The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
New Essay in the ABA Journal: The ABA needs ideological diversity to ensure its future
"If the ABA does not arrest its progressive lurch, the organization risks its own obsolescence."
Last month, the ABA Journal invited me to write an essay on the topic of my choice. I'll admit, at first I was skeptical. The ABA Journal has historically skewed left, and represents an organization that skews even harder left. Yet, the editors stressed that they were looking to improve the range of viewpoints expressed in the ABA Journal. I took them up on their kind offer. And my first essay (hopefully not the last) takes on the American Bar Association head on. It is titled, "The ABA needs ideological diversity to ensure its future."
A generation ago, nearly half of the lawyers in the United States were members of the American Bar Association. Today, that number is probably closer to 20%, if not lower. This decline is often attributed to an unwillingness of young attorneys to join civic organizations. Or perhaps lawyers no longer see tangible benefits from membership. Or maybe the dues are too high. All of these explanations ignore the elephant in the room—and I mean elephant in the figurative and political sense. The American Bar Association consistently skews to the political left. And this progressive mandate alienates conservative lawyers.
For example, I discuss ABA Model Rule 8.4(g), ABA diversity mandates for CLE, as well as ABA proposals to eliminate the LSAT requirement. I explain the risk that the ABA faces:
Historically, the ABA has enjoyed a position of privilege and power in our polity. That authority was due, in large part, to the ABA's capacity to broadly represent the legal profession. But there is no guarantee this distinguished role continues.
Indeed, the ABA's progressive slant risks its own obsolescence by alienating members.
Perhaps the most important risk is that a future Republican administration could rescind the ABA's accreditation authority:
A future Republican administration may deem the ABA a poor steward of its accreditation power, and the Department of Education can seek other options. Or the federal government could authorize the states to choose their own accreditation authority for legal education. State supreme courts can adopt their own standards and join interstate compacts to ensure bar reciprocity. If the ABA continues to impose an ideological set of standards on law schools nationwide, the federal government can respond by revoking the ABA's authority.
The ABA places a lot of focus on racial and gender diversity. There should be a similar focus on ideological diversity. If the ABA fails to heed this advice, it will fade away:
If the ABA does not arrest its progressive lurch, the organization risks its own obsolescence. Model Rules will not be adopted. Evaluations of judicial nominees will be ignored. The accreditation monopoly will cease. And so on. A decline in membership will be the least of the ABA's problems. The ABA can either adapt to a new political reality or fade away like the guilds of yore.
Again, I'm grateful for the opportunity to write for the ABA Journal, which has a wide readership. My next writing, if I am so lucky to be invited back, will be about campus protests and DEI.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I was a member of the ABA for one year with my free year of membership after graduation. Then I canceled it and have never had any desire to renew it. I'm a prosecutor, and the ABA not only has nothing relevant for me but is often actively hostile to me. Easy choice.
Why don't the red teamers scheme to get thousands of lawyers to join the ABA and take over the organisation? Too much of a collective action problem? Can't trust one another?
Why bother?
Lawyers tend to be properly educated, reasoning, accomplished people residing in modern, educated, advanced communities. How many of them do you expect to be interested in movement conservatism?
At some strong law schools, the Federalist Society can't even assemble a full slate of officers, so you get "President-Secretary" and "Vice President-Treasurer."
Kirkland, do you know ANYTHING about student affairs?
Apparently not == hint, *all* student organizations often have trouble filling officer positions. It's unpaid and takes a LOT of time...
"Lawyers tend to be properly educated, reasoning, accomplished people residing in modern, educated, advanced communities. How many of them do you expect to be interested in movement conservatism?".
Ha! Yeah right, Yankee Doodle. Your country has 200 law schools, half of which aren't fit to even exist (and WOULDN'T exist in other Western countries). You pump out thousands of sub-morons as lawyers annually. Perhaps once you get rid of the LSAT you'll have even more blue teamer social engineers with below average IQs driving your country into the ground...
Funny, though, how those red teamers managed to organise to take over a sizeable portion of your federal courts, though, innit? Something you blue teamers couldn't foresee or thwart...
In fairness, Team Blue took over our courts first, and we're just taking them back.
See the shenanigans when the Mises party took over the LP through legitimate votes and then put militant BAMN leftist lawyers into the mix. Not worth it when there are other avenues to delegitimize the project.
If they did, all the negative things Josh says might happen to the ABA in the future would happen in 3 months.
"Or the federal government could authorize the states to choose their own accreditation authority for legal education. "
Golly, wouldn't that be so nice and benevolent of them.
Btw, where in the Constitution did the states delegate this power to the federal government? I think I missed that part.
