Northwestern University Title IX Attorney: Defense for Evanston and Chicago Students and Faculty
Experienced Title IX defense for Northwestern students, faculty, and staff. Former prosecutor. Hundreds of sex crime cases handled.
Call (513) 540-0450 – Free Consultation
If you are a Northwestern student, faculty member, or graduate or professional student facing a Title IX complaint, the next ninety days will move faster than you expect. Hiring a Northwestern Title IX attorney early is the single biggest factor in how the case unfolds. Northwestern’s Office of Civil Rights and Title IX Compliance will assign an investigator within days of the formal complaint. You will be summoned to interviews. You will be given the opportunity to review the evidence before the investigative report is finalized and again before the live hearing. Then a trained Decision Maker will rule on responsibility in a live hearing where only your advisor (not you) may ask questions of the complainant and the witnesses, and a separate three-person University Hearing and Appeals System Sanctioning Panel will set the sanction.
Mark Wieczorek is a former Hamilton County prosecutor who defends students, faculty, and coaches accused of sexual misconduct at Midwest universities, including Northwestern University. As a Northwestern University Title IX lawyer, his job is to put the same procedural pressure on the Office of Civil Rights and Title IX Compliance that the office’s own investigators put on you, and to do it before the Decision Maker is appointed, not after.
There is one thing about Northwestern’s Title IX process that is true at no other Big Ten university where Mark practices, and most respondents and most parents calling about a Northwestern matter have never been told: Northwestern’s 2025 Title IX Policy splits the hearing decision into two layers. A single trained Decision Maker rules on responsibility. A separate three-person University Hearing and Appeals System Sanctioning Panel sets the sanction. A Northwestern respondent has to be prepared to persuade two layers, not one. We will get to what that means for your defense below. It is the most important procedural fact a Northwestern respondent can know walking into the process, and it shapes every strategic decision an experienced Title IX attorney will make on your behalf.
Northwestern’s Title IX Process Runs on the 2025 Title IX Sexual Harassment Policy
Northwestern University’s Policy on Title IX Sexual Harassment, effective September 1, 2025, with a next scheduled review of September 1, 2028, controls every Title IX matter at Northwestern across its Evanston, Chicago, Miami Florida, Washington DC, and San Francisco campuses. The policy was originally enacted on August 14, 2020, in response to the federal Title IX final rule of that year. It has been substantively revised four times since: September 1, 2021, September 1, 2022, September 1, 2023, and again on September 1, 2025. The 2025 revision is the most recent in the Big Ten and one of the most recent at any major American research university.
Northwestern also maintains a companion Policy on Discrimination, Harassment, and Sexual Misconduct, also effective September 1, 2025, that governs sexual misconduct conduct falling outside the federal Title IX jurisdictional definition (for example, conduct outside the United States, conduct by visitors or guests, and conduct that does not meet the severe-pervasive-and-objectively-offensive threshold). Which policy applies to a particular matter is itself a jurisdictional question that an experienced Northwestern Title IX attorney engages with the Office of Civil Rights and Title IX Compliance early in the process. The procedural rights and the sanction range vary between the two policies, and the policy track is not always obvious from the initial notice of investigation.
The Office of Civil Rights and Title IX Compliance, located at 1800 Sherman Avenue, Suite 4-500, Evanston, Illinois 60208, administers the Title IX process. Reports can be filed by phone at (847) 467-6165, by email at OCR@northwestern.edu, or through the Office’s online reporting portal at northwestern.edu/civil-rights-office. Emily Babb serves as Associate Vice President for Civil Rights and Title IX Compliance and as Title IX Coordinator. Tiffany Little serves as Senior Director and Deputy Title IX Coordinator. The Office reports through the Provost’s office, and questions about policy interpretation, jurisdiction, and procedure are coordinated at the Associate Vice President level before responses are issued.
