ABA Do they Accredit or Approve Law Schools?

There have been a number of threads asking about Law Schools in general and more specifically, accredidation. Depending on who writes the article (always consider the source) the American Bar Association has either the sole power to accredit Law Schools or Approve their programs. So, I took the liberty of contacting the ABA headquarters in Chicago and posed a direct question: "do you accredit or approve law schools?" The Division of Public Education (of the ABA) responded, "according to our catalog we accredit all law schools in the United States." That's a powerful statement.

According to an article in the National Liberty Journal, "Nearly every state Supreme Court has delegated the ABA with the authority to accredit law schools. As with much of the ABA's agenda, the method by which the ABA accredits law schools has little to do with the quality of legal education. The deans of 14 law schools, including the University of Chicago, Stanford, and Harvard, sent a letter to the deans of all ABA-accredited law schools, calling for a reformation of the accreditation process. The open letter criticized the ABA, stating that the accreditation requirements were often used to suppress legal education."

The ABA has historically attempted to restrict entry into the legal profession and has attempted to eliminate competition among law schools. Complaints about the ABA accreditation process caught the attention of the United States Department of Justice, which filed suit against the ABA, alleging that the ABA's accreditation activities violated federal antitrust laws. On the same day the DOJ filed its federal lawsuit, the ABA entered into a settlement agreeing to mend some of its impermissible activities.

Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School came face to face with the ABA's accreditation process. When Regent graduated its first law students, the ABA withheld accreditation. This meant that the law students would not be able to take the Bar examination and would never be able to practice law. Fortunately, Regent Law School taught their students how to litigate. Several of the students, on their own, filed a federal suit against the ABA alleging antitrust violations. These students drafted the lawsuit while studying for final exams. This team of bleary-eyed law students, who suffered sleep deprivation while preparing for final exams and preparing their first federal lawsuit, ultimately brought the ABA to its knees. The ABA agreed to settle with the students by granting full accreditation to Regent if the students agreed to dismiss their suit.

One has to wonder why, if the ABA really had a good case to withhold accreditation, did it bow down to a group of young, inexperienced law students? The answer is simple. In reviewing the ABA's accreditation process, it is clear the ABA is arbitrary and is out to push its agenda. Just like most of the ABA programs, the ABA is not truly concerned with the legal profession or the quality of legal education as much as it is with wielding immense political power to achieve its liberal agenda.

It's about time the ABA lost its power to accredit law schools. The ABA's monopoly over the legal profession makes the alleged Microsoft antitrust issues pale in comparison. It's time that the keys to the kingdom be taken from the ABA, and given back to the legal profession.

 

"...and given back to the legal profession."

Unfortunately, to some extent, the ABA IS the legal profession, or at least the richest and most influential significant fraction thereof.

Be careful what you wish for!

Nosborne JD
(No longer a member of the ABA. Too expensive.)

 

Curious

linyard, you've discussed the ABA's agenda, but I'm curious: what is your agenda? First, you claimed to be a degree-less, multi-millionaire who pulled himself up from the depths of poverty; then, it turned out you were a Wharton-educated multi-millionaire testing the integrity of this board. You post about numerous topics pertaining to DL, you call the ABA although you are not a lawyer and have no intention of being one, you perform what appears to be time-consuming research although it does not benefit you, etc. What gives? I'm not insulting you in the least; I'm just curious "what's up, dude?"

JB

BA, Economics 1986
JD 1989

 

James:

I do not think that this is the appropriate forum (no pun inteneded) to discuss this, but here goes:

1) My agenda: Actually, I have none. I have had an interest in distance learning for nearly 20 years (I’m 43 since your curious), which began with a book a neighbor, who is a professor and author, gave me. The book entitled, “This Way Out”, which was published in 1972 and co-authored by John Coyne and Tom Hebert and went into great detail of the then, fairly new, “University Without Walls” program. Over the years, I have read nearly everything I could find on the subject, including schools developing their own programs, the evolution of Home Study into DETC, and the growth of the degree mills. I have read the book’s John has published, along with the likes of Marcie Thorson and Eugene Sullivan (former head of ACE), plus I have a collection of reference books like: Barron's College Guide, Peterson's, The College Board, Commonwealth Universities and others. In the early nineties, I researched the numerous schools (domestic and abroad) and wrote a book pertaining to external degree programs, but unfortunately three children and a divorce put an end to such plans. Since then, I continue to read as much as I can on the subject of distance learning and enjoy watching the changes.