Actually, they already can -- and do. At one point, Massachusetts had (at least) two law schools that did not have ABA accreditation. Graduates from those schools could take the Masaachusetts bar exam (per the Mass Legislature) but not that of other states.
One became the UMass School of Law which I believe is now ABA accredited. Memory is another on the North Shore, and I vaguely remember allegations that folks from one unaccredited law school set the law library of another accredited law school on fire -- I can't remember the details.
It’s in Article I, the Spending Clause. The Constitution’s text specifically refers to Congress’ power to spend money “for the general Welfare of the United States.” That broad language givez Congress considerable flexibility to determine what the general welfare is. And that flexibility includes not only the power to spend taxpayer money on student aid, but also the power to only give taxpayer student aid money to schools that are accredited according to standards Congress sets.
This is a clear enumerated, textual Congressional power. There’s no serious constitutional question about Congress’ power to set conditions on how federal money is spent, the way there is for e.g. regulating “interstate” commerce. It’s very clear Congress has the power to do this.
States however are free to have their own standards and recognize degrees from schools not eligible for federal funds. California does this. It has several unaccredited law schools, I believe the most in ghe country. Students graduating from them can get a law license in California, but are not eligible for federal student aid, and their degree may not be accepted in other states or for the federal bar.
Congress is free to change the federal accreditation system if it wants. Or it could get rid of it entirely and give federal aid to any school recognized by a state.
Here is a list of California law schools approved for admissability to the California bar. The list has three categories, ABA accredited, California state bar accredited, and state approved but not accredited. There are quite a number of schools in the latter two categories.
https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Law-School-Regulation/Law-Schools
"Congress is free to change the federal accreditation system if it wants. Or it could get rid of it entirely and give federal aid to any school recognized by a state."
The current accreditation mess -- and it *is* a mess -- is the result of Congress trying to do the right thing.
When they wrote the initial GI bill, circa 1946, they wanted to enable the GIs to attend any college they could get into, but didn't want a whole bunch of fraudulent institutions arising to give the GIs useless degrees. And they had to act quickly because hundreds of thousands of GIs being discharged daily and dumping them in college took them out of the workforce until the peacetime economy could get going.
So what they did was adopt the voluntary accreditation system which already existed -- and which the institutions already voluntarily participated in. Congress neither anticipated nor intended to create the mess we have now -- and Betsy DeVos was trying to fix it before Covid shut everything down.
That's no threat. The modern mainstream could respond by refusing to recognize accreditation of conservative-controlled (nonsense-teaching, rampantly discriminatory, bigotry-promoting, censorship-shackled, science-disdaining, low-quality) campuses.
Republicans need to become more competitive in national elections -- by figuring out how to make racism, gay-bashing, misogyny, backwardness, xenophobia, superstition, antisemitism, anti-abortion absolutism, gun nuttery, and Islamophobia more popular in modern America -- if they expect their threats to be taken seriously by the culture war's winners.
Kirkland, all it would take is ED saying that the Federalist Society is now the designated accreditator for law schools, and that accreditation by the Federalist Society is now responsible for your students to receive student loans to attend.
The Federalist Society would have to scramble to set up accreditation teams and immediately go do a lot of genuine campus visits and such, but they've got enough retired judges and Big Law partners who could take an unpaid six month sabbatical that they could actually pull this off.
The ABA doesn’t do accreditation work for free, and any replacement likely wouldn’t have to either
I’m not saying this would be good policy, and with a divided Congress it’s DOA politically anyway. But Congress could do it if it wanted to.
I'm not saying that the Fed Soc would do it for free -- but it might be willing to do so (i.e. absorb the expenses) for the greater good of establishing a more fair system of accreditation. It is something that the Fed Soc would have to determine internally and I wasn't even considering this.
What I was saying is that the Fed Soc has the ability to pull in retired judges and biglaw partners to head up accreditation teams -- if it wanted to -- and there is no way that anyone could say that such accreditation teams were unqualified.
What I am saying is that while it would be tumultuous, chaotic, and stressful to the FedSoc members involved, the Fed Soc actually could field enough qualified accreditation teams on short notice to evaluate the 199 ABA-accredited law schools. I mean, like, could the Fed Soc field 50 teams on a one-time basis -- yes, I think they could, and five schools per team is doable.
It wouldn't be easy -- ideally a team only evaluates one school -- but it could be done. And while it would help to have a supportive majority in Congress, all it takes is a friendly ED Secretary.
The assholes losing the culture war (to their betters) are welcome to do as they wish -- while they still can. Time will sift this. Better Americans will call the shots. Those on the wrong side of history will not; instead, they will comply with the preferences of the victors.
