Panelists weigh in on the topic of ABA accreditation of law schools in the state of Texas.
May 29, 2025 ‒ What if the 10 Texas law schools no longer were accredited with the American Bar Association’s (ABA) seal of approval?
That “what if” scenario has become a much-discussed possibility since April 4, 2025, when the Texas Supreme Court issued an order inviting comment on the future role of the ABA in accrediting the state’s 10 law schools. The Court is weighing whether to reduce or eliminate reliance on the national accreditor — a move that could significantly change how legal education and licensure work in Texas with ripples beyond its borders.
Such a change raises important questions about the future of legal education, the availability of federal financial aid, and portability of Texas bar licensure potentially affecting the careers of thousands of current and future law students.
The Texas Supreme Court issued an order seeking comments from Texas law school deans, the Texas Board of Law Examiners, the bar, and the public on this topic — with a focus on ensuring high-quality, cost-effective legal education, meeting Texan’s needs for legal services, and strengthening public accountability in the profession’s oversight.
To provide the Court with reasoned and informed input, the Houston Bar Association convened a virtual discussion titled “A Conversation on the ABA Accreditation of Texas Law Schools.” The goal of this discussion was to provide attendees with information about the value of ABA accreditation along with critiques of the ABA’s operations and processes ahead of the July 1 deadline, allowing members of the audience time to submit comments to the Court.
“The goal of accreditation is not to create the best law school, the ideal law school, but to create a basic level of quality,”
– Jennifer L. Rosato Perea, managing director of the ABA Council.
Co-conveners included the Austin Bar Association, Dallas Bar Association, San Antonio Bar Association, and Tarrant County Bar Association as well as the Baylor Law School, SMU Dedman Law School, South Texas College of Law Houston, St. Mary’s University School of Law, Texas Southern University, Thurgood Marshall School of Law, the University of Houston Law Center, and the UNT Dallas College of Law.
"As lead convener of this program, the Houston Bar Association endeavored to provide a platform to educate our members about the key developments facing our practice, a commitment we will continue in my Bar Year as HBA President," said Daniella Landers, the 2025-2026 HBA president. "That includes discussing the issues impacting our pipeline programs–the law schools who prepare law students to become high-quality practitioners, hopefully continuing their professional journey here in Houston, across the State of Texas, and around the country and globe. While we are not an advocacy group, we want to keep our members abreast of critical issues that affect the legal community. Special thanks to University of Houston Law Center Dean Baynes and the other local law schools for their hard work in putting together the webinar on this important issue."
The event drew law school deans, professors, national legal experts, and members of the bar to examine the implications of decoupling ABA accreditation of the 10 Texas law schools.
“We want our audience to be informed and participate in this democratic process by shedding light not heat on this question regarding the viability of continued ABA accreditation of the 10 Texas Law Schools,” said UH Law Dean Leonard M. Baynes, who moderated the three-panel event, which counted for mandatory continuing legal education credit in Texas.
“It [ABA Standard 206] also bids up the cost of acquiring minority students, [and] it doesn’t address the ambient discrimination that is likely contributing to the challenges that many minority students face. And everything I am saying about students applies more so to faculty,”
– Seth J. Chandler, Law Foundation Professor at UH Law.
Panelists on the opening session included ABA Council leaders—David A. Brennen, chair of the ABA Council and professor of Law at the University of Kentucky David J. Rosenberg College of Law; Jennifer L. Rosato Perea, managing director of the ABA Council—and retired Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan L. Hecht. They emphasized that accreditation is a gatekeeper to ensure minimum educational standards.
“The goal of accreditation is not to create the best law school, the ideal law school,” said Rosato Perea, who also explained how the accreditation process works. “But to create a basic level of quality, which is a term taken from the Department of Education to ensure those graduates are coming out of those law schools will be able to practice, will be able to practice competently, will be able to protect the public, and serve the community well.”
UH Law’s Law Foundation Professor Seth J. Chandler, who was on the second panel along with Renee Knake Jefferson, professor of law at UH Law; and Sondra R. Tennessee, associate dean of alumni and community relations at UH Law, discussed the impetus for the federal scrutiny — the ABA’s Standard 206, which mandates law schools take “concrete action” to support diversity and inclusion among students, faculty and staff.
He explained that the post-2021 version of the standard, currently suspended by the ABA until August 31, 2026, requires schools to show that they are diverse by race, ethnicity, and gender.
Critics argue that this standard effectively imposes a disparate impact framework —focusing on outcomes rather than intent— in ways they believe conflict with the Supreme Court’s ruling in SFFA v. Harvard.
“It also bids up cost of acquiring minority students, [and] it doesn’t address the ambient discrimination that is likely contributing to the challenges that many minority students face,” Chandler said. “And everything I am saying about students applies more so to faculty.”
Chandler also questioned the metrics and impact of ABA’s standards. He said there was a lack of evidence showing that ABA accreditation caused better outcomes and that higher bar passage rates from ABA accredited schools did not account for incoming students’ higher LSAT scores, financial support, or time available to study. He noted that many ABA standards focus on processes — faculty ratios, library holdings — rather than student outcomes like bar passage rates or job placement and that there was little evidence showing that elimination of any of these standards would adversely affect the outputs that people care about.
“The Council writes those standards with the understanding that the backdrop is federal and state law. It’s very, very clear that no law school is permitted to violate state or federal law regardless of the accreditation standard,"
– Austen L. Parrish, president of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS).
However, he added, the federal derecognition of the ABA or the body’s Council Section on Legal Education, which handles the accreditation process will lead to short-term chaos. “I don’t see a way a substitute entity could instantly get off the ground and decide what would qualify law schools. That really has to be done swiftly because [ABA accreditation] is used for determining who [is eligible for] a federal loan,” Chandler said. “There would be other issues down the road about state bar recognition.”
The third panel, which shifted focus to possible national consequences, consisted of Nikia Gray, executive director of the NALP (National Association for Law Placement); Austen L. Parrish, president of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) and dean and Chancellor’s Professor of Law at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law; and David B. Thronson, president of SALT (Society of American Law Teachers) and professor of law at Michigan State University College of Law.
Parrish cautioned that much of the debate about the ABA Standard 206 was heated rhetoric divorced from reality. “The Council writes those standards with the understanding that the backdrop is federal and state law,” he said. “It’s very, very clear that no law school is permitted to violate state or federal law regardless of the accreditation standard.”
Gray, whose organization works with legal employment data, warned that if the ABA was decommissioned as the accreditor of Texas law schools, graduates of the 10 Texas law schools could face serious barriers practicing outside the state.
“The portability of a law license is vital,” she said. “Without ABA accreditation, Texas grads would be at a disadvantage, forced to jump through extra hoops in other states.”
“Since the recession, we’ve seen dramatic shifts in the legal job market and types of careers that young lawyers have,” she shared, adding that the portability of a lawyer’s licensure has become a critical factor in the success and longevity of their careers.
With accreditation so closely tied to licensure and portability the potential implications of any state moving away from the national accreditor are likely to be severe.
“If Texas was to eliminate ABA accreditation, those Texas graduates who wanted to practice (in another state) would be at a disadvantage compared to their peers because they would have additional hoops to jump through,” she said, adding that it would also likely impact the number of students from other states who wanted to attend law school in Texas.
Thronson agreed and added: “Accreditation isn’t just an academic issue — it’s about whether a law degree is worth what students pay for it.”
Written comments on the Texas Supreme Court’s proposal regarding changes to or elimination of ABA accreditation can be submitted to rulescomments@txcourts.gov through July 1, 2025.
To see a recording of the event, please visit the Houston Bar Association website.
