Key points:
- Eight Texas law deans oppose dropping the ABA accreditation requirement for bar eligibility.
- They argue ABA standards ensure quality and support cross-state practice.
- The Texas Supreme Court is reviewing the rule amid broader scrutiny of the ABA's role.
Law school deans across Texas are urging the state’s Supreme Court to preserve the longstanding requirement that aspiring attorneys graduate from an American Bar Association-accredited law school, warning that its removal would hamper graduate mobility and undermine legal education standards. Their position was conveyed in a letter to the court made public Monday.
The review, initiated by the Texas Supreme Court in April, follows a similar move by the Florida Supreme Court, which criticized the ABA for its now-paused diversity mandate and political engagement. The deans argue that the ABA plays a crucial role in upholding rigorous legal education standards that benefit students and legal consumers alike.
“The [ABA’s] primary role as a law school accreditor is exhaustive, detailed, and holds the accredited law schools to high standards,” the deans wrote. They emphasized that ABA accreditation ensures degree portability across all 50 states—a key recruitment and career benefit. According to the National Association for Law Placement, 12% of 2023 graduates from Texas law schools moved to practice outside the state.
Of Texas' 10 ABA-accredited law schools, deans from eight signed the letter. Notably absent were Robert Chesney of the University of Texas School of Law and Robert Ahdieh of Texas A&M School of Law. Chesney submitted a separate statement encouraging the court to consider alternative or supplemental accreditation options, noting, “It would be fascinating to see what might arise should the court reopen such a pathway.” Ahdieh told Reuters that while competitive pressure might enhance the ABA’s accreditation role, maintaining degree portability is “critical.”
Among the signatories were the deans of Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law and the University of Houston Law Center. Their joint letter also stressed the transparency and accountability benefits of ABA oversight, pointing to publicly available performance metrics and consumer data that help applicants make informed decisions.
The Texas review echoes broader political tensions around the ABA’s role in legal governance. The organization has faced criticism from the Trump administration, including the loss of its status as the federal government’s judicial nominee evaluator and restrictions on attorney participation in ABA events.
The Texas Supreme Court has not announced a timeline for its decision. A spokesperson for the court declined to comment on the deans’ letter or provide additional details about the review process.
