Across the nation, law schools are facing growing scrutiny for how they represent judicial clerkship opportunities to students. According to recent reporting, many institutions are overstating both the accessibility and frequency of these coveted positions—creating false expectations among students about their career prospects after graduation.

Judicial clerkships have long been viewed as prestigious and career-boosting roles that provide invaluable experience for aspiring litigators and future judges. However, as new data and expert voices highlight, these opportunities are far rarer than many schools imply. Behind glossy brochures and celebratory announcements lies a truth that’s less glamorous: only a small fraction of law graduates actually secure clerkships, and even fewer land them in the federal courts.

The Reality Behind the Prestige

Law schools often promote clerkships as a hallmark of post-graduate success, using the accomplishments of a select few alumni to bolster their institutional prestige. They feature stories of graduates who clerk for federal judges, Supreme Court justices, or prestigious appellate courts—without clarifying how statistically exceptional these outcomes are.

According to data from the American Bar Association (ABA) and the National Association for Law Placement (NALP), the percentage of law graduates who secure federal judicial clerkships is typically less than 10% nationwide. Some elite schools like Yale, Harvard, and Stanford account for a disproportionate number of these positions, while the vast majority of other institutions place very few graduates in such roles each year.

Despite these facts, many law schools continue to highlight clerkships as an attainable milestone for nearly any hardworking student, glossing over how competitive and exclusionary the process truly is. Critics argue that this practice amounts to a marketing tactic designed to attract prospective students and justify rising tuition costs.

What Schools Don’t Tell You

While no law school explicitly lies about clerkships, their omissions can be misleading. Promotional materials and career office statistics often fail to differentiate between federal and state clerkships, or between one-year appointments and long-term career positions. They also may not disclose how many graduates actually applied for clerkships compared to how many successfully landed them.

Some of the key facts frequently downplayed include:

• Extreme selectivity: Federal clerkships are among the most competitive positions in the legal field. Judges often prefer applicants from the top of their class at top-ranked schools with strong recommendations from faculty or previous clerks.
• Short-term nature: Many clerkships last only a year or two, after which clerks must re-enter a competitive job market.
• Unequal institutional support: Not all schools offer robust clerkship programs or mentoring resources. Some provide specialized faculty committees and mock interviews, while others offer little more than generic guidance.
• Geographic concentration: The majority of federal clerkships are located in major metropolitan areas or judicial hubs, making them less accessible to students from regional law schools.

By presenting clerkships as broadly attainable, schools risk misleading students into making costly decisions—such as taking on significant debt—based on unrealistic expectations of career advancement.

The Consequences for Students

The implications of these misrepresentations extend beyond mere disappointment. Many students enter law school under the belief that clerkships are a natural next step after graduation, only to find themselves competing against thousands of equally qualified peers nationwide. When the majority are unsuccessful, they may feel as though they failed personally rather than recognizing how narrow the odds truly are.

This disconnect can have emotional and financial consequences. Graduates who pin their hopes on clerkships may delay applying for other legal positions, missing early hiring windows for law firms, government agencies, or public interest organizations. Others may feel pressure to pursue unpaid or underpaid internships to strengthen their résumés for future clerkship cycles—exacerbating the financial strain of student loans.

Legal education experts argue that this cycle reflects a deeper problem: law schools prioritizing reputation and rankings over transparency. When clerkship statistics are used as marketing tools, they distort the educational landscape and obscure what most students can realistically achieve.

How Students Can Protect Themselves

Aspiring clerks should approach law school messaging with healthy skepticism and do their own research before forming career expectations. Here are a few steps to take:

1. Scrutinize the data: Ask your school for detailed clerkship placement numbers, including federal versus state positions, duration, and court levels.
2. Understand the competition: Federal clerkships typically go to graduates from top-ranked schools or those with exceptional academic performance.
3. Diversify your goals: Clerkships are prestigious, but not the only valuable path. Litigation, public service, and corporate law careers can also provide substantial professional growth.
4. Seek mentorship early: Connect with alumni who have clerked to understand the real demands of the application process.
5. Ask for transparency: Push your school’s career office to clarify how many students apply, how many are successful, and what level of support is truly available.

The Call for Honesty and Reform

Ultimately, the issue boils down to transparency. Law schools owe students accurate and complete information—not just selective success stories. The legal education community must confront the ethical tension between marketing ambition and providing realistic outcomes.

If institutions continue to exaggerate clerkship accessibility, they risk eroding trust among students and alumni alike. By contrast, schools that offer honest data and candid guidance empower students to make informed, strategic career decisions.

As the cost of legal education continues to climb, students deserve to know the truth about where their degrees can realistically take them. Judicial clerkships may remain an admirable goal—but law schools must stop pretending they’re within everyone’s reach.

