ABA and its accreditation council have distinct, essential roles

Reproduced with permission. Published September 25, 2026. Copyright 2026 Bloomberg Industry Group (800-372-1033). For further use, please visit https://www.bloombergindustry.com/copyright-and-usage-guidelines-copyright/

The Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, the entity that accredits law schools, had a public meeting with the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity this week to discuss its future as a national accreditor. After two days, they couldn't agree on a recommendation. Now, the decision is in the hands of the Department of Education.

Recent debate over law school accreditation has exposed a basic misunderstanding about the American Bar Association and the council. The ABA isn't the same institution as the council.

The distinction matters. The ABA is a national professional association and membership organization for lawyers. It develops policy; supports the profession; defends the rule of law and our democracy; promotes access to justice; and advocates for fairness, opportunity, and equal participation in the legal system.

The council performs a specialized accreditation function: evaluate law schools and determine whether they meet nationally recognized standards for a sound legal education. The council has done this officially, without interruption, for 74 years. It has been recognized by the Department of Education as the national agency for the accreditation of programs leading to the J.D. degree in the US since 1952.

Its work predates even that official recognition, going back more than a century. The council began adopting professional standards for law schools in 1921 and began publishing a list of approved law schools in 1923.

The council's work is consequential. It has helped establish a national baseline for legal education. Its Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools address the essential components of a quality J.D. program. The approval process involves comprehensive evaluation, data collection, site visits, written reports, and continuing monitoring of approved schools.

While the council is part of the ABA structurally, it must operate separately and independently when carrying out its accreditation responsibilities. That separation isn't merely a matter of preference. It is required by federal rules governing recognized accrediting agencies, including Department of Education regulations. Independence is required to ensure that accreditation decisions are made according to educational standards, not the policy positions, political priorities, or institutional interests of the broader professional association.

Although "ABA-accredited law school" is a useful shorthand, it is also misleading. The phrase describes a law school approved through the accreditation system administered by the council. It doesn't mean the ABA's elected leadership, Board of Governors, or House of Delegates makes accreditation decisions. ABA policy statements and resolutions are distinct from the council's policies. The council alone has authority over its policies and its accreditation standards and decisions.

This separation was on display at the ABA's annual meeting in August. The council asked the ABA House of Delegates to concur with its plan to rescind a diversity standard. The House of Delegates declined to concur, but a month later, the council revoked the standard on its own.

While changes to accreditation standards are submitted to the House of Delegates for concurrence, it doesn't control the council's ultimate accreditation authority. The House of Delegates only plays an advisory role in having the opportunity for debate and engagement over a council standard. This process reflects the very independence mandated by the federal requirements.

A recent Department of Education report determined that the ABA and the council, while separate, weren't sufficiently separate. This is simply not true.

The council's accreditation system benefits more than just law schools. It benefits students, state licensing authorities, the legal profession, and the public. A national accreditation program allows graduates to earn portable law degrees so that they can sit for a bar exam in whichever state they choose without needing to meet entirely different educational requirements in each state.

This program also relieves states of the enormous burden of creating and administering their own law school accreditation systems. Law schools meanwhile avoid the cost and confusion of complying with 50 different sets of educational standards.

The council's structure is designed to support sound judgment and broad representation. It consists of 21 voting members - no more than 10 of whom may be law school deans or faculty members. Its membership also includes judges, practicing attorneys, a law student, and public members. Council members serve as nonpartisan volunteers selected for their commitment to legal education. Its bylaws prohibit ABA leadership from serving on the council.

The separation between the ABA and the council has attracted renewed attention following the latter's decisions concerning diversity, equity, and inclusion standards. Those decisions have prompted questions, particularly as the broader ABA has repeatedly reaffirmed its commitment to eliminate bias and enhance diversity in the legal profession and the justice system - one of the ABA's four core goals.

There is no contradiction in recognizing both realities. The council acted in its independent accreditation capacity. Its decision doesn't erase or alter the ABA's broader mission, values, or policy commitments. The ABA remains committed to support pipeline programs, mentorship, leadership development, judicial diversity, access to justice, and broader opportunities within the profession.

The legal profession is strongest when excellence and opportunity reinforce one another. Competent and ethical lawyers are essential, but so is a profession that draws talent from every community and perspective. Accreditation and professional advocacy serve different purposes, yet both contribute to the public's trust in law.