Jan 7 (Reuters) – The Texas Supreme Court has finalized a plan to end its reliance on the American Bar Association for law school accreditation and instead establish its own list of law schools whose graduates may practice in the state.The decision makes Texas the first state to break with the ABA’s law school oversight, amid mounting pressure from President Donald Trump’s administration over the organization’s diversity and inclusion efforts and criticism from those who believe its requirements increase student costs.
Sign up here.
The supreme courts of Florida, Ohio and Tennessee have launched similar reviews of their own ABA requirements in recent months.
The Texas high court’s order, opens new tab did not clarify its reasons for replacing ABA accreditation, which has been its standard since 1983, but said it aims to provide “stability, certainty and flexibility” to currently approved law schools by satisfying a “set of simple, objective, and ideologically neutral criteria.” A court spokesperson declined to comment.
The ABA’s managing director of accreditation and legal education, Jenn Rosato Perea, said in a statement Wednesday that the order “reinforces the authority that the Supreme Court of Texas has always had over the licensure of J.D. graduates” and that the ABA’s law school oversight arm will continue to work with Texas and other states to preserve the ability of law graduates to practice across states.
She said the ABA will “continue to prove our value as an accreditor” and will work with schools and states to improve its law school standards.
OVERSIGHT UNDER PRESSUREThe ABA in November launched a sweeping review of its law school oversight standards, largely in response to states reevaluating their reliance on the group to determine who can take the bar exam and be licensed.
Trump in April called the ABA rule requiring law schools to demonstrate their commitment to diversity in recruitment, admissions and programming “unlawful” and directed the U.S. Department of Education to assess whether to suspend or terminate the ABA as the government’s official law school accreditor. That diversity standard has been suspended since February.
Other critics have claimed the ABA’s myriad law school requirements have driven up the cost of legal education and hindered innovation.The Texas Supreme Court unveiled its plan to take over law school approval in late September, over opposition from some Texas law school deans who said one national set of rules ensures the portability of law degrees.
The court said in its final order that it aims to preserve the ability of Texas law graduates to practice in other states, and for graduates of law schools elsewhere to practice in Texas. Its current list of “approved” law schools consists of all the schools now accredited by the ABA.
The order lays out criteria to approve schools that lose their ABA accreditation, recognizing those that meet the ABA’s minimum bar pass standard and several other admissions rules. The court said it will develop an approach to evaluate non-ABA accredited law schools that wish to be approved in the state but offered no further details.
Approving non-ABA accredited law schools has the potential to reduce the cost of legal education and increase access to lawyers, said Texas A&M law dean Robert Ahdieh. But he pointed out that bar exam pass rates are lower among graduates of non-ABA-accredited law schools in California, which maintains a tier of state-accredited schools.
“We’ll have to see how things actually play out,” he said.
Read more:
Texas plans to end ABA’s role in state’s law school oversightTexas high court considers dropping ABA accreditation as requirement to practice law
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab
