More Texas Deans And Faculty Perspectives On ABA Accreditation Of Law Schools

Following up on Monday's post, Texas Deans And Faculty Comments To Texas Supreme Court On ABA Accreditation Of Law Schools:

Josh Blackman (South Texas; Google Scholar), The Texas Law Deans Provide A Weak Defense of the ABA's Accreditation Role:

Last week, I submitted a comment to the Supreme Court of Texas. In short, I argued that SCOTX should discount the opinions of the law school deans, as they do not represent the public interest. I've now reviewed the letter signed by deans from eight law schools, including my own. With respect, I did not find this letter very persuasive. Indeed, if this is the best the law deans can muster, then SCOTX should seriously reconsider what value the ABA provides. By contrast, the letter from University of Texas Dean Bobby Chesney offers a candid and realistic assessment of the costs and benefits of the ABA.

Let's walk through the primary letter, which I suspect was drafted by Dean Leonard Baynes at the University of Houston Law Center. (As a general rule, the lead signature usually belongs to the primary mover.) …

At bottom, all the Deans have to rely on is portability. They worry that students who do not plan to practice in Texas will not attend their schools. But as I explained in my comment, accommodating the needs of students who wish to leave Texas is not exactly in the best interest of Texas.

I think a far better statement comes from UT Law Dean, Bobby Chesney. (It does not seem the Dean of Texas A&M submitted a letter). Chesney explains how the ABA's standards do not simply set a minimum baseline, but instead try to impose "best practices." …

Chesney closes with a call for change:

From that perspective, a well-designed alternative pathway should turn on an intentionally-parsimonious set of benchmarks for baseline adequacy, thus leaving maximum room for innovation. If well chosen, those benchmarks might actually be relatively administrable. They might consist, for example, of relatively-objective input measures such as the credits and particular courses required for graduation, the quantity and qualifications of the faculty, grading policies, etc. But in the spirit of innovation, they probably should as much or more emphasize outcome measures, especially bar passage, employment percentages, and cost-to-salary ratios.

One could err on the side of taking great risk in this way, in hopes of unleashing exciting innovations. Or one could err the other way, cracking the door open only to a limited degree by keeping the benchmarks (particularly requisite bar passage levels) demanding. Either way, however, it would be fascinating to see what might arise should the Court reopen such a pathway given the current climate of innovation, change, and cost concerns. I hope the Court will give some version of it a shot; it seems the Texas thing to do.

I agree with Chesney.

Renee (Newman) Knake Jefferson (Houston), Jefferson Memorandum: Order Inviting Comments on the Law School Accreditation Component of Texas's Bar Admission Requirement:

The Supreme Court of Texas has invited public input on whether it should continue relying on the American Bar Association (ABA) for law school accreditation or create a Texas-specific system. The Court’s openness to innovative approaches is commendable, but abandoning the ABA’s accreditation process risks undermining the very goals the Court seeks to advance: (1) “promoting high-quality and cost-effective legal education,” (2) “protecting the public,” (3) “promoting public accountability in the State of Texas’s governance of the legal profession,” and (4) “meeting Texans’ need for legal services.” To further these goals, the Court should preserve the ABA’s role in accrediting J.D. programs and simultaneously authorize alternative licensure pathways—such as paraprofessionals and community justice workers—as recommended by the Texas Access to Justice Commission’s Working Group on Access to Legal Services in its 2024 report.

Reuters, Eliminating ABA Accreditation For Texas Law Schools Is Flawed Proposal, Some Deans Say:

Dropping the requirement that Texas attorneys graduate from an American Bar Association-accredited law school would impede lawyer mobility and increase costs, law deans warned in a letter to the Texas Supreme Court.

Deans from eight of the state’s 10 ABA-accredited law schools asked the court to maintain the ABA requirement — which has been in place since 1983 — amid a review of the rule initiated by the court in April.

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,” the deans wrote in a letter to the Texas Supreme Court, which was posted to the TaxProf Blog on Monday. …

University of Texas law dean Robert Chesney, who leads that state's highest ranked law school, did not sign on to the majority deans letter. Chesney sent a separate comment urging the court to consider alternatives to the current rule such as recognizing other accreditors in addition to the ABA or enabling Texas to grant exceptions to the ABA requirement.

Texas A&M Law’s Robert Ahdieh was the only other Texas law dean to not sign on the deans’ letter or send his own. Ahdieh said on Tuesday that competitive pressure could potentially improve the ABA’s law school accreditation work, but added that maintaining the portability of law degrees earned in Texas is “critical.”