Deans of Texas law schools were mostly uninterested in commenting on the Texas Supreme Court’s decision this week that it would no longer rely on American Bar Association accreditation to determine which law schools’ students can sit for the bar exam.
The Lone Star State became the first in the nation to end the ABA’s oversight of the matter, a move deans from eight of the state’s 10 law schools openly opposed in July. The Lawbook reached out to all 10 law schools this week; only two commented.
Texas A&M University School of Law Dean Robert Ahdieh said he believes most law schools in the state, like A&M, will keep their ABA accreditation, given that many graduates practice across the nation. He noted that other states are considering alternative pathways to licensure.
“In the best-case scenario, that balance has the potential to encourage innovation — and perhaps to lower costs — in Texas legal education, with attendant benefits for access to justice,” Ahdieh said. “We should be realistic about that prospect, given the experience of other states. But it’s undoubtedly a worthy cause.”
South Texas College of Law Houston President and Dean Reynaldo Anaya Valencia said in a statement to The Lawbook that “STCL Houston is committed to providing the greatest possible opportunities for students, working with both the Supreme Court of Texas and the ABA.”
“The Law School and our Board of Directors will continue to review all guidance and directives issued from the Supreme Court of Texas and look forward to collaborating with the Court as it continues its accreditation objectives in Texas,” he said.
St. Mary’s School of Law Dean Patricia Roberts, Texas Southern University Acting Dean of Thurgood Marshall School of Law & Professor of Law McKen Carrington, and Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law declined to comment.
Jenn Rosato Perea, managing director of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar, issued a statement to The Lawbook explaining that for more than 100 years the organization has “assisted the state supreme courts and bar admitting authorities in their to work to ensure that the lawyers educated and ultimately licensed in America are competent, ethical, and able to provide effective legal services to the public.”
“The Texas order does not alter that role, as it reinforces the authority that the Supreme Court of Texas has always had over the licensure of JD graduates,” the statement reads.
Perea added that the ABA looks forward to continuing to work with the Texas Supreme Court, “and all other state supreme courts and bar admitting authorities” on the portability of law degrees throughout the country.
“We will also continue to prove our value as an accreditor, working with state accrediting authorities and law schools across the country to improve our Standards and promote a national accreditation system to the benefit of students, employers, law schools and the states themselves,” Perea said.
The Texas Supreme Court will be working with the Texas Board of Law Examiners on what criteria law schools must meet to be approved. All ABA-accredited law schools are eligible.
The State Bar of Texas did not take a position on the change and declined to comment.
Winston & Strawn partner and co-chair of the litigation department, Tom Melsheimer, said ABA accreditation has always been an important gating requirement for as long as he has been practicing law.
“That said, many decades ago, there were a variety of different regimes with different requirements. Moreover, we hired from [UNT Dallas College of Law] when it was provisionally accredited. So a lot depends on the circumstances and, importantly, the candidate.”
Gibson Dunn retired partner Robert Walters said the change doesn’t impact how the firm hires.
“I can’t imagine our assessment of the best students from the best Texas law schools will change based on who accredits schools. We know what we’re looking for in young lawyers,” Walters said.
‘Long Overdue’
The change opens a door for graduates of non-ABA-accredited law schools to practice in Texas.
Dean and vice president of Purdue Global Law School, Martin Pritikin, said the change could increase the number of nontraditional students.
“And I think that’s going to be a good thing for the legal profession,” Pritikin said.
He said he thinks the change is “long overdue.”
“And I think people are going to look back a few years from now, and they’re going to say, ‘Wow, the Texas Supreme Court really had it right, and it was good that they were willing to take this first step,’” Pritikin said.
Pritikin said that the Florida Supreme Court started the process of moving away from the ABA a month before Texas and expects the state to do something similar in the coming months. The Ohio Supreme Court has formed a working group to study the issue, and the Tennessee Supreme Court is accepting public comment until March, Pritikin said. “Maybe other states follow suit and say, ‘Hey, you know, we could actually do this. We could actually move away from relying exclusively on the ABA. And it turns out the sky doesn’t fall after all,’” Pritikin said.