Reuters, ABA's Legal Education Council Signals Support for Bar Exam Alternatives:

The American Bar Association will consider revising its accreditation standards to ensure those rules aren't a roadblock for states considering attorney licensing programs that bypass the bar exam.

The ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar on Friday directed a committee to review the existing bar passage standard, which requires that at least 75% of a law school’s graduates pass the bar exam within two years in order to maintain accreditation [Proposed 2022-2023 Standards Committee Agenda].

ABA Journal, As Some Jurisdictions Consider Bar Exam Alternatives, ABA Legal Ed Section Again Looks at Bar Pass Standard:

In January, the Oregon Supreme Court approved in concept attorney admission through law school programs and supervised practice—in addition to the bar exam. Other jurisdictions studying the issue include California, Nevada, Minnesota and Washington.

The Legal Ed section’s suggestion is part of its standards review committee agenda for the coming year and detailed in an August 3 Memo. The proposal advises looking at Standard 316 wording to make sure that it accounts for alternative lawyer licensure pathways and does not “unduly dissuade” law schools and regulation agencies from exploring bar exam alternatives.

Also, the section’s council approved a standards review committee suggestion to assemble an ad-hoc group that will examine how transfer students affect law school bar passage rates.

Proposed 2022-2023 Standards Committee Agenda:

Summary:  Two comments received dealt with Standard 316. One asked that the Council evaluate the extent to which 1L transfer students affect law school bar passage outcomes and reliable ways to account for the effects of 1L transfers in the Standards. Second, the other comment asked the Council, in light of its review of the standardized test requirement in Standard 503, to remove Standard 316 so that law schools and state bar authorities may explore innovative paths to licensure that allow greater access to the profession than reliance on a single standardized test that has never been shown to be valid or reliable. In place of Standard 316, the comment recommended using Standard 315 as a flexible approach to assessing competence in a law school’s program of legal education while reducing reliance on a one-size-fits-all bar exam and addressing restricted access to the legal profession, particularly for marginalized groups.

Recommendation: We recommend that an ad-hoc group consisting of a few Managing Director’s Office staff and a few members of the Council’s Standards and Strategic Review Committees work together to determine whether to revise Standard 316 to account for transfer attrition, the best way to collect information on 1L transfer students, and how this may impact bar passage rates under Standard 316. We also recommend that the Standards Committee review the current language of Standard 316 with an eye towards ensuring that 1) it can account for alternative lawyer licensing pathways and 2) that, as written, it does not unduly dissuade law schools and state bar authorities from exploring alternative lawyer licensing pathways for fear of not meeting accreditation requirements.