2) My deception: I have seen too many times, forums and other formats for the exchange of ideas, turn into self-serving arenas for the promotion of some product or service. I wanted, for my own edification, to be sure that this was not the case at Degreeinfo. In fact, I’ve learned quite a bit in the brief time I’ve been here, not only about DL, but about how strongly people feel about the subject.

3) My postings: Isn’t that what we are supposed to do, post? If I come across an article relating to DL, should I not share that with others who may have the same question or interest? It’s all about being informed and informing others.

4) My Research: I have been researching a variety of topics all my life. Currently, I am the Director of Managed Money at a national brokerage and this requires me to do the due diligence and ADV review of professional Money Managers for high-networth clients. So even now, research is an everyday activity.

5) And lastly, Benefits: You asked why someone would spend time researching a topic for the benefit of others? My question to you is, why not? (see #3)

Oh, by the way, I’m not insulted.

 

The ABA does not hold sole power to accredit law schools. There are some non-ABA law schools that hold regional accreditation, and many that have no accreditation whatsoever.

My home state (Massachusetts) is one of the few states that does not bow down to the ABA in regards to law school accreditation. As long as a law school is approved by the MA Board of Higher Education (no mean feat), then graduates can take the bar exam. We have two non-ABA schools (both 100% residential), graduates of both can take the bar exam:

Massachusetts School of Law (regionally accredited)

Southern New England School of Law (no accreditation)


Bruce

 

The term used on the ABA web site is "approved." See http://www.abanet.org/legaled/approvedlawschools/approved.html

The state Bar of California also uses the term "approved" in reference to ABA schools. See http://www.calbar.org/admissions/2admsch.htm

Christopher

 

SNESL sought ABA accreditation but failed, they say, because of a lack of financial resources. SNESL is currently pursuing a merger with the University of Massachusetts in Dartmouth.

 

I'm not clear what the point of this thread is. The subject line is ambiguous.

If it is asking whether the ABA accredits or approves law schools, of course it does. That certainly isn't a discovery.

If the question is which one does it do, accredit or approve, then I don't understand the point of the question.

Is there any significant difference between accreditation and approval in this particular case that we should be aware of? Or are the words essentially functioning as synonyms?

It's also a false statement, as every reader of Degreeinfo already knows.

Bruce gave examples of two non-ABA law schools in Massachusetts. Out here in California we have dozens of them.

Within 20 miles of me are New College of California's and JFK University's law schools, both RA but not ABA. There is the pretty well regarded San Francisco Law School, operating an on-campus program that is California approved and accredited by the California State Bar Association. In San Jose, Lincoln College of Law operates a similar residential program that is CA-approved and CalBar accredited. Saratoga School of Law operates a dodgier CA-approved but not-CalBar accredited DL operation.

Nobody needs permission from the government, whether the federal Department of Education or a state Supreme Court, before they can accredit and/or approve educational institutions.

I do think that the great majority of states choose to restrict admission to their state bars to graduates of law schools accredited by the ABA. (With many loopholes.)

Somebody's gotta do it.

I'm not being flippant here. What I am saying is that unless admission to the bar is opened to everyone, there is going to be some restriction to entry into the legal profession.

In that case, it's probably a good idea to delegate some role in regulating the profession to the profession itself, in the form of the national professional association. Is it really preferable to have some faceless government office performing the function?

Accrediting law schools is part of their First Amendment rights, isn't it?

I think that what you really mean is that states should follow California's lead and not restrict entry into the legal profession to ABA-accredited law schools.

I'm not sure if that's a good idea or not, since I think that all-in-all, the ABA does a pretty good job. There are critics such as Jerry Falwell and his National Liberty Journal, but there are always going to be critics no matter what you do. Critics come with the territory, given the nature of the legal profession. (Professional arguers.)

But the bottom line is that the ultimate decision lies with the individual state court systems.