Stay informed about trends and transparency in legal education by visiting LawCrossing, where you can explore verified data on legal careers, clerkships, and hiring trends.

See Related Articles:
•15 Top Law Schools: Best Program for Aspiring Lawyers
•Decode Law Schools Ranking
•Law School Profile

The post Law Schools Accused of Misleading Students About Judicial Clerkships first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The American Bar Association (ABA) has revised its eligibility rules for one of its most notable diversity-focused initiatives, the Legal Opportunity Scholarship, removing the longstanding requirement that applicants identify as racial or ethnic minorities.

The change comes amid an ongoing lawsuit filed by the American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER), a group led by conservative activist Edward Blum — the same figure behind several high-profile legal challenges to race-based admissions policies, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision ending affirmative action in college admissions.

Shift in Scholarship Criteria

The Legal Opportunity Scholarship, established in 2000, has been one of the ABA’s cornerstone diversity programs. It provides financial support — up to $15,000 per recipient over three years — to incoming law students who are dedicated to promoting diversity within the legal field. Each year, the program awards about 20 to 25 scholarships.

Previously, the scholarship’s eligibility criteria explicitly required that applicants be members of “underrepresented racial and ethnic groups” within the legal profession. But in a significant policy shift, the ABA has replaced that requirement with broader language emphasizing an applicant’s “commitment to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion in the legal profession.”

According to the organization’s updated materials, applicants are now evaluated based on their experiences, leadership, and potential contributions to diversity rather than their racial or ethnic background.

The Lawsuit Behind the Change

The AAER lawsuit, filed earlier this year in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, claimed that the ABA’s race-based eligibility rule constituted illegal discrimination under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which prohibits race-based discrimination in contracts.

The complaint alleged that the program unlawfully excluded otherwise qualified applicants solely because they were white or non-minority. In its court filings, AAER accused the ABA of “using racial classifications to distribute educational benefits,” arguing that such practices are inconsistent with federal civil rights protections and recent Supreme Court precedent.

Blum’s organization has filed similar suits challenging diversity initiatives across a range of industries, from corporate fellowship programs to bar association-sponsored clerkships.

Despite the ABA’s recent policy change, AAER said in a court filing last week that it plans to continue its case, seeking nominal damages and a declaration that the former race-based rule violated federal law. The group noted that the ABA had not publicly announced its revision before it was revealed in litigation filings.

ABA’s Response and Broader Diversity Commitments

An ABA spokesperson confirmed that the rule change had been approved by the ABA Board of Governors before the lawsuit was filed. The board reportedly reaffirmed the association’s “longstanding commitment to diversity in the legal profession” while directing that program eligibility “should not depend on membership in any particular racial or ethnic group.”

The ABA emphasized that the scholarship’s purpose remains unchanged — to increase access to the legal profession for individuals who have faced barriers, financial hardship, or systemic underrepresentation. However, the association’s approach will now focus on measurable contributions to inclusion and community engagement, rather than race-based qualifications.

The change reflects a growing trend in diversity programs across educational and professional settings in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. Institutions and organizations have been reassessing policies that explicitly reference race to ensure compliance with new judicial interpretations of anti-discrimination laws.

Not the First Policy Revision

This isn’t the first time the ABA has adjusted its diversity initiatives under legal scrutiny. In October 2024, the organization modified eligibility rules for its Judicial Clerkship Program, which was also the subject of a legal complaint filed by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. That program had previously targeted “minority students” and aimed to expose participants to clerkship opportunities through partnerships with judges and law schools.

The updated clerkship program now welcomes applicants “from all backgrounds who are committed to promoting diversity and inclusion in the legal system,” a change that mirrors the new language adopted in the scholarship guidelines.

Legal and Professional Implications

The ABA’s policy shift highlights the delicate balance professional associations and law schools must maintain as they pursue diversity goals within the boundaries of current civil rights law.

While critics argue that the rollback of explicit race-based eligibility undermines efforts to promote equity and inclusion, proponents of the changes see them as necessary to comply with evolving legal standards and to avoid costly litigation.

Legal analysts suggest that the ABA’s revisions may influence how law firms, law schools, and legal employers structure their diversity programs going forward. Many organizations are transitioning toward “race-neutral” selection models that emphasize socioeconomic disadvantage, leadership in diversity initiatives, or community engagement as qualifying factors.

These developments underscore a larger transformation in the legal profession’s approach to diversity — one increasingly framed around opportunity and commitment rather than demographic identity alone.