The Investigation Phase
Once a Formal Complaint is filed, the Office of Civil Rights and Title IX Compliance provides written notice within seven days and assigns one or more investigators. Northwestern’s 2025 Title IX Policy commits the University to a ninety-day target for the investigation phase, measured from the written notice of Formal Complaint, with extensions available on a good cause showing. In practice, a Northwestern Title IX case typically runs four to six months from formal complaint to written determination, with the hearing phase added on top of the investigation phase. Within that window, the investigator interviews both parties, identifies and interviews witnesses each party proposes, gathers documentary evidence (text messages, emails, social media records, surveillance footage, third-party witness statements), and produces an investigative report.
Both parties have the opportunity to inspect the evidence and submit a written response of up to twenty pages within ten days before the investigative report is finalized. The advisor may help build that response, may attend every interview alongside the party, and may consult with the party in writing throughout. The advisor cannot communicate on behalf of the party outside the cross-examination at the hearing, and cannot insist that communications flow through the advisor, but the advisor can do every other thing an experienced Title IX attorney does during a federal investigation: prepare the party for interviews, build documentary records, identify witness blind spots in the investigator’s draft, and preserve procedural objections on the record.
A Northwestern respondent who retains experienced counsel before the investigation closes has weeks to shape the record. A Northwestern respondent who waits until after the investigative report issues has days to react. The investigation phase is where most Title IX cases at Northwestern are won or lost.
The Two-Layer Hearing Structure: Decision Maker and UHAS Sanctioning Panel
Northwestern’s hearing structure is unusual among major Big Ten Title IX policies. Northwestern’s 2025 Title IX Policy assigns the responsibility determination to a single trained Decision Maker, who cannot be the same person as the Title IX Coordinator or the investigators (Section II.I.2 of the Policy). After the live hearing, the Decision Maker objectively evaluates the evidence under the preponderance standard and reaches a determination on whether a policy violation occurred. That is one layer.
The sanction phase is a second layer. Section II.I.10 of the 2025 Policy provides that for student respondents found responsible, the Decision Maker will consult with the University Hearing and Appeals System Sanctioning Panel, comprised of three faculty or staff members, to determine the sanction. For faculty respondents found responsible, the Decision Maker will consult with the faculty member’s department chair, the Dean, the Associate Provost for Faculty, and (as appropriate) a faculty sanctioning panel. For staff respondents, the Decision Maker will consult with the HR Business Partner and the respondent’s manager or unit leader. The Decision Maker does not unilaterally set the sanction at Northwestern.
For the respondent, this means two strategic objectives in a single live hearing. First, defeat the responsibility finding before the Decision Maker. Second, if the responsibility finding goes against the respondent, build the record that constrains the sanction the University Hearing and Appeals System Sanctioning Panel can defensibly impose. The mitigation submission, due within five business days of the hearing under Section II.I.10, is where the second objective is met. A respondent who walks into the hearing without a prepared mitigation case has surrendered the second layer in advance.
Compare this to peer Big Ten schools. Wayne State leaves the decision-maker structure to administrative discretion at the time of the hearing. Ball State assigns a single hearing officer. Indiana University uses a three-person panel. Notre Dame convenes a three-member Hearing Board. Northwestern is the only one in the cluster with a hybrid Decision Maker plus separate Sanctioning Panel model.
Cross-Examination by Advisor Only at the Live Hearing
At the live hearing, Northwestern’s 2025 Policy follows the federal cross-examination model. Cross-examination is conducted “directly, orally, and in real time” by the party’s advisor of choice and never by a party personally (Section II.I.7 of the Policy). A party who walks into the hearing without experienced counsel is a party whose credibility-determinative questions never get asked, because Northwestern’s Policy assigns the cross to the advisor and does not allow the party to step into that role.
