The Florida Supreme Court has multiple pathways to maneuver around American Bar Association accreditation of the state’s law schools, a group appointed by the court said in a long-awaited report.
The report is part pros-and-cons list and part take-down of the ABA’s accreditation wing, the Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar.
While the workgroup isn’t recommending a split from the ABA, it included a 13-page critique of the institute leveraging arguments from conservative state officials and the Department of Justice. Both have criticized accreditation standards that include DEI requirements and the council’s association with the broader ABA, which Republicans say promotes progressive policies.
The “question of how the Court should proceed with respect to the Florida Bar Exam eligibility rules has always been less about whether law schools will continue to seek ABA accreditation—they will, at least in the short term—and more about whether, in principle, an alternative path to sitting for the Florida Bar Exam is warranted,” the report said.
Several alternatives included working with the ABA to address issues Republicans have called discriminatory. That includes scrapping requirements—which the ABA suspended under pressure from the Trump administration—that require diverse student bodies and faculty. The report highlights that these rules might violate a 2023 US Supreme Court ruling limiting the instances in which education institutions can consider race for admissions.
Other Proposals
The committee floated more significant changes, such as adopting apprenticeship models from other states that allow work experience to replace law school; join an alternative-accreditation framework, such as the Commission for Public Higher Education formed this year by a group of southern state university systems; or Florida form its own law school accreditation system.
“Most of the alternatives are intended to reduce Florida’s near-exclusive reliance on the ABA while promoting greater flexibility and innovation in legal education, expanding access to the legal profession, and maintaining accountability to ensure the public receives quality legal services,” the report said. “Over time, some could evolve into complete substitutes for ABA accreditation.”
The workgroup said it wasn’t putting its thumb on the scale, but it did include as attachments several comments critical of the ABA in the report. Among them are comments from the dean of the University of Texas and a critical submission from Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier (R),
The report did not include the letters submitted by the ABA itself, the former managing director of Legal Education and Accreditation at the ABA, and the National Association for Law Placement, an association of American law schools.
The ABA says its law school accreditation council is independent from the broader organization, but the group is still part of the association. One of the alternatives in the report was that the Florida justices request the accreditation council decouple itself from the broader ABA.
The council’s managing director Jennifer Rosato Perea issued a statement saying she appreciated the “thoughtfulness of the Workgroup’s analysis” and was grateful that the committee reached out to the council when developing its report.
“The Council looks forward to further collaboration with the Court as it explores the options presented by the Workgroup, especially as the Council is focused on reviewing its Standards to enhance innovation and cost-effectiveness, and examining its governance structure to ensure that it promotes the Council’s efforts to provide a fair, effective, and efficient national accrediting system for American law schools,” Rosato Perea said.
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editor responsible for this story: