California, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington already allow people to practice law within their states without attending law school, but via "reading the law" type apprenticeships. Extending this nationally would benefit lawyers and the people who need them.
1) A common moral and professional code
2) Credential portability through standards
3) A "minimum threshold" of competence
I suspect that it is the first thing that Texas objects to. There's probably a specific flavor of *-ism they want to allow their lawyers to practice. That said, you can already get into law via apprenticeship or reading in CA, VA, VT, WA. It's not the end of the world.
Perhaps, but the piece they are actually acting directly against is the 2nd (perhaps the 3rd, but that is itself really part of the 2nd, rather than an independent thing.)
And the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and Model Code of Judicial Conduct—which presumably are largely what you are referring to by the first—are just what the names say: models; each jurisdiction adopts its own actual rules for these things.
> That said, you can already get into law via apprenticeship or reading in CA, VA, VT, WA.
And in at least some states, also through non-ABA law schools, though there may be additional state requirements in that case (which may also apply to the apprenticeship/reading—two different names for the same thing, not two different options—option where that is available in the same jurisdiction; e.g., in California the First Year Law Students exam is required for both those reading for the law and those attending non-ABA law schools.)
Sure, but because the schools must be ABA approved that means the ABA gets to decide that schools omitting those codes don't get approved... doesn't it? That was my assumption anyhow.
> which may also apply to the apprenticeship/reading—two different names for the same thing, not two different options
I never realized that. Thanks!
I spoke with a VP of a state bar association who described chronic, widespread lawyer shortages, constant attrition in the pool of eligible judicial appointees, a growing backlog of cases (compounded by the effects of COVID) with trial dates many years in the future, declining law school graduations, and declining projected law school enrollment. These conditions may not hold across every county and metro, but in a lot of places the system is buckling (citizens already waiting 5-6 years for a ruling on open-shut civil matters) because there’s so much more work than workers.
Exactly. Law isn't medicine, and there are so many law graduates that many of them can't even find work in the legal industry, and the earnings of many graduates are surprisingly low (the distribution is bimodal: https://www.nalp.org/salarydistrib).
Unfortunately too many here will reflexively believe some libertarian narrative of "professional organization limiting supply to drive salaries up," even when it doesn't apply.
I don’t think that this has has had the effect of driving up salaries, however.
The bar is an imperfect filter. One could study for the exam and pass and still be hugely deficient in ability as an attorney.
I would argue there's no exam that could replace the evaluative and experiential component of 3 years in law school, and accreditation helps enforce at least some standard of quality in the profession. More incompetent lawyers -> more wasteful behavior -> a more bloated and slower legal system -> worse outcomes for everyone.
I think reducing barriers to completing the legal education (part-time programs, lower cost, etc) are better avenues for increasing access.
It’s not something regular people are using consistently so they have researched the people in advance. They usually have to scramble when they need a lawyer. And it’s very hard for a lay person to identify whether a lawyer did a good job or not.
But even when it comes to bigger firms which do have the resources to find good lawyers, there’s a different advantage to heavy handed licensing. The fact that the law depends extremely heavily on lawyers being largely honest especially when it comes to stuff like discovery and maintaining confidentiality. Licensing is one of the strongest tools has to ensure that.
I'm currently looking to get a law degree and the education requirements are... silly. I've done a significant amount of law-and-law-accessories work over the past ten years and have had a nice career in sysadmin/sre/devops/ops work. Yet I need a(ny) bachelors to even get started and I don't even have an associates.
It truly feels like the only way forward is to waste several years of my life and exhaust myself to the bone to get a degree.
(WGU is awful and is not the answer here)
May I inquire why?
But more honestly, it comes from reflecting about the ways that knowledge gaps affect FOIA litigation/conversation/interpretation and the criminal litigation reporting/research/investigations I've done/beenapartof. A lot of law-and-law-accessories is learnable within context-and-scope, especially with attorneys to help interpret, but I would like to get past that point. It helps that it's all very interesting.. and people keep asking me when I'm going to become a lawyer, so, ope.
> The Texas Supreme Court issued an order Tuesday finalizing a tentative September opinion, asserting the ABA should "no longer have the final say" on which law school graduates can take the bar exam — a requirement to becoming a licensed lawyer in each state.
That sounds like "a good idea" to a lot of people in the context of high school graduates. But for someone older who had a (let's say successful) career in the trades, or software engineering, without needing a 4 year degree.. It's a huge barrier to entry needing 4 years of college before even starting JD for those interested in law later in life.
Famously this is how Kim Kardashian tried to become an attorney without ever attending undergrad, let alone law school. However, to date she has not be able to pass the bar exam.
https://people.com/kim-kardashian-cries-has-mental-breakdown...
Her boyfriend already got a "My girl's a lawyer" tattoo though so hopefully she will pass on her next attempt! https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/kim-kardashian-pe...
(I am not an attorney, or a lawyer, and I've never attended law school)
This isn’t a field where supply demand free market economics should be the goal. Literal lives could be at stake. Should we also let surgery market sort itself out by allowing people to perform surgeries if they pass an exam?
Law, like medicine, isn't something you want some rando handling. The free market is not a magical panacea. Rules are created for a reason, and that reason is usually grounded in human suffering.
Not trying to support the ABA or not support the ABA, but I have experience with this type of issue in other areas and reducing qualifications purely to tests or other outcomes has its own set of issues.
I'm not so sure. People often trivialize the kinetic energy involved with driving. Yes, a bad lawyer can potentially cause an innocent to be punished if enough other checks and balances fail.
But being behind the wheel of a car is something else. Even a small passenger car is over a ton of metal moving at oftentimes high speeds. Most people don't seem to appreciate the sheer destructive capability driving gives someone.
I also think we should be licensing law-enforcement and requiring them to have their own liability insurance.
It is akin to ABET (previously Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology) in engineering. having an ABET accredited engineering degree has long been a component (alongside testing and mentored practice) for being a licensed engineer who can stamp drawings (e.g., structural plans for buildings). There are two tests (FE and PE) but they are not created by ABET they are created by an organization called NCEES - The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying.
ABET and NCEES are different organizations, part of the confusion here is that ABA is both the accreditor and the tester in many states. The difference in path between accreditor -> testing -> licensure is:
ABA accredited degree -> ABA (MBE) or other (non-ABA) Bar exam -> Lawyer
ABET accredited degree -> FE exam (made by NCEES) -> mentored work experience -> PE exam (made by NCEES) -> Professional Engineer
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/1q7mt5f/texas_becomes...
Is a Texas qualified lawyer able to practice in another state with different laws - do you need to do a conversion course to get the proper accreditation since stuff like commercial law vary ?.
Courts in many states will start rejecting pro hac requests as they approach the line of abuse, so the attorney will need to become a member of the state's bar.
While pro hac, the attorney generally will have at least the same ethical and competency obligations as any attorney regularly admitted to that state's bar.
2. apply for reciprocity if that's an option
3. I understand that you can transfer between states with the same bar exam (mostly the so-called UBE states) as long as you pass the target states' admission score and any other qualification they require
4. pass the bar exam in each state
Example: Maine https://www.mainebar.org/page/ReciprocalAdmission
Texas State Bar is still a thing. This means that it has split from the American Bar Association, but the legal system of Texas is still part of the US Legal system.
Lawyer here, member of Texas and California bars. There seems to be a misunderstanding here:
1. A state bar is what a lawyer has to belong to in order to practice regularly in that state (with some exceptions, e.g., for federal-court practice). Example: To practice regularly in California, a lawyer must be a member of the State Bar of California. That normally requires passing a bar exam or (in some states if you're an experienced lawyer), getting in by "reciprocity."
AFAIK, every state bar is separately regulated by the highest court of the state (and, sometimes, by state statute). Example: The State Bar of Texas is subject to regulations promulgated by the Supreme Court of Texas.
