The Trump administration is set to make a decision by late December regarding the federal recognition of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) law school accrediting arm. This move wouldn’t immediately abolish ABA accreditation for law schools or alter state bar admission rules. However, it might spur states to explore alternative routes for legal licensure.
Some legal education experts indicated that although most law students wouldn’t lose federal loan access if the ABA’s accrediting arm were to lose its recognition, it could signal a shift away from the ABA’s traditional hold over legal education. States might begin to consider different accreditation pathways, changing how law schools operate and who is eligible to practice law.
Adam Biggs, general counsel of the University of Austin, emphasized that losing federal acknowledgment could ignite discussions among state supreme courts about creating alternatives to the ABA’s model. He remarked, “If they get knocked off their perch, that’s going to supercharge the conversations.” This follows a September vote by a federal panel that was unable to agree on re-approving the ABA’s recognition for accreditation.
Since 1952, the ABA has been the main authority overseeing legal education in the U.S., with many states requiring graduates from ABA-accredited schools to qualify for the bar exam. While losing federal recognition wouldn’t immediately change this, critics argue that it could lead to a rise in states recognizing other law school approval systems. This could allow for innovative and potentially more affordable legal education options outside the traditional ABA accreditation model.
In Texas, for example, Biggs is working on a new law school at the University of Austin (UATX), planning a two-year program or potentially mixing undergraduate and legal studies, aiming for free tuition without federal funding. This school could differentiate itself by employing more practicing attorneys and federal judges as adjunct instructors, disregarding the extensive full-time faculty model required by ABA standards, which can be a barrier for some institutions.
Biggs has raised concerns that ABA’s strict influence stifles innovation in legal education. He criticized the one-size-fits-all model as elitist, arguing it raises costs and constrains schools’ capacities to develop new training methods for future lawyers.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department has also scrutinized the ABA’s faculty rules, suggesting possible antitrust inquiries due to restrictions on adjunct professors teaching essential courses. In a recent communication, they requested the ABA to reconsider its rules in light of their impact on competition and tuition costs.
The potential for alternative accreditation approaches could provide new prospects for law students, but it may also complicate the licensing process for graduates in states other than where they studied. Traditionally, the federal government sets the accrediting agencies for aid, but bar admission criteria are generally determined by state supreme courts, many of which currently require ABA-accredited degrees.
However, states like Texas and Florida have already begun to loosen the reliance on ABA accreditation, creating a more flexible landscape for legal education. Following Texas’ lead, other states, including Ohio and Alabama, are exploring similar measures to diversify law school approvals and lessen dependence on the ABA.
Biggs noted that while there may be limited effects on federal student loans, most law schools are connected to larger universities that have their own accreditation. As a result, students at these schools are likely unaffected. However, a handful of standalone institutions could face ramifications if the ABA’s recognition evaporates.
Beyond financial implications, some experts believe easing ABA’s control could lead to significant changes in law school curriculums. Sarah Parshall Perry from Defending Education expressed that students could receive better training without the ABA’s impositions on curriculum and admission practices. “What matters most,” she said, “is if they recognize principles of contract law and insurance liability.”
In light of these concerns, the ABA has already started to reverse some diversity, equity, and inclusion requirements in response to the federal scrutiny. Recently, they voted to eliminate a standard mandating adherence to inclusivity among students and staff.
Education Department officials have mentioned a recommendation to deny renewal of ABA recognition due to numerous compliance issues. Nevertheless, even if the ABA loses its federal status, it may continue to accredit law schools, leaving states to decide whether to stick with traditional ABA approval or to adopt alternative pathways, which some have begun to explore.