The Decision Maker rules on each cross-examination question’s relevance before the witness answers and must explain any decision to exclude on the record (Section II.I.8). Parties and advisors may not challenge those relevance rulings during the hearing. Open-ended questions that lack relevance grounding get blocked. Compound questions get blocked. Questions outside the scope of the investigative report get blocked. Cross-examination must be planned question by question, with relevance theory built in, before the hearing convenes.
The 2025 Policy includes the federal rape shield protection: questions about a complainant’s sexual predisposition or prior sexual behavior are not relevant, except to prove that someone other than the respondent committed the alleged conduct or to prove prior consensual conduct between the respondent and the complainant. The Decision Maker enforces those exclusions.
The 2025 Policy also includes a respondent-protective refusal-to-submit provision: the Decision Maker “may not draw any inference solely from a party’s or witness’s absence from the hearing or refusal to submit to cross-examination or answer other questions” (Section II.I.6). That language preserves a Northwestern respondent’s ability to decline to testify under oath at the hearing without converting the silence into a finding of responsibility, while permitting the Decision Maker to rely on the investigative record.
Both parties also have an equal amount of time to make a closing statement (Section II.I.7). Northwestern’s closing-statement allowance is itself meaningful: it gives experienced counsel the chance to frame the evidence and the procedural objections before the Decision Maker deliberates.
Sanctions, Appeals, and the Stay Pending Appeal
After the Decision Maker reaches a determination and consults with the appropriate sanctioning authority, Northwestern issues a written determination within seven calendar days. For student respondents, the sanction range runs from verbal and written warnings, advisory letters, conduct review, disciplinary holds, required training, and campus access restrictions through housing restrictions, no-contact orders, disciplinary suspension, suspension with or without pay (for student employees), expulsion, and degree revocation. For faculty respondents, sanctions can include written warning, training requirements, salary action, loss of teaching or supervisory responsibility, demotion, decrease in pay, suspension without pay, removal of tenure, and termination, with the Faculty Handbook process applying to tenured faculty.
Either party has ten days from the dismissal or determination to file a written appeal with the Office of Civil Rights and Title IX Compliance. Northwestern’s 2025 Policy recognizes four grounds for appeal (Section II.J):
1. Procedural irregularity that affected the outcome of the matter.
2. New evidence that was not reasonably available at the time the determination regarding responsibility or dismissal was made, that could affect the outcome of the matter.
3. The Title IX Coordinator, investigators, or decision-makers had a conflict of interest or bias for or against complainants or respondents generally or the individual complainant or respondent that affected the outcome.
4. The sanction is disproportionate with the violation.
Appeals of complaints against students are addressed by the Senior Associate Dean of Students or designee. Appeals against faculty members are addressed by the Associate Provost for Faculty or designee. Appeals against staff members are addressed by the Vice President for Human Resources or designee. The appeal is solely conducted via written statements, with a fifteen-page response limit. The appeal reviewer issues a written decision usually within seven days of making a decision.
A meaningful due-process protection at Northwestern: sanctions are stayed pending resolution of the appeal. Section II.J expressly provides that “in the event sanctions were imposed, the sanctions will be stayed pending resolution of an appeal.” A Northwestern respondent who appeals does not begin serving suspension or expulsion while the appeal is pending. That protection is not universal in the Big Ten and not universal in the wider American Title IX-policy landscape, and it materially changes the strategic value of pursuing a written appeal at Northwestern.
The fourth appellate ground, sanction disproportionate with the violation, combined with the procedural fact that a separate University Hearing and Appeals System Sanctioning Panel determines sanctions for student respondents, creates one of the cleanest written appellate entry points in the Big Ten. A Northwestern respondent who accepts the responsibility determination but contests the sanction has a defined, narrow, panel-error-based appellate argument built into the procedural infrastructure.
