Last week, Kellye Testy and I wrote an op-ed for The National Law Review. In the op-ed, we explain why the fracturing of national accreditation would not be in the public’s interest, and would be problematic for states, law schools, law students, and the profession.

[P]iecemeal or overlapping regulation would raise costs for law schools, their students, and the profession. Schools in these states would likely be forced to comply with separate state-accreditation requirements, while also still meeting national Council standards to stay competitive. A recent final report from a working group appointed by the Florida Supreme Court emphasized this fact, noting that “widespread interest in national degree portability means that schools have to account for the bar exam eligibility rules across the country and not just in their home state.” 

We suggest, consistent with others, that State supreme courts that have concerns over specific ABA Council standards, should first try to work with their law schools and reach out to the Council to attempt to resolve concerns. The full piece is here: Austen Parrish & Kellye Testy, Don’t Break What Works: Why States Shouldn’t Abandon National Law School Accreditation, The National Law Review, January 8, 2026.