 

linyard

Thanks for your explanation. It just seemed strange (especially given the way you "started" here) that you were doing all of this research in areas you were not formally interested in pursuing, and then posting this information here.

Best wishes,

JB

 

Profound words of Bill...

But the fact remains....unless a person decides to become a permanent resident of California or another state that will allow you to sit for the bar after graduating from a non-aba school, you are pretty much screwed with a Non-ABA Law Degree, especially if you plan to use it to obtain employment. Also, many states require that you actively practice for "X" amont of years prior to sitting for their state bar exam. I guess the best thing to do as a working adult would be to find a Bottom of the Barrel ABA-approved school (Oxymoron if I ever saw one) somewhere nearby and get accepted. But then again....there are some CalBar Approved/Non-ABA schools that are pretty well-known and popular in California!

I guess this is gonna be left to perceptions and goals of the user, but I want to be able to go anywhere and use my degree!

Mike

AA, Burlington College, NJ
BA, TESC
MS, SMSU (2003?)

 

MSL also sought ABA accreditation, and after it was denied the school incinerated its bridges by filing this lawsuit.

SNESL already has a joint agreement with UMass-Dartmouth for an accelerated BS/JD program, but the idea of UMD taking over SNESL has received a lukewarm reception in the MA Legislature.


Bruce

 

Bill:

The question of approval and accredited may seem benign, but there is a big difference between the two.

There are so many different agencies authorized to accredit schools, it sometimes is meaningless to ask whether or not a college or university is accredited, unless it is followed with the question "by whom?" The Council of Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) is currently the entity that carries out a recognition function in the private, non-governmental sector and is listed on the Department of Education’s web site. CHEA, however, does not have the authority (as an organization) to accredit any school, only approve schools through their specialized agencies. The organization that approves law schools under CHEA is the Association of American Law Schools (AALS), which has no authority to accredit. The ABA is the only authority recognized by the US Department of Education and with recognition, comes federal financial aid. Also, it is my understanding, California is the only state that will broadly accept law school students graduating from non-ABA approved schools to qualify for the bar. So, while a school may have regional accreditation and have the approval of the Association of American Law Schools, you are ineligible (in most states) to sit for the “bar”.

And Gert is right, Massachuesetts School of Law is regionally accredited and will allow students sit for the bar in any New England state, except Rhode Island, but they are the exception to the rule. There is also the issue of reciprocity with other states.

My point is that there should be alternatives to the accreditation of Law Schools in the United States. While I understand the ABA’s concerns about the quality of education and thereby, the quality of the graduates, regional accreditation and the school’s own authority should suffice.

 

I know locally, there were problems with the ABA refusing to accredit Barry University's law school because it might compete with a new law school that is being established somewhere in the vicinity. Barry University, which is RA (and also a Roman Catholic university) had the support of both Florida's attorney general and Jeb Bush. Yet the ABA refused, kept changing the requirements, etc...

Barry finally got provisional approval from the ABA after launching a class-action lawsuit. Here's an archive where many of the articles from the local press can be found:

http://www.lc.org/hotissues/2001/aba_1-18/aba_index.htm

So I can sympathize with those who feel the ABA needs a good shakeup in terms of approving law schools.

JCL

 

In the lawsuit I mentioned above, the Federal government filed an amicus brief in support of the Mass. School of Law, but the suit still went nowhere.


Bruce

 

It would seem that everytime the ABA is challenged by students, colleges, states or the federal government, they acquiesce to the terms or conditions of the Plaintiff.

If the ABA is truly the "Great and Powerful OZ", why do schools not band together and once and for all, peek behind the curtain?

I mean it's not like they can't find a good lawyer!

 

In defense of the ABA

I have often voiced my dissatisfaction with the ABA. I believe that it is an organization primarily dedicated to preserving the status quo, protecting the wealthy and influential law firms, law schools, and professors of law, and requiring all of us to pay for a legal educational system that is rigid, lockstepping, and afraid of innovation.

Nevertheless, the ABA makes it possible for a state bar authority to open its bar exam to graduates from over 170 law schools spread throughout the fifty states and the District of Columbia. It is simply not possible for the bar authorities of every state to investigate every law school to satisfy themselves that each such school provides an adequate professional education. California can do this within its own borders, but could New Mexico?

A direct result of ABA standards and accreditation is to give the students of any state a vast number of possible law schools from which to choose. Another result is to foster "cross-pollenation" thoughout the legal academy and bar because an ABA accredited degree is supremely "portable". This also contributes to the ease of movement by attorneys between states, lowering the ultimate cost of legal services by allowing attorneys to migrate from over served areas to underserved areas.

And not only within the U.S. The Law Society of England and Wales and the Law Societies of all but one Canadian province give considerable recognition to ABA JD degrees as professional credentials. I understand that the situation in Australia is similar.

Nor is this all. Universities in the UK and Canada recognize ABA JD degrees as valid academic credentials for teaching and graduate study.

No, much as I hate the ABA for its rigidity and dedication to its own best interests, I am willing to tolerate it because, on balance, the advantages of a uniform, objective, credible evaluation far outweigh the drawbacks.

Nosborne JD

 

Nosborne:

My comments regarding the ABA was not meant as a diatribe, but rather the need for another authority to recognize and accredit law schools in the United States. Nearly every other area of study has an organization that accredits and another that approves. As an example, Business Colleges are regionally accredited and are approved by the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). This gives the school both the authority and the "seal of approval" to issue their degrees and gives the public the perception that the program meets certain minimum standards.

In the area of law, the ABA accredits and approves. Regional accreditation is subservient to the ABA and for the sake of arguement, plays no active part in qualifying an individual to sit for the bar (in nearly all states).

Shouldn't regional accrediting bodies have the authority and the ABA simply give their blessings. Instead, we have an authority that answers only to God (unless they're involved in an anti-trust suit).

 

I assume that you are referring to the ABA here. Arguing that the ABA should be replaced with a different law school accreditor suggests that the ABA is doing a bad job or that another speciaized accreditor could do the job better, doesn't it? This needs further argument.

I still don't understand what point you are trying to make by distinguishing betweeen 'accredit' and 'approve'.

It's true that there is a distinction between 'institutional accreditation' and 'specialized accreditation'. The first accredits entire colleges and universities that may in turn be composed of a whole variety of academic departments offering degrees in many subjects. The latter accredits programs in specific subjects. The regional accreditors are examples of institutinal accreditors, AACSB and the ABA are examples of specialized accreditors.

Each state sets its own standards for admission to that state's bar. It is the state government that has the authority. They can require whatever accreditation they see fit. If they choose to require specialized accreditation in the law, rather than the general institutional accreditation of the entire university, then I see nothing wrong with that.

 

I am not suggesting that the ABA should be replaced or that they are not performing their fiduciary responsibility. My point is that RA schools have no other choice, since the ABA has the monopoly in accreditation on Law Schools in the United States. With the exception of a few states, you will not qualify to sit for the bar if the school is not ABA accredited.

This relates to the confussion at the ABA. When I called the ABA several weeks ago, the Division of Public Education stated that they accredit all Law Schools in the US, however, their catalogue states that they approve Law Schools.

This is not a valid argument when discussing the ABA. The ABA is the sole accrediting body and the specialized accreditor, neatly bundled. A school can be regionally accredited and have a Law School and it's graduates are unable to sit for the bar in most instances. While the AACSB may accredit business colleges, a RA school without AASCB approval can confer a degree and the recipient practice his/her trade with little interference. Try and sit for the bar without ABA approval, let alone attempt to practice your trade (except in California).

I am not suggesting the abolishment of the ABA's ability to accredit, rather that there be other accrediting bodies with equal power to approve or deny.

 

I don't necessarily agree....

but I just think that ABA vs. non-ABA is a no-win fight. Until another agency establishes itself and endures the initial struggles there won't be any concern for the ABA to fret over...and even if another agency that accredits law schools comes on the market (there are already those...I think that just about each state has one and there are bodies that accredit foreign schools as well) the ABA will probably always be a defining mark for a school's acceptance or not in this country.

I hate it! Applying for schools....going through lsdas....passing the lsat....so on and so on, it stinks. But if I got into trouble today I would choose a lawyer that went through a good ABA Law School.