Call (513) 540-0450 – Free Consultation
Northwestern’s Layered Compliance Framework: Title IX, VAWA, and the Illinois Preventing Sexual Violence in Higher Education Act
Northwestern’s posture toward Title IX compliance is unlike most major Big Ten universities where Mark practices. Northwestern’s 2025 Policy expressly commits the University to compliance with three statutes, not two: federal Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and its implementing regulations, the federal Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, and the Illinois Preventing Sexual Violence in Higher Education Act. Most peer university Title IX policies in the Midwest commit only to Title IX and VAWA. Northwestern operates under a three-statute framework.
The Illinois Preventing Sexual Violence in Higher Education Act, codified at 110 ILCS 155, imposes additional procedural and substantive duties on Illinois colleges and universities beyond what federal Title IX requires. Among those duties: the Act requires Illinois institutions to adopt a comprehensive policy concerning sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking; to maintain confidentiality protections for survivors; to provide training to staff who interact with survivors; and to use the preponderance of the evidence standard at adjudication. The Act also imposes reporting obligations on Illinois institutions to the Illinois Department of Human Rights.
A respondent at Northwestern today inherits the procedural consequences of that three-statute framework. The Office of Civil Rights and Title IX Compliance staff are trained on, and federally and state-monitored for, compliance with all three statutes. That posture cuts in two directions for the respondent. On one hand, it disciplines visible procedural irregularity by Office staff, because compliance is monitored. On the other hand, it raises the visibility of the procedural decisions the Office makes during a respondent’s case, and respondents who push back on the process should expect the Office’s response to be calibrated to the statutory compliance overlay. An experienced Northwestern Title IX attorney calibrates the procedural pressure to the institutional posture, preserving the respondent’s appellate and federal-court record without inviting an institutional overcorrection.
There is also the matter of federal Title IX-respondent jurisprudence at Northwestern. There is no published Seventh Circuit Doe v. Northwestern Title IX wrongful-discipline opinion as of 2026. The binding Seventh Circuit authority on Title IX-respondent procedural rights, Doe v. Purdue University, was decided against a peer Big Ten public, and applies to Northwestern by force of circuit precedent regardless. A Northwestern respondent today inherits the procedural protection of Doe v. Purdue without having been the subject of test litigation themselves.
The Seventh Circuit’s Due Process Standard at Northwestern
Northwestern sits in Cook County, Illinois, federal venue for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (Chicago), and appellate venue for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The controlling Seventh Circuit Title IX-respondent opinion is Doe v. Purdue University, 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019). Doe v. Purdue arose at a peer Big Ten public university and is persuasive on every Seventh Circuit university, public and private, including Northwestern.
The Seventh Circuit in Doe v. Purdue held that a Title IX-respondent plaintiff can survive a motion to dismiss by pleading facts that plausibly support an inference of sex-based bias in the disciplinary process. The court rejected the proposition that a respondent must plead direct evidence of bias to state a claim under Title IX’s anti-discrimination prong. The court also held that Purdue’s process, in which the Decision Maker failed to interview the complainant, failed to provide the respondent with a copy of the investigative report, and based the responsibility finding on credibility judgments without holding a live hearing, plausibly violated the respondent’s Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in his reputation and his Title IX procedural rights. The opinion reinstated the John Doe plaintiff’s claims against Purdue.
Doe v. Purdue is the high-water mark of Seventh Circuit Title IX-respondent procedural authority. The opinion is cited routinely in Seventh Circuit district court Title IX-respondent opinions, including in cases arising at the University of Chicago, Loyola, DePaul, the University of Illinois, Indiana University, the University of Notre Dame, and Ball State. Federal Title IX-respondent litigation against private Seventh Circuit universities proceeds under Title IX itself, breach of contract under the student handbook, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, rather than under the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause (which applies to public state actors but not to private institutions). The procedural reform Doe v. Purdue required is built into Northwestern’s 2025 Policy: written notice within seven days of opening an investigation, an evidence inspection window, an investigative report shared with both parties, and a live hearing with advisor-conducted cross-examination of all witnesses.
