ILNews

ABA committee formed to study law school cost and debt

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Former Mayor of Detroit Dennis Archer has been appointed to lead a special task force to examine the cost of legal education and the spiraling loan debt of students.

The American Bar Association has formed the Task Force on the Financing of Legal Education to look at the cost of attending law school as well as the financing of law schools, student loans and educational debt. It will also review how law schools use merit scholarships, tuition discounting and need-based aid.

Pointing to the increase in tuition and debt loads coming at a time when job opportunities are limited, ABA President James Silkenat said the organization must conduct a thorough examination of costs and financing of legal education. He asked task force members to conduct a comprehensive study of the complex economic and political issues involved and produce sound recommendations.

Convening a task force specifically to untangle the money issues was the recommendation made by the ABA Task Force on the Future of Legal Education when it issued its final report in February. The group, led by retired Indiana Chief Justice Randall Shepard, found the questions surrounding the financing of legal education were too big for them to tackle and advised a separate committee be formed just to examine those concerns.    

Archer, an attorney, served two terms as mayor of the Motor City from 1994 to 2001 and as an associate justice on the Michigan Supreme Court from 1986 to 1990. He was also ABA president from 2003 to 2004. His current responsibilities include service on the board of InfiLaw, a consortium of independently owned and operated ABA-approved law schools.

He will lead a 13-member task force comprised of practicing lawyers, judges and law school deans.  
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT