The ABA Disregards Law School Objections, Mandates 12 Credits of Experiential Learning

There is absolutely no evidence showing that the ABA's dictates are effective.

The American Bar Association's Council of the Section on Legal Education is moving forward with a new standard that would require twelve credits of experiential learning for graduation. An earlier version of this proposal was already widely opposed by law school deans. But the ABA only made small modifications to the program. There will now be a forty-five day comment period. But we can see the writing on the wall.

There are many problems with the ABA's approach to accreditation. But perhaps the biggest problem is that the Council adopts standards without any proof these standards will accomplish their stated goal. The ABA demands that law schools demonstrate that they are satisfying certain objectives, but the ABA never imposes such mandates internally.

Dan Rodriguez of Northwestern stated, correctly, that there is no evidence showing these reforms will be effective:

But Northwestern Pritzker School of Law professor Daniel Rodriguez said the revisions are unlikely to win over critics like himself who believe the ABA is going too far in dictating curriculum without providing adequate data to justify the proposed changes.

"There is a conspicuous lack of what we might call evidence-based analysis in the council's work," Rodriguez said.

Brian Leiter of Chicago makes the point more forcefully:

The latter gives law schools an opportunity to organize in opposition to these indefensible changes. Some possibilities: (1) a collective refusal by dozens of law schools to comply with these requirements that will disrupt their programs of legal education without any evidence of their benefit--let's dare the ABA to start stripping accreditation from elite law schools, state flagships, etc. (2) a collective effort to lobby the Education Department to recognize other accreditors of law schools, and perhaps to strip the ABA of its accreditation role entirely given its repeated bad behavior.

Even Gerard Magliocca, one of the most mild-mannered people I've ever met, is outraged:

The decision of the Council on Legal Education on new experiential learning requirements for law schools, summarized here, is just more evidence that the ABA's accreditation role should be curtailed or eliminated. I've been a legal educator for nearly 25 years. I can't think of any positive contribution by that organization in this field.

I couldn't agree more. I remain convinced the ABA's accreditation role is substantially modified, if not eliminated, within a decade. And that wound will be entirely self-inflicted.

I have written at length about the problems with the ABA's accreditation role. The Supreme Courts of Florida, Texas, and Ohio are now reconsidering whether to require ABA accreditation in their states. I think other states will follow. Moreover, the Trump Administration is closely scrutinizing the ABA's DEI mandates. The ABA is under siege.

You would think that the ABA would realize what time it is, and shore up their support from the political left. No. They did the exact opposite. They raised a large middle finger to elite law schools whose students have no need or interest in twelve hours of experiential learning.

Maybe there is a Baptist and Bootlegger coalition to be hand with the right and left. I'll let you decide who are the Baptists and who are the Bootleggers.