The Trump administration is expected to decide by late December whether to strip the American Bar Association’s (ABA) law school accrediting arm of federal recognition, a move that would not automatically end the ABA’s accreditation of law schools or change state bar-admission rules but could accelerate states’ efforts to approve alternative paths to becoming a lawyer. Two legal education experts told Fox News Digital that while most law students would be unlikely to lose access to federal loans if the ABA's accrediting arm loses recognition, the decision could accelerate a broader shift away from the organization's longstanding dominance over legal education, with states increasingly exploring alternative accreditation pathways that could change how law schools operate and who qualifies to practice law. "I think the biggest thing is, everyone should know that the federal recognition of the ABA is just the first step," Adam Biggs, general counsel of the University of Austin, told Fox News Digital.
"If they get knocked off their perch, that's going to supercharge the conversations of these state supreme courts to create alternative pathways that are not just the ABA." The looming decision follows a September vote by the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), the federal panel that advises the Education Department on accreditation matters, which remained deadlocked over whether to recommend renewing the ABA's federal accreditation recognition. Education Department staff have already recommended denying renewal, and now the decision rests in the hands of Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent to rule on whether the ABA's accrediting arm can retain its federally recognized status, which it has held since 1952. AI BACKLASH REACHES MAJOR UNIVERSITY WITH BOLD BAN ON LAPTOPS AND PHONES FOR LAW STUDENTS The ABA has long served as the primary gatekeeper for legal education in the United States, with most states requiring graduates to have attended an ABA-accredited law school to qualify for the bar exam.
Although losing federal recognition would not automatically end that arrangement, critics argue it could accelerate efforts already underway in some states to recognize alternative law school approval systems, potentially allowing institutions to experiment with cheaper, shorter programs outside the ABA’s traditional accreditation model. One such alternative is taking shape in Texas, where Biggs is helping develop a new law school at the University of Austin (UATX) that would operate without ABA accreditation. The university is considering a two-year law program or a model that combines undergraduate and legal studies.
It plans to make tuition free and avoid federal funding altogether. The proposed school could also depart from traditional law school staffing models by relying more heavily on practicing attorneys and federal judges as adjunct instructors, rather than maintaining the extensive full-time faculty structure that Biggs says ABA accreditation standards require and that can pose a high bar for institutions. Biggs argued that the ABA's longstanding influence over legal education has discouraged such experimentation by imposing what he described as a "one size fits all elitist model of education," which he said drives up costs and limits schools' ability to offer alternative approaches to training future lawyers.
DUKE LAW'S ALLEGED RACE-BASED ADMISSIONS ACCUSED OF DEFYING SUPREME COURT RULING: DOJ "Right now, the model they force makes it impossible to cut overhead, and it's going to be an expensive product," Biggs said, criticizing the ABA's accreditation requirements. "That makes the decision for you. Because you need to live in a big city to go work at a firm to pay off your massive amount of debt." Biggs added that reducing the cost of legal education could help address attorney shortages in rural and underserved communities, where graduates carrying substantial student debt may struggle to pursue lower-paying legal work.
Allowing law schools to operate with less overhead, he said, could give new attorneys greater flexibility to serve those communities and potentially make legal services more affordable. The ABA faculty requirements criticized by Biggs are also facing scrutiny from the Justice Department, which has threatened an antitrust investigation over restrictions on adjunct professors teaching core law school courses. In an Oct. 7 letter, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward gave the ABA 15 days to revise or justify its rules, arguing that the requirements restrict competition and contribute to higher tuition costs, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