I am content.
Arthur, respectfully, no you aren't. You and Drackman are basically the left wing and right wing equivalents of each other; you're two peas from the same pod. Which is exactly why all of his idiotic Sandusky comments.
You can't seem to talk about anything other than bitter clingers, and he mostly just talks about you. In point of fact, if either of you were happy human beings, neither of you would be here.
This entire blog is operated by and for the disaffected losers of modern America.
How happy are they?
Whuddabout is a losing argument. I won’t speculate about your emotional state, but other than that, Krychek is right.
I'm not saying your anti-rural-white bigotry is as morally offensive as the racist, misogynist, anti-LGBTQ bigotry from some of the RW commenters here. It isn't by a long shot. But it's bigotry nonetheless. I wonder sometimes if Eugene doesn't let you continue to comment here because you make liberals look bad.
"I’m not saying your anti-rural-white bigotry is as morally offensive as the racist, misogynist, anti-LGBTQ bigotry from some of the RW commenters here."
Why not?
I can’t speak for Leo but my answer to the question would be that rural whites are better able to protect themselves and less likely to suffer harm than blacks, women and gays. Rural whites were never systematically discriminated against. To the contrary, the Constitution goes out of its way to give them political power far disproportionate to their actual numbers.
No rural white ever suffered any tangible harm because Arthur snickered at him. Blacks, women and gays on the other hand have and do.
Rural whites are poorer than blacks, women, or gays.
Rural whites do have lower violent crime rates than urban dwellers, especially blacks, but have higher rates of suicide, malnutrition, drug use and alcoholism, property crime, and even non-STD infections. Crime closure rates are lower. Educational attainment is lower even than poor urban blacks, and massively below middle-class suburban whites.
Mortality is higher - in some cases, as much as 50% higher. Even simple things like traffic deaths are almost twice as common amongst rural whites than urban or suburban groups of any race or sex. Only Amerind populations fare worse in these comparisons.
You think those people, the some of worst off in the nation, are "better able to protect themselves" than blacks, women, and gays? Gays, as a population, have much higher median income than straight, about 40% for men and 20% for women. They are less likely to be victims of violence (domestic violence excluded). Better educated, too. But they're worse off than poor rural whites? Absurd.
It's true, no rural white ever suffered a tangible harm from RAK, or other posters here, snickering at him. But despite your false claim, no black, woman, or gay ever suffered any tangible harm because any poster here 'snickered' at them, either.
All data comes from the US Fed governments: Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Census, CDC - National Center for Health Statistics, USDA. Some of these sources (USDA, CDC) use the OMB definition of 'rural' which is also 'non-metropolitan county', based on economic connections, while the Census and some others use a population count basis.
I'm talking about political power. Florida just passed two major pieces of anti-gay legislation; when was the last time any legislature anywhere passed legislation directed against rural whites? A politician who said the type of things about rural whites that Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott say about gays would not be re-elected.
Yes, conditions are ghastly in a lot of rural areas, and we can discuss why that is. I would argue that the rural white world view has a lot to do with it. The point is, though, that the Constitution gives disproportionate political power to the rural areas, and they use it. Plus, I've never heard of someone being discriminated against in employment and housing for being a rural white.
Do you know why medical outcomes are so poor in rural areas for simple things like traffic accidents and heart attacks? Primarily because there are too few hospitals and medical clinics. The delay in getting the patient to medical care is fatal.
Why is that? Do you think it's the "white rural world view" that rejects hospitals? Or maybe it's because the urban centers, with higher political power due to their higher populations, concentrate spending on the urban centers, where it is most advantageous to them? When public housing is built, where do you think it goes? What about the rest of the public infrastructure?
You seem to be desperately ignoring the, as you put it, "systematic", neglect of rural areas by complaining about the US Senate. A complaint that is wrong as well: Even in states like Iowa or Alabama, only 1/3 of the population is rural. Do you think that 1/3 of the population is controlling the statewide election of Senators? They can't even get their local state to care for them, but you think they can control the Federal government?
In the specific case of hospitals it's because there are too few people to make them profitable. There are a great many businesses that don't operate in rural areas for the same reason; try to find a five-star restaurant in most of North Dakota. They're not there because the customer base isn't there to support them. But that's not because of anti-rural prejudice; that's because of economic reality. You're not going to find many six figure jobs in rural areas either, and for the same reason. Again, I'm talking about political power, not garden variety supply and demand.