2. In contrast, The ABA is a purely-voluntary private association of lawyers. A lawyer doesn't have to belong to the ABA in order to be a lawyer or practice law.
3. IIRC, the ABA's governing body includes liaisons from state bars. But AFAIK, there's never been any official governing connection between the ABA and any state bar.
4. The ABA's law-school accreditation standards [0] are a way for states to adopt uniform standards, thus avoiding the cost of developing individual standards (and of complying with a variety of standards). Those ABA standards are roughly analogous to national model building codes for plumbing, etc. — they're adopted by various jurisdictions but have little or no legal standing in any given jurisdiction unless adopted.
[0] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/accredita...
For clients with interstate business, they usually have a team of lawyers. A lawsuit being heard in Minnesota state court may primarily be handled by a big national firm with lawyers licensed in New York, with local lawyers licensed in Minnesota to handle filings and court appearances.
For example, the LegalEagle youtuber always says he is licensed to practice law in specific states in his videos, here is his georgetown law profile with the states where he is allowed to practice:
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/devin-j-stone/
California Maryland New York Virginia District of Columbia (D.C.)
I'm ignorant here. Why do you say this? From my admittedly uneducated viewpoint, having a board of some type makes sense because I don't care about the results of a test you took fifteen years ago. I care about how you behave today. I'm the case of lawyers, having the courts approve you makes some sense- they're all in the law system. Who would do this for doctors?
Having a diploma is well and good but it seems like we need continued governance and the ability to revoke your license if you're a screw up. It doesn't make much sense to me to have the body approving your immediate start at a practice be different from those that will review your continuation of that practice at a later date.
It’s for control, more precisely political control
From my perspective, I'd rather have a body held accountable to the people over which they are wielding power. Sometimes government makes sense.
This leads to disproportional balance in power between the working class and the wealth.
[0] https://salaries.texastribune.org/departments/house-of-repre...
That seems like a very interesting perspective to offer in response to an article about the government of Texas stripping the ABA of the ability to approve law schools.
While it's not obvious this action was in response to any particular misbehavior by the ABA, clearly the possibility of such action would serve as an accountability mechanism that offered recourse to the good people of Texas in the event of any misbehavior.
Nothing precludes suing the ABA, it's a professional association not magic pixie dust.
All it does is set minimum standards for the state bar exams and publish best practices for state bar associations.
> The Texas Supreme Court decided which law schools would satisfy law licensure requirements until 1983, when the court gave that responsibility to the ABA.
(Incidentally, the original post about replacing the ABA wasn't mine, either.)
The fact that the Texas Supreme Court previously relied on the ABA’s list of accredited schools doesn’t change what kind of thing the ABA is. In CS terms, the Texas Supreme Court rules just had a pointer to the ABA list. That doesn’t change the nature of the object to which it points.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170427221010/https://www2.ed.g...
I notice the ed.gov page has gone missing. I wonder why.
> The all-Republican court hasn't given a reason for initiating the change, but it came after months of conflict between President Donald Trump, the ABA and the broader legal community.
The "small government" GOP was a mistaken detour of the late 20th century that died precisely because it was susceptible to stupid ideas like outsourcing a core government function--accreditation in a profession deeply intertwined with government itself--to private parties. Lincoln's GOP was not a small government party, and neither is Trump's GOP.
Since you brought up Trump, even though he isn't involved in this action. Here is a video of him from February 2025 stating that he is making government smaller. [1]
I'm sure you will come back with some new red herring, but the evidence is here for others to view.
[0] https://texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-RPT-Pla...
Limiting government power to enumerated areas is different than “small government.” The Texas constitution grants the legislature and the supreme court with power over judicial administration. That includes governing the practice of law in the courts of the state. There’s no enumerated powers problem with the Texas Supreme Court Court deciding what law schools qualify to be admitted to its own bar.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/texas-becomes-first...
I suppose naked grifting is just the law of the land at this point and we should just all be gaslighted into accepting it as reform.