The federal claim against a private Seventh Circuit university like Northwestern arises if the Office of Civil Rights and Title IX Compliance fails to honor procedural protections in practice (an undisclosed bias, a relevance ruling that prevents cross-examination on a credibility-determinative point, an evidentiary withholding, a Decision Maker who is not in fact neutral, a UHAS Sanctioning Panel decision that exceeds the proportionate sanction). Building the record for that federal claim is the work of the investigation phase, not the appeal phase. By appeal time the record is closed.
What Cross-Examination at Northwestern Looks Like When It Is Done Right
The advisor’s cross-examination at the Northwestern Title IX hearing is the single most consequential moment in the entire process. The Decision Maker rules on each question’s relevance before the witness answers and must explain any decision to exclude on the record. Cross has to be planned question by question, with relevance theory built in, before the hearing convenes. Open-ended questions get blocked. Compound questions get blocked. Questions outside the scope of the investigative report get blocked. A skilled Northwestern Title IX attorney prepares the cross-examination during the investigation phase, weeks before the hearing.
The strongest cross-examinations at Northwestern Title IX hearings work on three axes. Credibility cross focuses on consistency between the complainant’s earlier statements (initial report, investigation interview, evidence-review submissions) and hearing testimony. Corroboration cross focuses on whether documentary or third-party evidence backs or undermines the complainant’s account, and whether the investigator’s report actually engaged that evidence. Process cross focuses on whether the Office of Civil Rights and Title IX Compliance investigator complied with Northwestern’s own 2025 Policy and the federal Title IX regulations in gathering evidence, providing required notices, observing the ninety-day investigation target, and interviewing witnesses.
A Northwestern Title IX lawyer who has cross-examined under the federal advisor-only cross model knows how a trained Decision Maker reacts to certain question patterns, where the relevance line tends to fall, and which procedural objections move the needle. That experience compounds across cases. It is also the difference between a cross that builds a clean appellate record under appellate ground one (procedural irregularity) and a cross that does not.
Pritzker Law, Feinberg Medicine, Kellogg, and Other Professional Pipeline Respondents
A Title IX matter at Northwestern carries different consequences for different populations of Northwestern students. For Pritzker School of Law students, a Title IX finding triggers character-and-fitness disclosure obligations to every state bar to which the student will eventually apply. The Illinois State Bar Association character-and-fitness application asks specifically about university disciplinary findings. Other state bars ask the same question. A finding of responsibility on a Northwestern Title IX complaint, even a finding that does not result in suspension or expulsion, is a disclosable event that triggers a character-and-fitness investigation by every bar to which the student applies.
For Feinberg School of Medicine students, the same dynamic applies on the medical-licensure side. State medical licensure boards request and review university disciplinary findings as part of the licensure investigation. The American Association of Medical Colleges’ Medical Student Performance Evaluation, used in residency placement, includes professional and disciplinary information from the dean of students’ office. A Title IX finding in medical school can affect residency match outcomes, fellowship eligibility, and ultimately state medical licensure. The same dynamic applies for Feinberg MD/PhD, MD/MPH, and MD/MBA candidates whose degree path crosses two professional pipelines.
For Kellogg School of Management students, the consequences track a different but equally consequential path. Most Kellogg students hold post-MBA employment offers conditional on background checks, morality clauses, or character and fitness clauses. A Title IX finding can disrupt a consulting offer, a banking offer, or a technology firm leadership track offer. Kellogg students should not assume that a finding short of expulsion is consequence-free outside the classroom.
For Northwestern graduate students in clinical psychology, social work, nursing, audiology, and other licensed disciplines, the same character-and-fitness exposure runs through state professional licensure boards. For Northwestern PhD candidates, the Title IX finding is a permanent academic-record event that follows the candidate through faculty hiring, tenure review, and federal grant disclosure obligations.
A Northwestern Title IX attorney representing a respondent in any of these professional pipeline programs is defending more than the immediate disciplinary outcome. The strategic objective is to control the record for the downstream professional consequence. The same procedural objections that preserve a federal-court record under Doe v. Purdue also produce the documentary record that a state bar character-and-fitness committee, a medical licensure board, or a residency program will read years later. Mark’s defense strategy at Northwestern accounts for both timelines.
Why a Cincinnati-Based Title IX Attorney for a Northwestern Matter
Mark Wieczorek practices Title IX defense across the Midwest from his Cincinnati office. Evanston is roughly three hundred miles northwest, a five-hour drive Mark and his investigative team make regularly for Seventh Circuit and Sixth Circuit Title IX matters at Northwestern, the University of Illinois, Indiana University, Purdue, the University of Notre Dame, Ball State, the University of Cincinnati, Ohio State, the University of Michigan, and Michigan State. Most of the Northwestern Title IX process happens in writing and on secure video platforms, not in person. Investigation interviews can be conducted remotely. Document production runs through Northwestern’s preferred cloud storage platform. The live hearing has been conducted virtually for many recent Northwestern matters at the University’s discretion under Section II.I.7.
Mark’s Title IX defense practice is built on his prosecutorial background. As a former Hamilton County prosecutor, he learned the investigator’s playbook from inside the system: how investigators frame questions to lock in answers, how they sequence interviews to corner accused parties, how they build a record that survives appellate review. He uses the same playbook in reverse for the defense. Northwestern’s investigative report is the document where most cases are won or lost, and the evidence-review window is where Mark does the most consequential work.
Mark works the Office of Civil Rights and Title IX Compliance process the way he worked criminal investigations as a prosecutor. Build the record early. Pin down witness inconsistencies. Demand procedural compliance from the investigator. Treat the response window on the investigative report as the most important deadline of the case. Northwestern students, faculty, and professional-pipeline respondents who retain Mark get a Northwestern University Title IX attorney whose strategy is built around their facts and around the Seventh Circuit framework that controls every Northwestern Title IX matter.
Call (513) 540-0450 – Free Consultation
Mark Wieczorek’s Title IX Case Results Across the Midwest
Mark’s Title IX practice spans Midwest universities. The case results below reflect outcomes for similarly situated student and faculty respondents across his Midwest practice. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes; every Title IX matter turns on the facts of that case and the procedural posture of that institution.
- University of Dayton, faculty respondent. Represented a tenured professor in a Title IX matter. Case dismissed. Tenure retained.
- University of Cincinnati, student respondent. Represented an undergraduate accused of sexual misconduct. Found not responsible after full ARC hearing.
- University of Cincinnati, student respondent. Represented an undergraduate in a separate Title IX matter. Charges dismissed during investigation phase.
- Miami University, fraternity matter. Represented an individual charged with Title IX sexual assault and hazing as part of a fraternity matter where over twenty individuals faced charges. Following full hearing, client found not individually responsible and all felony charges dismissed.
Disclaimer: The above case results are not a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your case. Past results afford no guarantee of future results. Every case is different and must be judged on its own merits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does my Title IX advisor at Northwestern have to be an Illinois attorney?
No. Northwestern’s 2025 Policy on Title IX Sexual Harassment expressly permits each party to be accompanied by an advisor of choice, and Section I.E and Section II.D clarify that the advisor “may be, but is not required to be, an attorney.” The policy contains no Illinois-licensure requirement. Title IX is federal law, and an experienced Title IX attorney from outside Illinois can serve as advisor at Northwestern Title IX hearings on the same footing as an Illinois-licensed attorney.
What makes Northwestern’s Title IX process different from the University of Illinois or other Big Ten schools?
Three things distinguish Northwestern. First, Northwestern operates under the most recently revised Title IX policy in the Big Ten, effective September 1, 2025, with the next scheduled review on September 1, 2028. Second, Northwestern’s hearing structure is a hybrid: a single trained Decision Maker rules on responsibility, and a separate three-person University Hearing and Appeals System Sanctioning Panel determines sanctions for student respondents. Third, sanctions imposed at a Northwestern Title IX hearing are stayed pending resolution of an appeal, which is a meaningful due-process protection that is not universal in the Big Ten.
