Proposed rule change could isolate Texas law grads from national practice and disrupt the attorney pipeline
The Texas Supreme Court is reviewing a decades-old rule that requires attorneys in the state to graduate from American Bar Association (ABA)–accredited law schools. In response, deans from eight of the state’s 10 ABA-approved law schools have issued a stark warning: eliminating this requirement would significantly harm Texas law graduates’ career mobility, reduce consumer transparency, and increase long-term legal costs.
The rule has been in place since 1983 and has long ensured that aspiring attorneys receive legal education that meets consistent national standards. The deans argue that revoking the ABA requirement now—amid broader political tensions and shifting judicial priorities—could destabilize Texas’ legal education landscape and create long-term consequences for law students, employers, and clients alike.
ABA Accreditation: What It Means and Why It Matters
ABA accreditation is the gold standard in legal education. Law schools that earn this designation undergo rigorous review processes and must meet strict criteria related to faculty qualifications, curriculum design, bar passage rates, student services, and diversity initiatives.
Key benefits of ABA accreditation include:
- Nationwide Practice Eligibility: Graduates can sit for the bar exam in all 50 states.
- Increased Transparency: Schools must disclose outcomes, bar passage rates, and employment data.
- Portability of Credentials: Graduates can move between jurisdictions without barriers.
- Public Trust: Clients and employers can expect a baseline of professional competence.
Removing this standard, the deans argue, would isolate Texas-trained lawyers from national legal markets and undermine student recruitment, especially among those seeking mobility after graduation.
Law Deans Sound the Alarm
In a letter sent to the Texas Supreme Court and published on TaxProf Blog, the deans wrote:
“The ABA’s primary role as a law school accreditor is exhaustive, detailed, and holds the accredited law schools to high standards that are related to legal education.”
Among the signatories were deans from:
- Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law
- University of Houston Law Center
- Texas Tech University School of Law
- Baylor University School of Law
- St. Mary’s University School of Law
- South Texas College of Law Houston
- University of North Texas at Dallas College of Law
- Texas Southern University’s Thurgood Marshall School of Law
Notably absent from the joint letter were deans from the University of Texas School of Law and Texas A&M University School of Law, though each submitted separate commentary. UT Law’s Robert Chesney suggested the court consider alternative pathways to licensure that may supplement—rather than replace—ABA oversight.
Political Backdrop: ABA Under Fire
Texas’ review comes shortly after the Florida Supreme Court initiated a similar effort. The Florida justices cited concerns over the ABA’s diversity mandates and “political engagement,” aligning with long-standing criticisms from the Trump administration.
The ABA has increasingly been a political target. The U.S. Department of Justice has already:
- Revoked the ABA’s advisory role in judicial nominations
- Barred federal attorneys from participating in ABA events
- Floated the idea of removing the ABA’s status as a federal accreditor
With both Texas and Florida judicial bodies composed entirely of Republican appointees, the ABA’s role in legal education may become a flashpoint in broader cultural and political battles over professional standards.
Law Student Mobility and Recruitment at Risk
According to data cited in the deans’ letter, 12% of 2023 graduates of Texas ABA-accredited law schools began practicing out of state. This mobility is critical not only for job placement but also for schools to attract top-tier students who don’t intend to remain in Texas long-term.
Without ABA accreditation:
- Texas-trained attorneys may be barred from other state bars.
- Recruitment pipelines may shift toward neighboring jurisdictions.
- Law students may choose to study elsewhere.
This shift could have ripple effects on local hiring, legal aid access, and clerkship placements.
Industry Consequences: Beyond Texas
If Texas were to remove the ABA requirement, it could set a precedent for other politically aligned jurisdictions to follow suit. This fragmentation would jeopardize the uniformity of American legal licensure and introduce state-by-state uncertainty for employers, students, and clients alike.
Implications include:
- Increased compliance burdens for law firms operating across states.
- Confusion among clients over qualifications and standards.
- Uncertainty in legal hiring for national employers.
- Compromised consumer protections tied to unregulated legal training.
What Happens Next?
The Texas Supreme Court has not announced a timeline for its decision. A court spokesperson has not commented on the deans’ letter or clarified whether public hearings will be scheduled.
However, legal educators and student advocates nationwide are watching closely. Any shift in accreditation requirements would represent one of the most significant changes to the American legal system in decades.
FAQs: ABA Accreditation and Its Legal Impact
What is ABA accreditation?
ABA accreditation is a designation granted by the American Bar Association to law schools that meet high standards of legal education, faculty, and bar preparation. It allows graduates to sit for the bar in most U.S. jurisdictions.
Why is Texas reconsidering the ABA requirement?
The Texas Supreme Court is reviewing the rule amid political scrutiny of the ABA’s diversity initiatives and perceived political activism. Similar reviews are underway in Florida.
What happens if Texas drops the ABA requirement?
Graduates of non-ABA-accredited schools may face difficulty practicing in other states, leading to reduced mobility, hiring challenges, and less transparency for students and clients.
How would this affect current law students?
If the rule changes, current students may lose access to out-of-state job markets. They could also face uncertainty about whether their education will qualify them for licensure elsewhere.
Could this start a national trend?
Yes. If Texas and Florida succeed in removing ABA accreditation, other states may follow. This could fragment the legal education system and destabilize bar admission norms.
Is ABA accreditation the only path to becoming a lawyer?
In a few states like California, graduates of non-ABA or online law schools can sit for the bar. However, they are generally limited to practicing in that state and face higher bar exam failure rates.
Final Thoughts: Legal Education at a Crossroads
Texas’ move to reassess ABA accreditation may seem procedural, but its implications are monumental. It’s not just a debate about standards—it’s about mobility, access, public trust, and the future of the legal profession. Whether the Texas Supreme Court chooses reform or repeal, the outcome will reverberate nationwide.
