This is a guest post by Prof. David Yellen of the University of Miami Law School and former dean of that law school and two others. David has been deeply involved in ABA accreditation matters, in addition to other leadership roles.
It is a perilous time for the Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education. Its role as the national accreditor (for US Department of Education purposes) and approver (for bar examination eligibility purposes) of US law schools is being challenged. The Texas Supreme Court recently announced its “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.” www.txcourts.gov/media/1461357/259070.pdf. Several other states are considering similar actions.
To a large degree, the Council has brought these problems upon itself. Many of the current (and proposed) accreditation Standards are highly problematic. In ways large and small, the Council overregulates law schools, stifling innovation and imposing unnecessary costs. It is probably the most intrusive accreditor in the entire U.S. higher education landscape. Nonetheless, I continue to believe that the profession, law schools and students are best served by a single accreditor/approver (at the moment, neither Texas nor any other state has proposed a workable alternative system of portability of bar examination eligibility), and I have serious doubts that any other entity will emerge as a better alternative to the Council. Therefore, I would like to see the Council survive this challenging moment, and emerge as a better, leaner accreditor. In that spirit, I offer a few suggestions for steps that might reduce the growing momentum to displace the Council from its national role, and in the process, improve the Standards.
First, the Council should rebrand itself as the Law School Accrediting Board, or some other similar title. It is the Council, not “the ABA” that regulates law schools. This is a common misunderstanding, as reflected in the phrasing of the Texas order. The Council operates almost entirely independently from the larger ABA, as is required by Department of Education rules. Given how unpopular the ABA is in certain segments of the country right now, diminishing the erroneous perception of ABA control could be good for the Council’s reputation.
This change would be consistent with other accrediting bodies. I serve as a public member of the Landscape Architecture Accreditation Board (LAAB). It operates within the framework of the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), But in part because of the separate name, people don’t think or talk about ASLA accrediting landscape architecture programs. Of course, landscape architecture is a much less contentious field than law and legal education, but the point still stands.
Similary, medical schools are accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME). LCME is sponsored jointly by the American Medical Association (AMA) and the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). It is as if the legal education accreditor was sponsored jointly by the ABA and the Association of American Law Schools. Yet as far as I can tell, AAMC is truly perceived as an independent entity.
Second, the Council should move towards eliminating the one way the larger ABA actually participates in the accreditation process. Currently, changes to the Standards go to the ABA House of Delegates for review. The House can concur in proposals or refer them back to the Council. If the Council resubmits the proposal, it goes back to the House a second time. If the House again refers it back to the Council, the House’s role is complete. If the Council approves the proposal a third time, it becomes effective without further review by the House.
This is an odd, and not very useful, process. Most other accrediting bodies have nothing comparable. If the ABA has a view on a Council proposal, they can participate through the notice and comment process. Eliminating the House of Delegates’ formal review would further emphasize the Council’s independence from the ABA. The Council should be judged on its own actions, not those of the larger ABA.
Third, and most importantly, the Council should publicly announce an intention to scale back unnecessary or inappropriate regulations. Accreditation standards should be limited to things that are virtually essential to a quality and honest program of legal education. The Council’s job is to enable experimentation and evolution, not to drive change in a particular direction. Too often the Council gives in to vocal and influential segments of the legal education community. Many of these proposals may in fact be quite good for many or most law schools. But the Council is making rules, not establishing best practices. It is important to remember that a law school must be in full compliance with each and every Standard. If one can imagine a high quality law school not doing a certain thing, that thing should not be a nationwide requirement.
The Council recently released a promising new document, the “Core Principles and Values of Law School Accreditation,” which could serve as the basis for this process. www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/2025/council-meeting/25-aug-core-principles-accreditation.pdf. It is by no means a perfect document (see Derek Muller’s cogent critique at https://excessofdemocracy.com/blog/2025/9/the-aba-is-inventing-new-principles-for-law-school-accreditation-quietly-abolishing-others) but it does reflect a level of regulatory modesty that is too often missing from the Council’s approach. The Council should rigorously review all of the Standards against the template established by the Core Principles document. I believe that a fair-minded application of these principles would result in a significant reduction in Council regulation. In the end, I think the Standards would wind up looking a lot more like the minimalist Model Rule proposed by Muller.
The Council should also apply the Core Principles in selecting new members. The Nominating Committee should make an effort to add several members who are committed to the principle of limited regulation. People like Derek Muller and Dan Rodriguez, for example, could really change the Council dynamic. There is a mechanism for people to seek election to the Council apart from the Nominating Committee route, but I am not sure that it has ever been utilized. In part, that is because to vote on selections for Council membership, a member of the Section of Legal Education (any member of the ABA can join the section) must personally attend the ABA Annual Meeting. The Council should broaden voting participation by removing the requirement of in-person voting.
A serious effort to reform itself could help salvage the Council’s role as the national accreditor law schools and principal gatekeeper for eligibility to take the bar exam. Otherwise, the process of seeking alternatives to “the ABA” is likely to accelerate. Can the Council meet the moment?