How long does a Northwestern Title IX investigation take?
Northwestern’s 2025 Title IX Policy targets ninety days for the investigation phase from the written notice of a Formal Complaint, with the hearing phase added on top and good-cause extensions available. In practice, a Northwestern Title IX case typically runs four to six months from formal complaint to written determination, with appeals adding another three to five weeks. Each party has the opportunity to inspect and respond to the evidence before the investigative report is finalized and again before the live hearing convenes.
What is the standard of evidence at a Northwestern Title IX hearing?
Preponderance of the evidence. Northwestern’s 2025 Title IX Policy defines preponderance as more likely than not that a violation of the policy occurred. This is the same standard most universities apply under both the 2020 and 2024 federal Title IX regulations and the same standard the Illinois Preventing Sexual Violence in Higher Education Act requires of Illinois colleges and universities.
Can I bring an attorney to my Northwestern Title IX investigation interview?
Yes. Northwestern’s 2025 Title IX Policy permits an advisor of choice (who may be an attorney) to accompany a party to every meeting, interview, evidence-review session, and hearing that is part of the investigation, adjudication, and appeal process. The advisor may consult with the party privately. At the live hearing, the advisor (and only the advisor) conducts cross-examination of the other party and the witnesses, so retaining experienced counsel before the investigation closes is the single biggest factor in how the hearing unfolds. Student parties must execute a FERPA waiver permitting their advisor to access education records related to the matter.
What appeals are available after a Northwestern Title IX finding?
Either party has ten days from the dismissal or determination to file a written appeal. Northwestern’s 2025 Title IX Policy recognizes four grounds for appeal: procedural irregularity that affected the outcome, new evidence not reasonably available at the time of the determination, conflict of interest or bias on the part of the Title IX Coordinator or investigators or decision makers, and a sanction that is disproportionate with the violation. Appeals of student matters are handled by the Senior Associate Dean of Students, faculty matters by the Associate Provost for Faculty, and staff matters by the Vice President for Human Resources. Sanctions are stayed pending the appeal decision, which the reviewer issues usually within seven days.
Title IX Defense at Other Midwest Universities
Mark Wieczorek defends Title IX matters across the Midwest. Related practice areas at other universities: University of Illinois Title IX defense, Indiana University Title IX defense, Purdue University Title IX defense, University of Notre Dame Title IX defense, Ball State University Title IX defense, University of Michigan Title IX defense, Michigan State University Title IX defense, Ohio State University Title IX defense, Penn State University Title IX defense, Vanderbilt University Title IX defense, University of Cincinnati Title IX defense.
For an overview of Mark’s work across the Midwest, see Title IX defense practice.
If you need a Northwestern University Title IX lawyer who knows the Office of Civil Rights and Title IX Compliance process, the 2025 Title IX Policy framework, the University Hearing and Appeals System Sanctioning Panel structure, and the Seventh Circuit’s Doe v. Purdue framework, Mark Wieczorek’s prosecutorial background and Northwestern-specific case strategy is the difference between a stacked process and a fair one.
Do Not Wait. Contact a Northwestern University Title IX Attorney Now.
The window to build your defense at Northwestern is the investigation phase, not the hearing. By the time the Decision Maker convenes the live hearing, the record is largely closed. Every interview, every document response, every objection on the record matters. The evidence-review window before the investigative report finalizes is the last unrestricted opportunity for your advisor to shape the proceeding before the live-hearing advisor-only cross-examination rule kicks in. If you have been notified of a Title IX investigation at Northwestern, retain experienced Title IX defense counsel today.
Call (513) 540-0450 – Free Consultation
Northwestern students and faculty: free consultation, flat fee, no payment plans on the back end. Mark answers his own phone.