The Future of Diversity in Law

As the debate continues, the ABA maintains that fostering a legal profession that reflects the nation’s full diversity remains central to its mission. Yet, how that goal is achieved in a post-affirmative-action landscape will likely remain the subject of legal, political, and cultural debate for years to come.

For law students and aspiring attorneys, the updated scholarship criteria may broaden access to financial aid while encouraging applicants from all backgrounds to demonstrate concrete action toward inclusion and equity in their future careers.

Law students looking to fund their education or explore inclusive legal career paths can find hundreds of current opportunities on LawCrossing.com — the leading legal job site that connects law students and professionals with scholarships, clerkships, and career advancement resources across the United States.

See Related Articles:
•15 Top Law Schools: Best Program for Aspiring Lawyers
•Decode Law Schools Ranking
•Law School Profile

The post ABA Removes ‘Minority’ Requirement from Law Student Scholarship After Legal Challenge first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Introduction: A Pivotal Moment for Legal Education

In a development that could reshape the landscape of legal education for years to come, the American Bar Association (ABA) is expected to extend its suspension of the diversity and inclusion accreditation requirement for law schools. While not entirely unexpected, the move underscores the growing tension between legal institutions’ commitment to diversity and mounting political and judicial pressures.

The proposed extension reflects the challenges law schools face following the U.S. Supreme Court’s dismantling of affirmative action policies and aggressive federal directives under the Trump administration.

Background: From Diversity Mandate to Suspension

For decades, ABA Standard 206 required law schools to demonstrate good-faith efforts to increase diversity among students and faculty. The standard emphasized inclusion of historically marginalized groups, including women, racial minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, and people with disabilities.

However, the legal environment shifted dramatically in 2023 when the Supreme Court effectively nullified affirmative action in higher education admissions. At the same time, conservative groups—led by activists like Edward Blum—and Trump’s executive orders launched sustained attacks on institutional DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) efforts. Schools were suddenly caught between the risk of losing accreditation or facing costly litigation and federal sanctions.

Recognizing the impossible bind, the ABA suspended Standard 206 in February 2025, coinciding with the end of Black History Month.

New Developments: ABA Considers Prolonged Suspension

A recent May 2, 2025 memo from the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar’s Standards Committee recommends continuing the suspension of the diversity requirement until at least August 31, 2026.

“The council should find that extraordinary circumstances exist in which compliance with Standard 206 will continue to constitute extreme hardship for multiple law schools,” the committee stated.

The memo acknowledges the unprecedented legal and political pressures faced by law schools, many of which lack the financial resources to withstand prolonged federal opposition.

Economic and Political Realities Driving the Decision

While elite schools like Harvard, with its $53 billion endowment, can afford to resist federal threats—even at the cost of losing billions in research funding—most law schools operate on far thinner margins. The threat of financial retaliation or accreditation loss has forced many institutions to scale back or suspend DEI initiatives.

The Trump administration has further compounded these challenges by issuing executive orders discouraging DEI-related activities in federally funded programs, including educational institutions.

For many law schools, the continued suspension of the ABA’s diversity requirement is not merely a preference but a financial and operational necessity.

What This Means for Law Schools and Students

If the ABA extends the suspension as expected:

• Law schools will retain flexibility to navigate DEI compliance without risking accreditation.
• Future diversity initiatives may be curtailed, especially at financially vulnerable institutions.
• Students from underrepresented backgrounds could face greater barriers to entry and support within legal education.
• The broader legal profession may experience a setback in efforts to diversify the pipeline of new attorneys.

While the ABA’s decision provides temporary relief, it raises pressing questions about how legal education will address diversity going forward without explicit regulatory requirements.

Broader Implications: A Crossroads for Legal Diversity Efforts

The likely extension signals a broader retreat from formal diversity mandates in higher education and professional training. It reflects not only a reaction to legal rulings and executive actions but also a changing cultural climate in which DEI efforts are increasingly politicized.

Observers note that while suspending Standard 206 may protect schools from immediate harm, it risks undermining long-term progress toward a more inclusive legal profession.

As the 2026 deadline approaches, the ABA and legal educators nationwide will face difficult choices about whether to reinstate, revise, or permanently eliminate diversity standards.

Conclusion

The ABA’s anticipated extension of the diversity requirement suspension highlights the complex and often conflicting demands placed on modern law schools. Balancing accreditation, legal compliance, and the moral imperative of fostering diversity has never been more challenging.

While some see the pause as a pragmatic necessity, others worry it represents a troubling step backward in the fight for equal opportunity in the legal field.

The future of diversity in legal education now hangs in the balance.

The post ABA Poised to Extend Suspension of Law School Diversity Accreditation Requirement Amid Legal and Political Turmoil first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Introduction

The American Bar Association (ABA) has taken a firm stance against a recent executive order issued by the Trump administration, which calls for federal investigations into diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs by bar associations and other organizations. The ABA argues that such an order infringes upon the First Amendment rights of bar associations and could have widespread implications for the legal profession and beyond.

This article provides an in-depth analysis of the executive order, its potential impact, legal challenges, and the broader implications for DEI programs in the legal field.

Understanding the Executive Order

On January 21, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order targeting DEI programs. The order cites bar associations, medical associations, publicly traded companies, and other private-sector entities as potential subjects for federal civil investigations if their DEI programs appear to “constitute illegal discrimination or preferences.”

This move is part of a broader push by some policymakers to challenge affirmative action and diversity-focused policies, arguing they may constitute reverse discrimination.

Key Provisions of the Executive Order:

• Investigation of DEI programs within professional organizations, corporations, and educational institutions.
• Potential restrictions on funding for organizations found in violation of the order.
• Legal scrutiny of DEI initiatives that are deemed discriminatory against non-minority individuals.

The ABA’s Response and First Amendment Concerns

The American Bar Association, an organization representing over 150,000 members and serving as the federally recognized accreditor for U.S. law schools, swiftly opposed the executive order.

ABA’s Resolution:

On Monday, February 3, 2025, the ABA’s House of Delegates passed a resolution urging the Trump administration to reconsider the executive order. The resolution states that:

“The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from interfering with the expressive rights of bar associations and others by threatening them with investigation and prosecution for adopting or promoting diversity and inclusion.”

During the House of Delegates meeting in Phoenix, no one spoke against the resolution, signaling strong support for protecting DEI initiatives within the legal community.

Potential First Amendment Violations:

Legal scholars argue that the executive order raises serious constitutional concerns, particularly under the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and association.

• Bar associations have the right to advocate for diversity as part of their mission.
• Diversity initiatives are often tied to broader goals of equal access to justice and representation within the legal profession.
• Government intervention in these programs could set a dangerous precedent, leading to increased legal challenges and uncertainty for DEI programs nationwide.

Legal Challenges and Lawsuits

Shortly after the executive order was announced, the city of Baltimore and three other groups filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration. The suit argues that:

1. The executive order exceeds presidential authority under the U.S. Constitution.
2. It violates the Equal Protection Clause by singling out DEI initiatives for heightened scrutiny.
3. It threatens existing diversity efforts within both the public and private sectors.

Legal experts anticipate that this case could reach the Supreme Court, potentially reshaping the legal landscape around DEI policies for years to come.

Broader Impact on the Legal Profession

The Role of DEI in Law

Diversity, equity, and inclusion are cornerstones of the modern legal profession. The ABA has long championed DEI efforts as a means of:

• Increasing access to justice for marginalized communities.
• Promoting fair representation in law firms and judicial roles.
• Ensuring legal education and clerkship opportunities are accessible to underrepresented groups.

Threats to Law School DEI Programs

In 2024, under pressure from conservative legal groups, the ABA revised the criteria for its judicial clerkship diversity program, eliminating references to minority students and “communities of color.” Critics argue this change was a direct response to legal threats and could weaken efforts to improve racial representation in the judiciary.

Moreover, 21 Republican state attorneys general have repeatedly challenged the ABA’s law school accreditation rules, which require institutions to demonstrate a commitment to diversity.

Future Trends and Predictions

The executive order signals a growing backlash against DEI programs, but it is unlikely to halt diversity efforts entirely. Moving forward:

• More lawsuits will likely emerge, challenging the legality of restricting DEI programs.
• State bar associations may take independent action to continue promoting diversity initiatives.
• Law firms and corporations might shift their diversity strategies to avoid legal scrutiny while maintaining inclusive hiring and workplace policies.

Will AI and Technology Shape the Future of Diversity in Law?

Some legal experts suggest that AI-driven recruitment tools and bias-detection software could play a key role in ensuring fair hiring practices without running afoul of restrictive policies.

FAQs

1. How does the executive order affect law firms?

Law firms with structured DEI initiatives may face increased scrutiny, especially if they receive federal contracts.

2. Can bar associations continue their DEI programs?

Yes, but they may need to adapt their programs to comply with legal challenges or avoid direct federal funding risks.

3. What legal arguments support the ABA’s opposition?

The ABA cites First Amendment violations, equal protection concerns, and historical precedents upholding diversity efforts in professional organizations.

4. What’s next for DEI programs in law schools?

Many law schools may restructure their diversity programs to focus on economic rather than racial diversity to avoid legal challenges.

5. Could this executive order be overturned?

Yes, legal challenges could lead to the order being modified, weakened, or struck down entirely in federal courts.

