TaxProf Blog

Editor: Paul L. Caron, Dean
Pepperdine University School of Law

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

ABA Legal Ed Section Council, Law School Deans Voice Different Views On Proposed 75% Bar Passage Requirement

ABA JournalNot So Standard: Legal Ed Section's Council and Law Deans Voice Different Views on Proposal to Link Accreditation to Bar Passage Results, ABA Journal 64-65 (Jan. 2017):

No ABA-accredited law school has ever been out of compliance with a standard regarding bar passage percentages, and that may indicate that the standard is not working well. Although some law school officials support a plan to tighten the standard, others are concerned about what it would mean for diversity—both in schools and in the legal profession—if the proposal is implemented.

Under the proposal approved in late 2016 by the council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, being in compliance with Standard 316 of the section’s law school accreditation standards would require that at least 75 percent of an accredited school’s graduates pass a bar exam within a two-year time period. The ABA House of Delegates is expected to consider the proposal in February at the association’s 2017 midyear meeting in Miami.

The legal education section is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as the national accrediting body for law schools in the United States. The House of Delegates may endorse the section’s changes in the accreditation standards or refer them back to the section for further consideration, but the section council has final authority over the standards.

If the proposal is adopted by the council, sanctions for not meeting the two-year bar passage requirement could ultimately include probation and withdrawal of accreditation, says William Adams, the section’s deputy managing director. The council has not yet determined what class would be the first to be covered by the requirement.

With the current version of Standard 316, there are various ways a law school can be in compliance. One is that at least 75 percent of graduates from the five most recent calendar years have passed a bar exam, or that there is a 75 percent pass rate for at least three of those five years. Also, a school can be in compliance if just 70 percent of its graduates pass the bar at a rate within 15 percentage points of the average first-time bar pass rate for ABA-approved law school graduates in the same jurisdiction for three out of the five most recently completed calendar years.

Legal Education | Permalink


You don't create diversity in the legal profession by admitting students who can't pass the bar. You just put poor students into great debt.

Posted by: Scott Fruehwald | Jan 10, 2017 1:30:46 PM

According to the full article, "Greg Murphy, a Billings, Montana, lawyer who chairs the council and voted in favor of the proposal, responded that the council only received anecdotal information [about data regarding diversity and bar passage rates], and no data was submitted." Either Mr. Murphy is reconstructing history or he simply did not read the hundreds of pages of data submitted to the Council in opposition to the proposed changes to Standard 316. I submitted more than forty pages of empirical data on minority passage rates and data on the probable effects of the new standard on minority enrollment in California. I supplied Mr. Murphy with years of data on Black and Hispanic bar passage rates in California and compared the number of minority students attending the top and bottom rated California ABA law schools. In addition, i supplied the Council and Mr. Murphy with a prior study of the persistence rates of minority bar examination test takers that demonstrates that under the new standard California law schools in the shortened 2-year reporting window will report on average a 24% lower minority ultimate passage rate than under the current standard. In addition, I supplied an extensive analysis of the methodological flaws and statistical errors in the NCBE minority bar examination persistence studies relied upon by the Standards Review Committee in justifying the 2-year rule. Mr. Murphy, did you even read any data submitted to the Council. There is a grand difference between stating that no data on minority bar passage was submitted versus a statement that you simply do not think the evidence submitted is credible or convincing.

Posted by: Bill Patton | Jan 10, 2017 1:50:38 PM

I'd rather the bar associations set the bar passage rate based upon number of lawyers per 10,000 residents of the state.

The profession has enough employment problems. Let us work to limit the number of lawyers to a reasonable amount.

Posted by: momo | Jan 10, 2017 2:07:58 PM