The American Bar Affiliation’s de facto monopoly on law school accreditation took one other hit this week as the administrators of the Federal Commerce Fee’s Workplace of Coverage Planning and Bureau of Competitors endorsed a proposal by the Texas Supreme Courtroom to permit various technique of accreditation.
This endorsement got here in a nine-page letter to the Texas Supreme Court launched with the approval of each at the moment serving FTC Commissioners.
The letter reads partially:
we recommend the Proposed Modification and commend that it could eradicate the present rule’s delegation of authority to the American Bar Affiliation (ABA). The ABA shouldn’t function a gatekeeper to a vital side of admission to the authorized occupation. Such management by the ABA is inimical to the rules on which competitors legislation relaxation. The ABA is dominated by training attorneys, who’ve robust pursuits in limiting competitors for authorized companies. As such, the present rule raises severe aggressive dangers by so broadly delegating to the ABA the state’s authority to set eligibility necessities for admission to the Texas bar. It successfully offers the ABA, a corporation that has beforehand flouted the rule of legislation it purports to advertise, the flexibility to exclude market members who would compete with its members. We encourage the Courtroom to reclaim its authority to develop alternatives for certified people to supply authorized companies to the Texas public as envisioned by the Proposed Modification.
It concludes:
The ABA ought to now not have “the ultimate say on whether or not a legislation faculty’s graduates are eligible to sit down for the Texas bar examination.”49 The ABA’s requirements for accreditation seem to go far past what is fairly essential to guarantee ample preparation for the apply of legislation in Texas, growing the price of a authorized training. The present rule due to this fact probably causes Texas to forgo admitting many probably certified legal professionals who may present wanted authorized companies to the Texas public.
The Proposed Modification is a vital step in weakening the ABA’s enduring monopoly and ensuing energy to impose expensive, overly burdensome legislation faculty accreditation necessities. It’s no coincidence that in its 1995 lawsuit difficult the ABA’s anticompetitive conduct, the DOJ pressured that the ABA’s energy over legislation faculties comes, partially, from state mandates: “ABA approval is vital to the profitable operation of a legislation faculty” as a result of the “bar admission guidelines in over 40 States require commencement from an ABA-approved legislation faculty with a view to fulfill the authorized training requirement for taking the bar examination.”50 Thirty years later, little has modified but. The Proposed Modification is a laudable first step. We commend the Texas Supreme Courtroom for its initiative to disrupt the anticompetitive established order and encourage different states to take related steps.
FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson additionally commented on the proposal in this Twitter thread.
I mentioned the potential finish of the ABA’s accreditation monopoly here. Derek Muller analyzed the Texas proposal here. Civitas Outlook sponsored a symposium on the Texas Supreme Courtroom’s proposal here.