Conclusion

The ABA’s strong opposition to the Trump administration’s executive order underscores the ongoing legal and political battle over diversity, equity, and inclusion in the legal field. While the order may create challenges for DEI programs, the legal profession remains committed to ensuring representation and fairness in law firms, judicial positions, and legal education.

As lawsuits unfold, the future of diversity in the legal profession will depend on legal interpretations, public advocacy, and how institutions adapt to changing policies.

For legal professionals and students, staying informed and engaged in these discussions is critical to shaping a more equitable future in law.

The post The American Bar Association’s Opposition to the Executive Order Targeting Diversity and Inclusion first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Efforts to revise diversity standards for law schools accredited by the American Bar Association (ABA) are facing significant pushback from attorneys general in Republican-controlled states. A recent letter, signed by 21 attorneys general, argues that proposed changes to Standard 206 could violate constitutional principles and perpetuate unlawful discrimination.

Background: ABA’s Standard 206 and the Supreme Court Decision

The controversy centers on Standard 206, a rule that mandates law schools to actively demonstrate diversity among students, faculty, and staff, particularly in terms of gender, race, and ethnicity. This standard aims to foster inclusion in legal education and the broader profession. However, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, which invalidated race-conscious admissions policies, the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar initiated efforts to revise the standard to ensure compliance with the law.

The section first proposed a revision in August 2024, focusing on expanding access to legal education without explicitly mentioning diversity categories like gender or race. After receiving mixed feedback, a second revision was released in November 2024, restoring references to diversity and inclusion while attempting to align with legal obligations.

Key Points of the Proposed Revisions

First Revision: Focus on Access Over Diversity

The initial revision reframed the standard’s title from “Diversity and Inclusion” to “Access to Legal Education and the Profession.” It shifted the language to emphasize creating opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups without specifying characteristics like race or gender.

Second Revision: Balancing Diversity with Legal Compliance

Responding to criticism that the first draft overlooked essential aspects of diversity, the second revision reinstated references to inclusion and added a list of identity characteristics, including race, gender identity, sexual orientation, military status, and socioeconomic background. The proposal also emphasized creating a supportive learning environment that fosters professionalism, respect, and belonging.

Council member Carla D. Pratt clarified the intent of these changes, stating, “We wanted to make it clear that we were not seeking to abandon the values of diversity and inclusion.”

Republican Attorneys General Push Back

In a January 6 letter to the ABA Section, attorneys general from 21 states expressed strong objections to the second proposal. They argued that the revisions impose race-based admissions and hiring practices, which could conflict with the Supreme Court’s ruling and leave law schools uncertain about their legal obligations.

The letter states, “The proposed revision appears to perpetuate unlawful racial discrimination,” and raises concerns that the ABA’s approach could pressure law schools into adopting policies that may not withstand legal scrutiny. Signatories include attorneys general from Alabama, Florida, Texas, and other Republican-led states.

Support for the Revisions

Despite criticism, the proposed revisions have received support from organizations like the ABA Center for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and the Law School Admission Council. Proponents argue that the changes strike a reasonable balance, promoting diversity within the framework of the law. The ABA Center described the second proposal as “a positive improvement,” while other commenters suggested further refinements, such as redefining diversity commitments to value individual experiences beyond immutable characteristics.

The Path Ahead for Standard 206

Jennifer Rosato Perea, managing director of ABA accreditation and legal education, emphasized that the council will carefully review all public comments, including those from the attorneys general, before making a final decision. “The council will consider the AGs’ letter and all other comments received on the proposed revisions to Standard 206 before it determines how to proceed,” she said.

As the only accrediting body for JD programs recognized by the U.S. Department of Education, the ABA’s decisions hold significant weight. Whether the revisions to Standard 206 will move forward or undergo further modifications remains uncertain.

Implications for Legal Education

The debate surrounding Standard 206 highlights the challenges of balancing diversity, inclusion, and legal compliance in a politically divided environment. The outcome of this process will likely influence how law schools approach admissions and hiring practices in the years to come, shaping the future of legal education in the United States.

The post Republican Attorneys General Challenge ABA Diversity Standards for Law Schools first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

A Groundbreaking Collaboration to Support Asylum-Seekers

In a significant step toward addressing the legal challenges faced by asylum-seekers in the United States, the American Bar Association (ABA) Commission on Immigration has partnered with Microsoft to launch a pilot project aimed at providing critical assistance. This innovative initiative introduces a virtual clinic designed to help pro se asylum-seekers complete their asylum applications, a process often fraught with complexity and high stakes.

