CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
CONTINGENCIES [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	7. CONTINGENCIES In the ordinary conduct of its business, the Company is subject to lawsuits, investigations and claims, including, but not limited to, claims involving students or graduates and routine employment matters. Although the Company cannot predict with certainty the ultimate resolution of lawsuits, investigations and claims asserted against it, the Company does not believe that any currently pending legal proceeding to which it is a party will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company and several executive officers have been named as defendants in two purported securities class action lawsuits. The complaints, which were both filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, allege that the Company and the other defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business and prospects in violation of federal securities laws. Each plaintiff seeks damages for the purported class. The complaints were filed on August 13, 2010 and September 19, 2010, and are respectively captioned, Donald J. and Mary S. Moreaux v. Lincoln Educational Services Corp., et al., and Robert Lyathaud v. Lincoln Educational Services Corp., et al. On November 24, 2010, the Court consolidated the two actions under the caption In re Lincoln Educational Services Corp. Securities Litigation and appointed a lead plaintiff. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on February 14, 2011. On April 15, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims asserted therein. On September 6, 2011, the Court entered an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. As of the date of this filing, plaintiffs have not filed a notice of appeal. Certain of the Company's executive officers and directors have also been named as defendants in three purported shareholder derivative lawsuits. The first action, which was filed on December 21, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, is captioned Mike Schweertmann v. David F. Carney, et al. The second, which was filed on February 14, 2011 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, Chancery Division, is captioned Gregory and Karen Lehner v. Shaun E. McAlmont, et al. The third action, which was filed on March 11, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, is captioned Steven C. Lloyd and Paul Stone v. David F. Carney, et al. All three complaints allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by allowing the Company to engage in certain allegedly improper practices and misrepresenting the Company's financial condition. On October 18, 2011, the parties to the Schweertmann action filed with the Court a stipulation of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice, which the Court ordered on October 24, 2011. On October 21, 2011, plaintiffs in the Lloyd action filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice, which the Court ordered on October 26, 2011. The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. On May 18, 2011, the Company received a subpoena duces tecum from the Attorney General of the State of New York relating to their investigation of whether the Company and certain of its academic institutions have complied with certain New York state consumer protection, securities and finance laws. Pursuant to the subpoena duces tecum, the Attorney General has requested from the Company and certain of its academic institutions documents and detailed information for the time period beginning May 17, 2005 to the present.

CONTINGENCIES

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

7. CONTINGENCIES

In the ordinary conduct of its business, the Company is subject to lawsuits, investigations and claims, including, but not limited to, claims involving students or graduates and routine employment matters. Although the Company cannot predict with certainty the ultimate resolution of lawsuits, investigations and claims asserted against it, the Company does not believe that any currently pending legal proceeding to which it is a party will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The Company and several executive officers have been named as defendants in two purported securities class action lawsuits. The complaints, which were both filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, allege that the Company and the other defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business and prospects in violation of federal securities laws. Each plaintiff seeks damages for the purported class. The complaints were filed on August 13, 2010 and September 19, 2010, and are respectively captioned, Donald J. and Mary S. Moreaux v. Lincoln Educational Services Corp., et al., and Robert Lyathaud v. Lincoln Educational Services Corp., et al. On November 24, 2010, the Court consolidated the two actions under the caption In re Lincoln Educational Services Corp. Securities Litigation and appointed a lead plaintiff. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on February 14, 2011. On April 15, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims asserted therein. On September 6, 2011, the Court entered an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. As of the date of this filing, plaintiffs have not filed a notice of appeal.

Certain of the Company's executive officers and directors have also been named as defendants in three purported shareholder derivative lawsuits. The first action, which was filed on December 21, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, is captioned Mike Schweertmann v. David F. Carney, et al. The second, which was filed on February 14, 2011 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, Chancery Division, is captioned Gregory and Karen Lehner v. Shaun E. McAlmont, et al. The third action, which was filed on March 11, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, is captioned Steven C. Lloyd and Paul Stone v. David F. Carney, et al. All three complaints allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by allowing the Company to engage in certain allegedly improper practices and misrepresenting the Company's financial condition. On October 18, 2011, the parties to the Schweertmann action filed with the Court a stipulation of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice, which the Court ordered on October 24, 2011. On October 21, 2011, plaintiffs in the Lloyd action filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice, which the Court ordered on October 26, 2011.

The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.

On May 18, 2011, the Company received a subpoena duces tecum from the Attorney General of the State of New York relating to their investigation of whether the Company and certain of its academic institutions have complied with certain New York state consumer protection, securities and finance laws. Pursuant to the subpoena duces tecum, the Attorney General has requested from the Company and certain of its academic institutions documents and detailed information for the time period beginning May 17, 2005 to the present.