Tennessee is the latest state to examine whether law schools should still be required to receive accreditation from the American Bar Association (ABA) for their graduates to sit for the bar exam. The Tennessee Supreme Court has opened a public comment period to review potential reforms aimed at modernizing legal education and increasing access to affordable legal services.
If adopted, these reforms could fundamentally reshape how attorneys are trained, licensed, and regulated in the state. Tennessee would join a growing list of states—including Florida, Texas, and Ohio—that are exploring ways to loosen the ABA’s long-standing grip on law school accreditation, citing concerns about cost, diversity of education, and innovation in the profession.
Tennessee’s Reform Proposal
The Tennessee Supreme Court’s proposal is sweeping. The court is reviewing several key reforms, including:
- Dropping the ABA accreditation requirement: Law school graduates could sit for the bar exam even if their school is not accredited by the ABA.
- Alternative licensing pathways: The proposal explores options such as apprenticeships, experiential learning programs, or diploma privilege-style admissions that could reduce reliance on traditional three-year law programs.
- Regulatory modernization: Tennessee is considering loosening restrictions on non-lawyer ownership of law firms and allowing fee-sharing with non-lawyers, a move aimed at increasing competition and lowering costs for clients.
Supporters of these reforms argue that requiring ABA accreditation limits innovation and drives up the cost of legal education, making it harder for students from lower-income backgrounds to enter the profession. They also argue that more flexible pathways could help expand legal services to underserved rural and low-income areas.
The ABA’s Response
The American Bar Association, which has accredited U.S. law schools for more than a century, strongly defends its role as a gatekeeper for quality. The ABA notes that graduates of ABA-accredited law schools consistently post higher bar exam pass rates and are better prepared for practice.
Jenn Rosato Perea, managing director of the ABA’s Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, said the organization looks forward to demonstrating to Tennessee officials how its accreditation standards protect the public and benefit law students and courts. The ABA’s accreditation process covers faculty qualifications, academic rigor, experiential learning opportunities, and professional responsibility training—standards designed to ensure that law graduates are competent to serve clients effectively.
A National Debate
Tennessee’s move is part of a broader national trend. Florida recently approved a similar review of its bar admission rules, while Texas and Ohio are actively exploring whether to keep, modify, or drop their ABA accreditation requirements.
Critics of the ABA argue that its standards have grown increasingly expensive and burdensome, contributing to higher tuition costs and student debt. Some political leaders have also raised concerns about ABA mandates related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, arguing that they place unnecessary pressure on law schools to adopt particular policies.
On the other hand, opponents of dropping ABA requirements warn that doing so could create a patchwork of legal education standards across states, potentially harming graduates who want to practice in multiple jurisdictions. ABA accreditation also allows law graduates to transfer more easily between states and sit for the bar exam in nearly every U.S. jurisdiction.
The Stakes for Law Schools and Students
If Tennessee ultimately ends the ABA requirement, it could open the door for new law schools to be established in the state, including lower-cost or online programs that currently do not meet ABA standards. This might provide more opportunities for students, but it could also create challenges in maintaining consistent educational quality.
Graduates from non-ABA schools may also face mobility issues if they want to practice outside Tennessee. Many states still require ABA-accredited degrees for bar eligibility, which could limit career options for those who choose alternative programs.
Public Input and Next Steps
The Tennessee Supreme Court is currently seeking public feedback on the proposed changes. The court’s order invites comments from law school administrators, professors, practicing attorneys, bar associations, and members of the public. After the comment period closes, the court will decide whether to formally adopt, revise, or reject the reforms.
Legal educators and policy experts are watching closely. Tennessee’s decision could have ripple effects nationwide, particularly as other states weigh similar reforms. If multiple states move away from ABA dominance, it could force a broader national conversation about the future of legal education and attorney licensing.
Why It Matters
The debate over ABA accreditation is about more than just law school rules—it is about the future of the legal profession. On one side is the desire to maintain rigorous, uniform standards to protect clients and preserve the prestige of the legal profession. On the other is the need to make legal education more accessible, affordable, and adaptable to the changing needs of society.
Whatever Tennessee decides, its actions will likely influence policymakers across the country. The outcome could reshape how lawyers are trained, who can enter the profession, and how legal services are delivered in the coming decades.
Looking to stay ahead of legal industry changes like Tennessee’s proposed accreditation reforms? Visit LawCrossing to explore thousands of legal job openings, salary data, and in-depth career resources. Whether you’re a law student, associate, or experienced attorney, LawCrossing helps you stay competitive and prepared for the evolving legal landscape.
See Related Articles:
•15 Top Law Schools: Best Program for Aspiring Lawyers
•Decode Law Schools Ranking
•Law School Profile
