ABA looks again at bar passage

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although the House of Delegates rejected the proposal in February, the American Bar Association is still taking steps to tighten the bar passage requirements for law schools.

The ABA Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar is again looking at changing Standard 316 of the ABA standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools. The proposal, which the House tossed, would have required law schools to show that 75 percent of their graduates passed the bar exam within two years of completing their legal education.

Controversy surrounded the initial proposal. At the House of Delegates meeting, the revised standard incited an hourlong debate before being rejected on a voice vote.  

Now the council is seeking input from legal educators. It is sending questionnaires to law schools, asking them how the revised standard would change their ability to operate and be in compliance. The results from the survey will be publicized, possibly as early as this fall, and could be presented to the House of Delegates at the 2018 ABA Midyear Meeting.  

Indiana University Maurer School of Law Dean Austen Parrish argued against the new requirement, saying, in part, it had the potential to impair legal education. Law schools, he said, would feel obligated to spend more time on teaching to the exam instead of focusing on the skills lawyers need like problem solving and critical thinking.

“[T]here’s no doubt this rule will hurt diversity in the profession,” Parrish wrote in a column for the Indiana Lawyer. “And it will embrace what most in the past have viewed as absurd – encouraging teaching to the test, placing even more emphasis on the LSAT, and forcing less elite schools to look not for good future lawyers but for good test-takers.”

Under the proposal, law schools would have to have 75 percent or more of their graduates passing the bar examination in at least three of the five most recent years. Also, the schools’ annual first-time passage rate could be no more than 15 points below than the average of the other ABA-approved schools in the same jurisdiction.

Schools that fall out of compliance could lose their accreditation. The law schools would be given a minimum of two years to meet the standard but if they do not improve the passage rates, the accreditation committee must recommend to the council that the provisional or full-approval be withdrawn.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Or does the study merely wish they fade away? “It just hasn’t risen substantially in decades,” Joan Williams, director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law told Law360. “What we should be looking for is progress, and that’s not what we’re seeing.” PROGRESS = less white males in leadership. Thus the heading and honest questions here ....

  2. One need not wonder why we are importing sex slaves into North America. Perhaps these hapless victims of human trafficking were being imported for a book of play with the Royal Order of Jesters? Indianapolis hosts these major pervs in a big way .... I wonder what affect they exert on Hoosier politics? And its judiciary? A very interesting program on their history and preferences here:

  3. Joseph Buser, Montgomery County Chief Prosecutor, has been involved in both representing the State of Indiana as Prosecutor while filing as Representing Attorney on behalf of himself and the State of Indiana in Civil Proceedings for seized cash and merchandise using a Verified Complaint For Forfeiture of Motor Vehicle, Us Currency And Reimbursement Of Costs, as is evident in Montgomery County Circuit Court Case Number 54C01-1401-MI-000018, CCS below, seen before Judge Harry Siamas, and filed on 01/13/2014. Sheriff Mark Castille is also named. All three defendants named by summons have prior convictions under Mr. Buser, which as the Indiana Supreme Court, in the opinion of The Matter of Mark R. McKinney, No. 18S00-0905-DI-220, stated that McKinney created a conflict of interest by simultaneously prosecuting drug offender cases while pocketing assets seized from defendants in those cases. All moneys that come from forfeitures MUST go to the COMMON SCHOOL FUND.

  4. I was incarcerated at that time for driving while suspended I have no felonies...i was placed on P block I remember several girls and myself asking about voting that day..and wasn't given a answer or means of voting..we were told after the election who won that was it.

  5. The number one way to reduce suffering would be to ban the breeding of fighting dogs. Fighting dogs maim and kill victim dogs Fighting dogs are the most essential piece of dog fighting Dog fighting will continue as long as fighting dogs are struggling to reach each other and maul another fih.longaphernalia