In the general sense any concerns would mostly be about reputation and moral obligations.
Specific to the OP though - nobody has read the contract they actually signed, nobody knows the firm or, really, the actual facts... so it's going to far to say that OP has no legal exposure (even if that just means exposure to something frivolous from a dumb firm). I think that's all anybody was really trying to express.
In your case, you'd have to explain how your access claim affected your LSAT score specifically. There is no way I would have been admitted to the school I went to in the general category, so yes, it was treated differently.
As a neutral third party to the debate about accepting and reneging - how is accepting an offer to return and then "secretly" doing the recruit any different than applying for new jobs while already employed? I'm just curious whether there is some different employment law principle I'm missing here, or if it's purely about reputation.
My partner just passed PLTC and had a terrible experience.
She was a writing leader at our school (uO, which prizes itself as a legal writing mecca) and got straight As, but found that a lot of the instruction and feedback on assignments in PLTC was counter-intuitive or even negative pedagogical value. The other big problem was that you have to study for the bar and do the courses almost completely separately and simultaneously which is a gigantic time commitment (even for legal education standards). She reads and absorbs at an incredible rate, but still struggled to get it all done in time for the write.
Ontario's process is a joke in comparison.