I wrote elsewhere about Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) writing to the President of the ABA, Stephen Zack, asking some quite pointed questions about just how rigorous their law school accreditation standards are.
And on a related note I analyzed New York Law School Dean Richard Matasar’s rejoinder to a lengthy bill of particulars published in The New York Times last Sunday about law schools’ addiction to ever-larger class sizes and ever-higher tuition rates.
Well now the ABA has produced a response to Sen. Grassley and it’s hard to imagine a more disappointing reply. Dare I say it borders on the delusional?
Both the WSJ Law Blog and Above The Law have it covered, each in their characteristic tone of voice, but I have an additional and slightly different take.
[WSJ: The gist of the ABA’s response, to our eyes, is: Don’t worry, we’re paying close enough attention to law schools. Given the hue and cry about law schools in recent years, we’re guessing some may not find this response satisfactory.] [Above the Law: If you’ve been following the ABA closely, you’re not going to be surprised by the response. It’s the usual ABA combination of whining that they can’t do better while arguing that they don’t need to do better.]President Zack manages to come across as both above the fray and craven in kowtowing to the Senate Judiciary Committee:
“No one could be more focused on the future of our next generation of lawyers than the ABA” (hypocritically ingratiating) and the one that I find personally galling: “Much of this issue revolves around students making informed, thoughtful choices. The ABA distributes information that can help.”
But no one can steal pride of place for a naked two-faced response than the ABA’s law school section (whose response accompanied Zack’s letter):
“The purpose of accredited law schools is to graduate attorneys who can serve the justice system and the long term need for lawyers over a lifetime. Denying accreditation to an otherwise-qualified law school would be a violation of Department of Education regulations. Furthermore, adjustments in the numbers of students enrolling in law school to begin their careers cannot and should not be affected by short-range economic developments. The Section does monitor enrollments and placement and distributes information on both. However, as indicated above, regardless of what some may see as the desirability of denying access to the legal profession on the basis of even medium-term employment opportunities, the accrediting agency simply cannot lawfully do so.”
What we have here is yet another attempt to hide behind the rhetoric of the free market (far be it from us to be in the business of “denying access to the legal profession”), while the despicable sorry track record of the law school section is to do all it can short of re-writing history to deny prospective, current, and former law students:
- full,
- accurate,
- and fair
information about:
- post-graduation employment rates,
- post-graduation salary distributions,
- scholarship retention-vs.-forfeiture distributions,
- and debt burdens.
In other words, the ABA law school section–yes, in league with altogether too many of the third-tier and below law schools–is doing everything within its power to ensure there is no such thing as an informed, functioning, robust free market.
This is surely one of the few times I’ve found myself tempted to write this, so enjoy the novelty while you can: This calls out for federal intervention.