The ABA Commission on Immigration: Advocating for Fair Treatment

The ABA Commission on Immigration has long been at the forefront of advocating for the rights of immigrants, asylum-seekers, and refugees. Its mission centers on ensuring fair treatment and full due process for these vulnerable populations. Recognizing the limitations of resources and the overwhelming demand for legal representation, the commission has turned to creative solutions like virtual and limited-scope services.

“In an ideal world, we would get everyone an in-person attorney to represent them for the full length of their case,” says Stephanie Baez, director of pro bono services at the ABA Commission on Immigration. “But in reality, we need to find thoughtful and innovative ways to engage more volunteers to help those who would otherwise have no access to legal assistance.”

The Launch of the Virtual Asylum Clinic

In June, the Commission on Immigration and Microsoft launched the virtual clinic to address the urgent need for support among asylum-seekers. The clinic consisted of four sessions, during which nearly 30 Microsoft volunteers collaborated with asylum-seekers to compile necessary information and prepare their applications for submission.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Training was a crucial component of the program. Before each session, volunteers received guidance on specific sections of the asylum application, including biographical details, the narrative portion where asylum-seekers share their stories, and trauma-informed approaches to client interactions. This thorough preparation ensured that volunteers could provide meaningful assistance, even without prior legal experience.

“We were able to complete 15 asylum applications in one month,” Baez reports. “This not only eased the burden on our staff but also significantly benefited the individuals who could submit their applications promptly.”

Diverse Volunteers Make a Difference

Microsoft’s participation in the clinic showcased a diverse group of volunteers, ranging from corporate counsel and immigration specialists to business professionals, software engineers, and interns. Despite varying levels of familiarity with immigration law, these volunteers played a pivotal role in the project.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Barbara Leen, senior corporate counsel at Microsoft, co-led the company’s involvement. She highlights the accessibility of the clinic’s approach: “To prepare an application, you’re not giving legal advice; you’re helping someone understand what’s being asked of them. It’s an opportunity for both legal and non-legal professionals to make a meaningful impact.”

Stephen Urena, an immigration specialist at Microsoft, echoes this sentiment. “I’m trying to show other professionals—even those outside the legal field—that their interpersonal and language skills can be invaluable in this process.”

Addressing Systemic Challenges

The virtual asylum clinic offers an alternative for volunteers who cannot commit to the lengthy process of representing asylum-seekers in court. Instead, they can help individuals file their applications quickly and accurately, mitigating delays in an immigration system plagued by significant backlogs.

“In these cases, the stakes are incredibly high,” says Leen, who also serves as vice president of the board of directors of the Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project. “Helping someone navigate the justice system so they can present their case has a profound impact.”

Looking Ahead: Expanding the Program

Building on the success of the initial clinic, the ABA Commission on Immigration plans to host another virtual session this winter. The commission is particularly eager to recruit Spanish-speaking volunteers to meet the needs of a broader group of asylum-seekers. Baez emphasizes that prior experience with immigration law is not required—only a willingness to help.

“For volunteers who come to us, if they have the desire to help and the time to commit, we will ensure they are trained and ready,” Baez affirms.

The post Microsoft Joins Forces with ABA to Aid Asylum-Seekers Through Virtual Clinics first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The American Bar Association (ABA) has made adjustments to the description of its Judicial Clerkship Program following criticism from a conservative group that alleged the program’s original wording suggested racial “quotas,” potentially violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Allegations of Quotas Spark Changes

The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, a conservative advocacy group, filed a civil rights complaint in May, asserting that the ABA’s language appeared to mandate racial quotas. Specifically, they argued that requiring law schools to send a specified number of students from underrepresented racial communities and asking judges to hire minority clerks, breached federal anti-discrimination laws. Title VI prohibits race, color, and national origin discrimination by entities receiving federal funds.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

ABA’s Response and Program Revision

Annaliese Fleming, the ABA’s senior associate executive director and general counsel, issued a statement clarifying the situation. She explained that the program itself had not been altered but that the language describing the program had been updated to more accurately reflect its operations. “In reviewing the program materials, some language was removed that did not accurately reflect the operation of the program,” said Fleming.

Previously, the Judicial Clerkship Program’s description stated that law schools participating in the initiative were expected to “send (and underwrite the costs for) four to six law students who are from underrepresented communities of color.” The text also included a commitment for judges to hire at least two minority law clerks within five years.

The revised language no longer includes such explicit quotas. Now, it encourages law schools to “select a diverse group of students using criteria aligned with the ABA’s Goal III objectives.” The reference to judges committing to minority hires has been entirely omitted.

