shows the actual process behind the product.
2. Drafting a written account that is clear, consistent, and specific. Written statements that contradict one another across drafts, or that concede points the evidence does not require conceding, are the most common self-inflicted damage in these cases.
3. Preparing for the questions the Reviewer is actually going to ask, rather than the questions a hypothetical panel might ask. The Reviewer is looking for credibility, consistency, and a coherent account of the work. "I didn't do it" without a documentary backbone rarely moves a Reviewer. "Here is what I actually did, here is the evidence, here is where the allegation misreads it" is what moves a Reviewer.
4. Understanding the sanction architecture so that, if responsibility is going to be found, the proposed sanction can be argued against on its own terms, including the transcript-notation consequences that follow.
5. If Suspension or Dismissal is on the table, preparing the written contest of responsibility with the specificity needed to actually trigger a hearing, not just a re-review.

How AdvocatED Helps UCLA Students

In short:AdvocatED advisors work with UCLA students and families through every stage under the Interim 2026 Code: the initial notice from the Office of Student Conduct, the Reviewer meeting, the written response, the decision on whether to contest r...

AdvocatED advisors work with UCLA students and families through every stage under the Interim 2026 Code: the initial notice from the Office of Student Conduct, the Reviewer meeting, the written response, the decision on whether to contest responsibility in writing, the Student Conduct Hearing if one is convened, and the appeal to the Vice Chancellor, Student Affairs if an adverse outcome needs to be challenged.

We are not lawyers, and we do not speak on behalf of students at UCLA proceedings, the Code does not permit that of any Advisor. What we do is prepare the student to speak effectively, organize the evidence, draft the written materials, coach the conduct of each meeting and proceeding, and build appeals that actually address the Vice Chancellor's standard of review.

UCLA cases under the 2026 Code reward preparation that is specific to UCLA's current process. Generic advice, or advice calibrated to the pre-2026 panel system, is actively unhelpful. Reach out as soon as a notice arrives, the deadlines are short, and the Reviewer meeting is closer than most families realize.