The American Bar Association has set standards for law schools nationwide for decades. Most states require future lawyers to graduate from an ABA-approved law school to take the bar exam — a requirement to become a practicing lawyer. In April, the Texas Supreme Court announced it would be reviewing the ABA requirement, and Texas has recently become the first state poised to end its reliance on the ABA for oversight of law school.
Instead, the Texas Supreme Court plans on determining which schools’ graduates may be admitted as lawyers themselves. Specifically, in the Court’s Misc. Docket No. 25-9070, they state: “the Court is of the tentative opinion that the ABA should no longer have the final say on whether a law school’s graduates are eligible to sit for the Texas bar exam and become licensed to practice law in Texas.”
While the Court’s docket says they intend to preserve portability of Texas law degrees, provide stability and expect no additional burdens, none of these clauses are guaranteed. Additionally, the Court “may consider, in the future, returning to greater reliance on a multi-state accrediting entity other than the ABA should a suitable entity become available.” However, the Court provided no clear public statement or argument explaining why the changes occurred in the first place and why the ABA should not be in control of law school accreditation.
“It makes me kind of worried about the stability of Texas law and, to be honest, the accreditation of law schools across America,” said Katherine Manz, a history and English sophomore. “I know that the Supreme Courts of Florida, Tennessee (and) Ohio are all looking into similar standards, so that creates a worry for me of a fragmentation of the practice of law across the United States.”
The order came after Education Secretary Linda McMahon argued the ABA and other college accreditors have too much power over accreditation, and the barrier needs to be removed to increase the number of new institutions. Others cite the ABA’s incredibly lengthy and demanding process of accreditation.
“The ABA’s accreditation process is incredibly burdensome,” said Mike Golden, lecturer and director of Texas Law’s Advocacy Program. “As long as we can ensure our graduates are getting a quality education, there is no reason why the Texas Supreme Court can’t do it.”
The Court has also invited comments on the order but such lack of specificity has made it nearly impossible to give direct criticism or advice. Regardless of either process’ intricacies, the order marks a major turning point in the legal world. Most states require graduation from an ABA law school, so it remains unclear how future Texas law graduates, who will not have graduated from an ABA-accredited law school, may be affected. While the lack of details from the Court has made detailed criticism difficult, taking away the basic universal standard for law schools will make it harder for Texas lawyers to find work outside the state, and the Court has not outlined plans to minimize these issues.
When the Court goes through with this order, we must be prepared for a new, unknown future of legal accreditation.
Gray is an anthropology, government and economics junior from Baytown, Texas.