ABA Defends Its Program Goals

Fleming emphasized that the program remains committed to diversity and inclusivity, in line with the ABA’s overarching Goal III, which seeks to enhance diversity and eliminate bias in the legal profession and judicial system. She also reaffirmed that the ABA has not imposed restrictions on which students can participate, leaving those decisions entirely to the discretion of individual law schools.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

In response to the conservative group’s allegations, Fleming expressed confidence in the legality of the ABA’s initiatives. “The programs at issue are lawful, and we intend to defend them vigorously against any challenges,” she stated.

Wisconsin Institute’s Legal Actions

The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty’s complaint, filed with both the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Education, extended its scrutiny to the participating law schools. The institute claimed that the ABA, by receiving federal funding and providing educational services, is subject to Title VI compliance. Their complaint called for an investigation into both the ABA and the universities involved in the Judicial Clerkship Program.

Despite the ABA’s clarifications, the institute has yet to respond to the recent changes, and it remains unclear if further legal action will follow. Skylar Croy, associate counsel at the Wisconsin Institute, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Conclusion

The ABA’s adjustments aim to address concerns over potential misinterpretations of its Judicial Clerkship Program while maintaining its commitment to fostering diversity. The revised description now places emphasis on the broad inclusion of diverse students without making explicit reference to specific quotas. However, the situation underscores ongoing tensions between efforts to promote diversity and claims of reverse discrimination, with potential legal ramifications for organizations like the ABA moving forward.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post ABA Revises Judicial Clerkship Program Description Amid Controversy first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Recent changes proposed by the American Bar Association (ABA) to its diversity and inclusion standards for law schools have sparked strong opposition. Numerous legal education organizations and experts argue that these revisions could potentially undermine the progress made in promoting diversity within law schools. The debate comes after a public comment period ended on September 30, following last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action policies.

Legal Groups Push Back Against Standard 206 Revisions

Among the critics of the proposed changes are 44 law school deans, the ABA’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Center, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and other legal bodies. They have expressed concerns over the revisions to Standard 206, which is currently titled “Diversity and Inclusion.” The new proposal aims to rename it “Access to Legal Education and the Profession,” with substantial changes to its language. Critics argue that the proposal threatens to reverse the ABA’s long-standing commitment to ensuring diverse student bodies in U.S. law schools.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Current vs. Proposed Language

Presently, Standard 206 mandates that law schools provide full opportunities for racial and ethnic minorities while maintaining diversity in terms of gender, race, and ethnicity. The proposed version, however, eliminates this specific language, instead emphasizing access for “persons including those with identities that historically have been disadvantaged or excluded from the legal profession.” Critics worry that this shift waters down existing commitments to diversity and inclusion, potentially making it easier for law schools to move away from those values.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Law Deans and Professors Express Concern

In their response to the ABA’s proposal, the group of deans stated that the changes “go further than the law requires” and pose a significant risk to efforts in diversifying the legal profession. They argue that law schools could abandon their commitments to diversity under the new standard. A separate group of 74 law professors echoed this sentiment, stating that the proposal “overreacts” to the Supreme Court decision and could hinder ongoing efforts toward creating more inclusive legal education environments.

Some Support the ABA’s Changes

While opposition is strong, not all commentators disagree with the revisions. The Ohio State Bar Association, for instance, expressed support for the ABA’s efforts to align with the Supreme Court’s ruling while still promoting increased access to the legal profession for historically underrepresented groups.

Call for Compromise on Language

On the other hand, a group of 19 attorneys general from Democratic-led states offered conditional support for the changes. While they back the revisions, they urged the ABA to retain the word “diversity” in the name of the standard. This, they argue, would preserve a focus on diversity without contradicting the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Conclusion: A Heated Debate on Diversity in Legal Education

As the ABA considers these proposed changes to its diversity standard, the legal community remains deeply divided. Many fear that the revisions could undo years of progress toward making the legal profession more inclusive, while others see the changes as a necessary step in complying with legal precedent. The council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar faces a challenging decision as it balances these competing perspectives.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post ABA's Proposed Diversity Standard Changes Face Opposition from Legal Education Groups first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The American Bar Association (ABA) is urging legal employers to support their employees in fully disconnecting from work for at least one week each year. This recommendation is part of a broader initiative to combat burnout and enhance the well-being of legal professionals.

Incentivizing Time Off with Billable Hour Credits

In a proposal submitted by the ABA’s Young Lawyers Division, law firms are encouraged to grant lawyers 40 billable hour credits. This incentive aims to encourage attorneys to take a full week off from work, allowing them to leave their duties without worrying about falling behind.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Addressing Lawyer Mental Health Concerns

The ABA’s proposal responds to growing concerns about mental health within the legal profession. A report accompanying the resolution highlights the long hours lawyers work and the difficulty many face in truly unplugging from their jobs. The ABA, while lacking direct authority over law firms, influences the industry through its policies, and this resolution sends a strong message about the importance of lawyer well-being.