The white rural world view doesn't specifically reject hospitals, but it does reject government doing things to benefit people, because that's SOCIALISM!!!! Single payer health care would be great for rural America. So would a lot of other government programs. But the Republicans they keep electing just aren't having it.
You're not denying there is systemic neglect of the rural population by the urban people; instead you are justifying it. Since when do you think 'profit' should be the driver of government spending decisions? If it's even true: the US Postal Service manages to keep rural delivery times and rates within 5% of urban times and rates.
Notice, by the way, that single-payer has zero to do with this issue: this isn't a matter pf payment for services by rural folk, it's a matter of distance and availability. Increased government spending would only help if it resulted in more hospitals; the lack of which is something you've already dismissed as just "economic reality".
And finally, you once again advance your "political power" claim, but you did not address the giant flaw in that claim: Even the most rural states in the US are only 1/3 rural. The remaining 2/3 is urban, and that population is the one that is gaining what you claim is unfair representation since it controls - dominates - elections.
I'll bet that you could find a meal every bit as delicious (and a kitchen every bit as clean) in South Dakota as NYC. It may be served with industrial stainless steel silverware instead of actual silver, but a blindfolded person wouldn't be able to taste the dfference. And I'd bet that the kitchen is cleaner and the food fresher than in NYC.
While it's not what it was 50 years ago, Moody's Diner in rural Waldoboro (Maine) is nationally famous. Red's Eats is no small amount of the traffic problem on US Route 1 in Wiscasset. And I can think of a couple other restaurants in really remote parts of Maine, although I don't know if the one in Machias is still open.
Quality exists in rural America -- there are a lot of people there who want to be there and can have their own restaurant, which they couldn't in the big city.
The hospital in Skowhegan has MDs who could work at the best of the Boston hospitals -- but prefer to live (and raise their children) in rural Franklin County, Maine.
Except that urban Wichita and urban Los Angeles are not the same thing. Ok, so Alabama is 2/3 urban (taking your word for it without independently verifying it for myself). They still mostly vote red, same as the rural areas. If they didn’t Alabama would have two Democratic senators.
What does how they vote have to do with how much political power they have?
Are you saying that unless they vote for Democrats, they aren't actually urban? Exactly what does Republican vs Democrat have to do with whether or not the rural population has unfair political power at the Federal level?
Which is why I muted them both a long time ago.
It's worse than two bickering kids, it's bickering morons in an institution.
Kirkland, hopefully assholes like you will be treated humanely when this is all over -- although I fear that you won't.
You need to study history and you need to do it damn fast...
Good luck getting the American Bar Association to embrace the bigotry and backwardness of conservatives. Diversity doesn't involve catering to some racists and old-timey gay-bashers to offset the better people in an organization.
I see no reason to get the ABA to do anything other than remove it from any position of influence over anything.
I don't see asking them...
Let's see if we can help you with perspective, Blackman:
"The ABA [Federalist Society] Journal has historically skewed left [right], and represents an organization that skews even harder left [right]. Yet, the editors stressed that they were looking to improve the range of viewpoints expressed in the ABA [Federalist Society] Journal."
"..."The ABA [Federalist Society] needs ideological diversity to ensure its future."
The Federalist society often invites leftists to speak, and welcomes them as members...
I don't see any reason for all the invective. This is just the leventy-seven millionth plus one episode of, "My conservative opinions deserve respect just because."
I was a past member of the ABA. Its idiotic left wing policies were always irritating. The last straw was when the ABA President went to the border to assist illegal aliens. (under the guise of providing pro bono service to asylum seekers -- Of course, roughly 90% of the asylum claims are fake)
Since I haven't followed the ABA for a long time, I don't specifically know its position on Obama's decision to encourage illegals under the guise of deferring prosecution and removal for economic reasons. However, Obama's policy was the biggest instance of an American President violating the norm that the US is governed by the rule of law. Obama actively encouraged violations of US law, and current Democrats have continued the efforts to undermine US law by supporting the provision of federal benefits for illegals.
In sum. Good riddance to the ABA.
Conservatives increasingly live in a fantasy world echo chamber. Lawyers are well aware that being in front of a judge requires citations to facts (as the Trump lawyers found out) and dealing with an adversary who will point out the flaws in one's arguments. That is why the legal profession skews left and increasingly so.
I believe a lawyer would say "conclusion not supported by evidence."
A researcher (which I am) would ask why the legal profession is *increasingly* skewing left as the factors you mention should already have skewed it left generations ago.
Like, umm, "requir[ing] citations to facts ... and dealing with an adversary who will point out the flaws in one’s arguments" is nothing new -- John Adams had to do it. Hence if this caused lawyers to skew to the left, it would have happened 250 years ago....