ABA Accreditation Protects Law Students, Leaves Politics Aside

A sound legal system is the bedrock of a free society. But the law doesn’t enforce itself—it relies on effective and ethical lawyers.

Lawyers provide crucial services to ordinary Americans at key moments: ensuring fair custody arrangements after a divorce, planning to support a disabled child after his parents’ deaths, seeking compensation when injuries occur, and other vital services.

Mistakes can be catastrophic, making the development of qualified lawyers essential. And those lawyers must receive a quality legal education that prepares them for practice.

The American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar (which, despite the name, operates independently of the American Bar Association) is the only national accreditor of law schools, ensuring that lawyers in the US receive the education necessary to serve the public.

Debates over the value of a single national accreditor, and whether the council should serve in this role, have cropped up at both the state and national level this year. What these debates often miss is the value of the council’s work to students, law schools, law firms and the legal profession.

To date, every jurisdiction recognizes graduation from a council-accredited law school as a step toward licensure as a practicing lawyer. Students can attend any of the 196 council-accredited law schools across the US, without restrictions on where they can apply for admission to the bar after graduation.

In 2024 alone, for example, the 10 states that report the relevant data show that approximately 25% of the individuals who passed a bar exam—more than 6,000 individuals—graduated from an out-of-state council-accredited law school. Fragmenting our accreditation system would inhibit this mobility and hinder employers from hiring the best talent anywhere in the country.

The council’s work ensures the transparency needed for consumer protection of prospective law students. By gathering and publicizing information on topics such as admissions requirements, bar passage rates, and law graduate employment, the council empowers students to make informed choices about their future education and careers. Students and organizations across the country have come to rely on the council as the trusted clearinghouse for this information.

Claims that council accreditation imposes undue burdens and increases costs are misleading. Several accredited schools charge less than $15,000 per year in tuition, showing that a quality legal education need not carry an excessive price tag.

In reality, any move away from a single national accreditor could jeopardize these low prices. Schools would need to seek approval from multiple accreditors, likely leading to an increase in accreditation fees and compliance costs.

Equally as misleading are claims that the council’s work impedes innovation and limits competition. The council prescribes less than one fifth of the law school curriculum, and law schools have demonstrated a variety of innovative ways to meet those minimal requirements consistent with their missions.

The council also regularly reviews its standards. This month, for example, I am appointing a committee of law school deans, state supreme court justices, practicing lawyers, and others to assess whether our standards are aligned with the demands of contemporary law practice without imposing unnecessary burdens.

The results of these efforts speak for themselves: In 2024, the overall bar exam passage rate for graduates of council-accredited law schools was 67%, three times the rate of those from non-council-accredited law schools.

Ten months after graduation, nearly 90% of the class of 2024 were employed in jobs requiring bar admission or for which a JD degree is an advantage. The consistent quality of council-accredited schools produces qualified graduates who are best able to serve their clients and the public.

The premise of a single, national accreditor isn’t unique to the legal profession. Accreditors for medical, dentistry and pharmaceutical education also apply national standards that help to ensure the quality of education in these important professions.

As with lawyers and state bars, state licensing authorities have the final say on which candidates qualify for licensure. But these authorities rely on accrediting bodies to maintain consistency in education, improve the profession, and protect patients and clients.

The council’s work in accrediting law schools is nonpartisan and independent from the general ABA. Whatever one thinks of the ABA’s politics, the organization isn’t involved in council enforcement actions, doesn’t choose council personnel, and can’t dictate the content of any standard.

This separate and independent status is required by the US Department of Education and allows the council to pursue its mission of ensuring quality education that prepares graduates to practice and preserve the rule of law.

Lawyers perform vital work for their clients every day. Accrediting the law schools that train those lawyers therefore comes with a profound responsibility. The council has met that responsibility for more than a century by providing a fair, effective and efficient accrediting system for US law schools, and it looks forward to continuing this work for decades to come.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Daniel Thies is a practicing lawyer in Illinois and the Chair of the Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines