Every day, people turn to lawyers for help with matters of great importance in their lives. Whether it’s to launch a new business, adopt a child, defend a criminal charge, or settle a loved one’s estate, lawyers guide people through some of life’s most pivotal moments. The U.S. legal system also shapes our lives in fundamental but often unseen ways—law helps us drive on safe roads, benefit from advances in technology, and trust that contractual obligations will be enforced.

Because our individual and collective welfare depends on an effective and just legal system, we deserve to be confident that our lawyers know what they’re doing. That’s the value of our national accreditation system—and we argue that reform, not rejection, is what’s needed to equip tomorrow’s lawyers with the skills they need to serve the public.

Practicing law requires specific skills and knowledge. Graduating from an accredited law school and passing a professional licensing exam protect the public by ensuring a minimum level of lawyer competency. Many other professional jobs—such as pharmacists, dentists, health professionals, CPAs and teachers—require graduation from an accredited school and passing a state licensing exam.

In the U.S., the law has had a national set of accreditation standards since 1952, promulgated and enforced by the Council of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. Most states require that lawyers graduate from a Council-accredited law school to become a licensed lawyer in that state. Rather than each state having separate accrediting rules, which would be costly to develop and administer, states rely upon the Council’s accrediting standards.

This national system means that law schools can focus on complying with one set of rules rather than 50, and their graduates can sit for any state’s licensure exam, rather than just for the one in which their law school happens to be located. For example, a lawyer might attend a law school in Utah or California, but seek to return to their home state of Texas or Florida to practice law.

Why some states are reconsidering national accreditation

At present, Texas has moved away from reliance on the ABA Council for accreditation, and Florida, Ohio, and other states are considering whether to do the same. Critics’ motivations range from political disagreements with the ABA to objections focused on DEI.

While the Council is by law independent from the ABA, some conflate the two and object to the policy positions of the larger ABA industry group. Others object to a Council standard that addressed racial equity, although it was suspended in February.

Still others think the Council’s accrediting standards are too high, stifling innovation in legal education that proponents say could make it easier and cheaper to become a lawyer. Some of this recent deregulatory pressure is coming from for-profit entities that want to launch fully online law schools that have no “brick and mortar” facilities.

A fragmented system risks failing the public

Fracturing the national law school accreditation system would be a critical mistake that would ultimately hurt the people most in need of legal services. If states were to stop recognizing national accreditation and instead rely only on independent state-run or regional accreditation systems, many law school applicants would look to schools outside the state or to the subset of in-state schools that meet national as well as state accreditation requirements.

Unless an applicant is absolutely certain they will only practice in one state for the duration of their careers, attending a school that doesn’t meet national accreditation requirements is risky. Few students will likely gamble on one state’s legal market, leaving residents of these states with fewer options for legal representation. Students, rural communities, and small businesses would pay the price—not elite institutions.

Further, piecemeal or overlapping regulation would raise costs for law schools, their students, and the profession. Schools in these states would likely be forced to comply with separate state-accreditation requirements, while also still meeting national Council standards to stay competitive. A recent final report from a working group appointed by the Florida Supreme Court emphasized this fact, noting that “widespread interest in national degree portability means that schools have to account for the bar exam eligibility rules across the country and not just in their home state.” 

Alternatives exist, but come with trade-offs

States that are concerned with a lack of access to legal representation and legal deserts need to make it easier for lawyers to move to their states—not more difficult—or focus on promising pathways for new classes of professionals who can provide some basic legal services that do not require the expertise of a fully licensed lawyer. Much like physical therapists, physician assistants, nurses, and pharmacists supplement some of the work of doctors, these professionals can help more people access legal services. 

Political attacks on national accreditation should be distinguished from genuine efforts to expand the pool of lawyers through pathways like state-accredited schools, which provide an alternative to Council accreditation—but don’t bypass it altogether. California has long supported state-accredited (non-ABA Council schools), and so do other states, including Alabama, Massachusetts, and Tennessee. Other states allow students from non-accredited law schools to sit for their bar exams. California, Virginia, Vermont, and Washington also recognize legal apprenticeships that allow students to skip law school entirely, with Kim Kardashian perhaps the most widely publicized person to recently try this path. 

These alternatives also present challenges. Of the more than 30 non-ABA Council accredited schools, many have low bar exam pass rates, poor job outcomes, and high attrition rates—with some of those schools even described as predatory. A state-based accreditation system is also costly to run. And while some of those unaccredited schools appear less expensive, they generally do not provide much financial or scholarship assistance and the time to completion is often longer. Full-ride tuition scholarships or other merit and need-based aid are available at most ABA Council accredited law schools, not to mention other scholarship assistance.

Reform, not rejection, is needed for national law school accreditation

Rather than tossing out the current system, a more pragmatic approach exists that will benefit consumers of legal services. State supreme courts should collaborate with the Council and the law schools within their states to resolve concerns about specific accreditation standards and make improvements. The Council has signaled its openness to a deep review of current standards to align them more closely with a promising set of principles to guide its work. Moreover, it has appointed an advisory committee that will add additional perspectives to this reform process.

That lawyerly process of review and revision has worked over many years and through many challenges. Reasonable people can disagree about current requirements, as well as how to spur innovation and reduce costs. There’s no reason to bypass the proven and effective steps taken to reform and improve accreditation standards--at least not without even first trying.

Change is only positive when it makes things better. Legal education in the U.S. is widely respected as the best in the world. Let’s all work together to keep it that way.