On February 18, 2026, the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) and Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA) announced the launch of a new working group. The group is part of CCJ and COSCA’s Committee on Legal and Admissions Reform (CLEAR), and it’s focused on an important and timely issue: law school accreditation. So, what are they looking into and how could it affect law schools in the United States? Here’s what you should know.
Going CLEAR?
First, let’s talk about what CLEAR is. The Committee On Legal Education and Admissions Reform (CLEAR) was formed to examine legal education and bar admissions to ensure competent and ethical practice. It was formed in response to a changing landscape in the practice of law.
Research shows that many people never get legal help for serious problems they can’t handle alone. They’re often forced to deal with issues like child support and custody, domestic violence, housing troubles, consumer disputes, and probate matters without the guidance of a lawyer.
At the same time, law students and new lawyers are struggling too. AI is profoundly affecting the legal profession, mentorship is declining, and attorneys have fewer opportunities to hone their skills and learn from more experienced attorneys before being left to their own devices in the courtroom.
CLEAR members spent 18 months crisscrossing the country and talking with stakeholders to better understand why the legal profession is not meeting the needs of the American people. The group then proposed nine initial recommendations in a Report and Recommendations last year.
In recommendation three, outlined in the report, the group proposed that state supreme courts should “encourage law school accreditation that serves the public.” The group said that “state supreme courts should encourage an accreditation process that promotes innovation, experimentation, and cost-effective legal education geared toward lawyers meeting the legal needs of the public.”
CLEAR’s New Accreditation Working Group
The new accreditation working group will be chaired by Justice C. Shannon Bacon of the New Mexico Supreme Court. She’s also vice chair of CLEAR. The group will operate from March through December 2026 and will submit a draft report of findings and recommendations to CLEAR no later than December 2026. So, looks like we’ll all be getting an update on ABA accreditation for the holidays.
Justice Bacon was appointed to the New Mexico Supreme Court in 2019, after being recommended by a nonpartisan Judicial Nominating Commission, and she’s presided over thousands of cases spanning complex civil litigation, class action lawsuits, election issues, contract disputes and more.
Under Justice Bacon, the group is taking what they call “a big tent approach” to understanding the current challenges to, and the future of, law school accreditation. The working group’s goal is to collect a diversity of viewpoints so that CLEAR can offer practical, concrete recommendations that reflect the consensus of CJJ and COSCA.
Currently, the ABA Is Primarily Responsible For Accrediting Law Schools
Currently, the American Bar Association (ABA) Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar is the primary organization responsible for accrediting law schools. The ABA has been the primary accrediting body of law schools in the United States since 1952.
As part of its role in accrediting law schools, the ABA publishes Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools. These standards outline what law schools must do to meet the jurisdiction's minimum education requirements so that their students can sit for the bar exam.
In most places, law students are required to attend an ABA-accredited law school before taking and passing their state’s bar exam, and before becoming a lawyer. You’d be hard-pressed to find a lawyer working in Big Law who hasn’t taken that (let’s be honest, generally very expensive and stressful) route to the legal profession.
Not Everybody Is Happy With ABA Accreditation
Recently, some states have moved away from ABA accreditation. For example, Florida just ended exclusive ABA accreditation for law schools. That’s because, in part, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has been working to abolish “woke” policies within Florida’s educational institutions and took issue with the ABA accreditation standards on racial and ethnic diversity in law schools, as well as what he saw as the ABA’s active political engagement.
But Florida is not alone in exploring innovative licensure pathways. Texas also split from the ABA. And, increasingly, states are reforming their bar licensure pathways to include options other than attending an ABA-accredited law school and then sitting for the state bar exam. Some have explored circular options where the applicants complete most or all bar requirements while attending law school. Other states offer post-graduation supervised practice options or other innovative approaches. Most of these involve would-be lawyers doing real legal work under the supervision of a practicing attorney or law professor.
What Will The New Working Group Discover?
Is the current way the right way to do things? It will be interesting to see what the new working group discovers. On the one hand, the ABA accreditation process helps ensure that law schools adhere to strict standards of excellence. In that way, it protects the American people from representation by lawyers who could potentially be unprepared to effectively advocate for them in court.
On the other hand, making attending an ABA-accredited law school mandatory for the practice of law is limiting. It often means that the only people who can attend law school are those who can afford it and have the time and resources to spend years in school instead of on the job. It means that first-generation Americans, minorities, single parents, people with disabilities, people from low-income families, and a slew of others simply don’t have the choice to become attorneys. A primary argument for those looking to increase access to justice is that lawyers who have the same lived experiences as their clients are the people we really need in America’s courtrooms — lawyers who can use their understanding to fight for people underrepresented in the legal system.
Related Resources
- Cheating Scandal Unplugs Most Online Law School Admission Testing (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
- University of Arkansas Withdraws Incoming Law Dean’s Offer Over Her Transgender Stance (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
- Utah Lawmakers Explore a Third Law School (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