The Workaholic Culture in Law

According to the ABA’s National Task Force on Lawyer Well-Being, about 25% of lawyers are classified as “workaholics,” a figure significantly higher than the 10% of workaholics in the general U.S. adult population. This work addiction is linked to elevated levels of depression, anxiety, and burnout, making it a critical issue for the legal profession.

The Impact of Burnout: A Case Study

A 2023 survey of 4,450 Massachusetts lawyers revealed alarming statistics: 77% reported feeling burned out, 26% experienced high levels of anxiety, 21% suffered from depression, and 7% had suicidal thoughts. These figures are notably higher than the national averages for U.S. adults, underscoring the need for systemic change within the industry.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Law Firms Taking Action

Some law firms have already begun to address these issues. For example, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe implemented a policy in 2021 allowing employees to receive 40 hours of billable hour credits for taking a week off. Siobhan Handley, the firm’s chief talent officer, confirmed that the program remains in place, helping top talent maintain their careers by prioritizing self-care.

Additional Resolutions on the Agenda

The ABA’s House of Delegates is set to consider several other resolutions related to law firms and law schools. These proposals include urging law schools to require major firms to disclose pay during on-campus interviews, promoting flexible work policies for legal employers, and ensuring law schools transparently disclose the full cost of attendance, including expenses like bar exam preparation.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Encouraging Legal Professionals to Disconnect: ABA's Proposal first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the American Bar Association (ABA) have voiced strong opposition to President Joe Biden’s executive order that limits asylum eligibility for migrants who cross the southern border illegally during peak periods.

ABA’s Strong Opposition

On Wednesday, ABA President Mary Smith issued a statement expressing the organization’s firm opposition to the executive order. Smith stated that the policy “effectively seals the southern border” when illegal crossings exceed a seven-day average of 2,500. She emphasized that this move undermines key legal provisions and endangers vulnerable individuals.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

ACLU’s Legal Challenge

The ACLU announced on Tuesday that it plans to challenge the executive order in court. Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, argued that the policy is illegal, paralleling the similar policy enacted by former President Donald Trump. Gelernt stated that the executive order remains unlawful despite the changes made by the Biden administration.

Details of the Executive Order

The executive order aims to tighten asylum rules for migrants entering the U.S. illegally during periods of high border crossings. Specifically, it makes it harder for these migrants to qualify for asylum screening and to prove their eligibility for asylum.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Administration’s Defense

The Biden administration contends that its policy differs from Trump’s because it is only enforced when illegal crossings are high and includes more humanitarian exemptions. According to the Wall Street Journal, Biden criticized Congress for not passing bipartisan legislation to enhance immigration enforcement and improve the asylum process. He stressed that the current immigration system is “broken” and that the government’s capacity at the border is “severely strained.”

New Asylum Restrictions

The new restrictions, detailed in an interim final rule by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security, apply when illegal border crossings exceed an average of 2,500 per day over a week. These restrictions will be lifted if the average falls below 1,500 for two consecutive weeks. The New York Times reports that about 3,500 people crossed the border illegally on Monday, consistent with recent trends.

Scope of the Executive Order

The executive order targets individuals who cross the border illegally and does not apply to those seeking lawful entry or using the CBP One mobile app created by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The app, however, allows only 1,400 appointments per day, resulting in long waiting times for asylum-seekers.

Key Changes Under the New Policy

1. Eligibility for Asylum: Migrants entering illegally will generally be ineligible for asylum unless they can demonstrate exceptionally compelling circumstances.
2. Credible Fear Screening: Illegal border crossers will not be referred for an asylum screening unless they explicitly request asylum, express a fear of return, or fear persecution or torture. This requirement is referred to as the “shout test.”
3. Higher Standard for Asylum Claims: Those who seek asylum must show a reasonable probability of persecution or torture, a higher standard than the current requirement.

Exemptions and Consequences

The new rule exempts certain groups, including lawful permanent residents, unaccompanied children, victims of severe trafficking, those facing acute medical emergencies, and individuals with valid visas or other permission to enter the U.S. Migrants who do not meet the new asylum standards will be swiftly removed and barred from reentry for five years.

ABA’s Call to Action

In her statement, Smith criticized the policy for violating the Immigration and Nationality Act, international law, and due process. She highlighted that the policy endangers thousands of vulnerable individuals and undermines America’s role as a sanctuary for the oppressed. Smith urged Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform and called on the administration to abandon the executive order in favor of fair and humane immigration and asylum policies.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post ACLU and ABA Oppose Biden’s Executive Order on Asylum Eligibility first appeared on JDJournal Blog.