When it comes to accreditation and the ABA Legal Ed council, what does it all mean?
These days, talk about law schools inevitability includes the word “accreditation,” and the council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar is at the center of the conversation. The ABA Journal posed questions to Daniel Thies, the council’s chair, about the council’s role, law school accreditation and accreditation of the council itself.
The interview has been edited for clarity and length.
What’s the role of the council? How does it fit into the greater ABA?
The short answer is we accredit JD programs nationally. The longer answer is that the council is a group of 21 volunteers committed to quality legal education. It’s our job to make sure council-accredited law schools are producing competent, ethical attorneys who can be accepted to the bar. We do this work independently from the ABA. We control our own funding and budget, we have final say in all decisions related to accreditation standards, we choose our own members and leaders, and we don’t give the ABA any visibility into or influence over individual school accreditation matters. We are also funded entirely by fees from accredited schools. Conversely, the council has no role in the ABA’s advocacy, operations, priorities, scholarships, membership standards, publications or anything else of material impact. You’ll notice that the ABA’s policies and public statements sometimes contradict those of the council, and that’s natural. Our organizations have very different missions, obligations and limitations. This gets confusing because we do maintain a relationship with the ABA. The similarity in name also tends to contribute to confusion.
What does it mean that state supreme courts in Texas, Alabama and Florida are considering options to set up their own alternative accreditation systems?
The council has never been the sole accreditor, nor has it tried to be. But we are the gold standard, and that is not changing. Council accreditation has a demonstrated track record, as our graduates have superior bar passage rates, career outcomes and rates of professional discipline. It is not clear whether alternative accreditation systems will be able to achieve comparable or better results. Only time will tell. But it would be the students and graduates of those systems who would suffer if they could not.
Why is a national accreditor important for law students?
We’re also very focused on degree portability. If states decide to maintain their own accreditation systems or if additional accreditors are recognized, it is not obvious that reciprocity would develop easily, quickly or at all. This scenario would increase costs for graduates and law schools, create confusion and could result in uneven quality in legal education. It could also mean that prospective students would avoid certain states or schools if the portability of their degree can’t be assured.
Let’s talk about accreditation standards. How is it determined that a standard is needed? And how is it decided that adjustments are needed?
We have a dedicated standards committee charged with comprehensively reviewing the accreditation standards and ensuring they’re aligned with our core principles. But the committee has to prioritize changes. How do we choose where to put our attention first? We’re doing a lot of listening and collaborating with constituencies, and we’re paying attention. We also regularly solicit feedback from the public and our constituencies regarding standards they think should change. We’re working on making our standards less restrictive and making sure we’re not placing undue burdens on law schools. Our advisory committee has been a fantastic resource for providing a variety of outside perspectives. We also are very sensitive to the dynamic world and have been very clear that we will never require a law school to choose between following any law or an accreditation standard. When a change in a law impacts an accreditation standard, we have moved to remove that conflict.
Specifically, Standard 206, regarding diversity and inclusion, how was it determined that it would be rescinded? Does the repeal mean that law schools can’t have their own DEI policies?
I’ll start with your second question. No, the repeal of Standard 206 does not prevent schools from having their own DEI policies or programs. It just means meeting a specific definition of diversity isn’t a requirement for accreditation. Law schools have always had the authority over whether and how they incorporate diversity and inclusion, but it must be consistent with their mission and applicable laws. Repealing Standard 206 is about two factors. One, ensuring our national accreditation system can continue to provide quality education and degree portability for graduates; and two, ensuring law schools can comply with our accreditation standards and with all applicable laws.
One of the arguments is that the council’s accreditation standards overall are burdensome, causing law school prices to rise, specifically experiential learning.
This is a common argument. We play no role in how law schools set tuition. There are a lot of factors that go into law school tuition costs at each school, and while meeting the minimum standards for accreditation certainly requires some resources, it’s not what’s driving up tuition in higher-priced law schools. Most people don’t realize you can go to a quality, council-accredited law school for as little as $12,000 a year. There are council-accredited law schools with a variety of price points, missions, experiential learning opportunities, sizes, locations and more. Our advisory committee will be helping us take another look at these standards. Not all quality experiential learning is more expensive, so we will be working to ensure that the requirements do not unnecessarily increase costs.
Why do law schools lose ABA accreditation?
The council’s goal is not to remove a school’s accreditation, and there is no single cause. Historically, the most common reason has been substandard bar passage rates and questionable admission standards. But even if a law school is found out of compliance, it has opportunities and time to come into compliance. And if a law school ever loses accreditation, the council works to allow students currently enrolled to finish their council-accredited JD, ensuring their investment in their education is protected.
All of this is happening as the council itself is up for review by the Department of Education. Why now? What’s involved?
Accreditors go through a recognition process with the Department of Education every five years, and yes, we’re currently involved in that. We submitted our petition for re-recognition in July 2024, and we have been in regular contact with the agency. The next step is the final staff analysis of our application for renewal before participating in a hearing with the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI). That should be around late September.
What happens if the DOE decides that the council should not be an accreditor?
We’d continue to serve as the gold standard of law school accreditation, as we anticipate that we will continue to be recognized by the state supreme courts. The portability of law degrees and quality of legal education will be retained. There are a small number of schools that for Title IV (section of the Higher Education Act that authorizes federal student financial aid programs, including grants, loans and work-study) purposes rely on the council to establish eligibility to receive federal funds. For those schools, there would be options after a period after the exhaustion of any administrative appeal by the council to transition to a new accreditor to retain eligibility to receive federal financial aid. Nearly all of the schools accredited by the council are also accredited by another institutional accreditor recognized by the department, so for those schools, federal financial aid would not be impacted. Separately, the Department of Education recently revised the rules applicable to all accreditors, including the council. They would dramatically change the accreditation landscape, including what it means to be “separate and independent.” If adopted, they could be finalized in November and in effect as early as next July. The council will be prepared to meet whatever standards the department establishes.
There’ve been calls for separating the council from the ABA entirely. Why stay a part of the ABA?
We and other professional program accreditors have historically maintained ties with a professional organization, not as an influencer of accreditation work but as a way to stay current with the profession. There are also operational efficiencies that have nothing to do with accreditation work that have value. This saves on the costs of running the council and allows it to maintain lower membership and user fees for accredited law schools. Through recent revisions, the council is making clear that it operates independently from the larger ABA, and it is making the process for standards revisions more efficient.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
