Comments begin rolling in on ABA’s role in Bar admission requirements
After decades of advising trial attorneys, including work on a $200 billion national tobacco settlement, Ft. Lauderdale litigation consultant Robert Philipson doesn’t see why he should be required to earn a law degree to take the Florida Bar Exam.
“[T]he current system provides no viable pathway for experienced professionals like me to pursue licensure without returning to law school and spending three years in a classroom, despite having more than 30 years of practical, real-world legal experience.”
Philipson is one of a handful of writers who submitted comments to the Judicial Management Council’s “Workgroup on the Role of the American Bar Association in Bar Admission Requirements.”
Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz created the workgroup in a March order, noting that “with very limited exceptions,” Supreme Court rules regarding admission require a degree from an ABA-accredited law school as a prerequisite for sitting for the Florida Bar Examination.
“The Court is interested in considering the merits of the rules’ continued reliance on the ABA and whether changes to the rules are warranted,” the order states.
Ricky Polston
Chaired by former Supreme Court Justice Ricky Polston, a Tallahassee attorney, the workgroup’s charges include:
- Examining the court’s existing rules as they relate to the ABA’s role in accrediting law schools and the requirements for admission to The Florida Bar.
- Studying related requirements in Florida, other states, and federal laws, rules and regulations.
- Evaluating the pros and cons of Florida’s regulatory status quo as it relates to the ABA’s role in the requirements for admission to the Bar.
- Presenting to the court any possible alternatives that might merit the court’s consideration, including alternatives that would end the rules’ reliance on the ABA.
A report is due to the Supreme Court by September 30.
In May, the workgroup invited public comments. Material may be sent to [email protected]. No deadline is set, but early submissions are recommended and “brevity and direct relevance are appreciated.”
The “ABA Council for the Section on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar” invited workgroup members to a May meeting and offered itself as an information resource, stressing “its separate and independent status from the larger ABA.”
Philipson, the litigation consultant, recommends “an alternative, experienced-based pathway to licensure,” but mentions no concerns with the ABA.
Several commenters applaud the workgroup’s focus on the ABA and its role in the admissions process.
“I am a long-time member of the American Bar Association (‘ABA’) and relatively active member of the Tort & Insurance Practice Section and serve as a co-chair of the Annual Survey of Law,” writes Ft. Myers attorney Mark Boyle. “While I recognize the ABA has some beneficial functions, particularly in narrow practice groups, I have become increasingly disappointed in the ABA’s overt lack of political neutrality.”
Two critics of ABA accreditation have ties to Purdue Global Law School. Billing itself as “the nation’s first fully online law school,” Purdue Global is not accredited by the ABA.
“The rationale for moving beyond an ABA-only regime is clear,” writes Purdue Global Dean Matin Pritikin of Los Angeles. “The ABA Standards for Approval of Law Schools (‘ABA Standards’), while well-intentioned, include one-size-fits-all provisions that create barriers to innovation and increase tuition.”
In a lengthy white paper, Pritikin argues that fully online law schools can offer high-quality education at a third of the cost of traditional law schools, and that the students who attend them tend to be working class and more likely to practice in underserved areas.
At least half a dozen states have alternative methods for reviewing and approving law schools, Pritikin argues. California permits graduates of non-ABA accredited law schools to take the California Bar Exam, he notes.
“Graduates of ABA and non-ABA law schools alike should be given the same opportunity to sit for Florida’s bar exam upon graduation. If they can pass that exam, as well as Florida’s moral character screening process, they should be permitted to practice,” he writes.
Quincy attorney and consultant Cheryl Sattler is a 2019 Purdue Global graduate.
Sattler says she entered Concord Law School (now Purdue Global) in her 40s while she was a sole proprietor of a small business. An online program is the only way in her part of North Florida to earn a law degree and a living at the same time, Sattler writes.
“I entered Concord fully understanding that I would face hurdles to the practice of law in my home state of Florida,” she writes. “However, it was difficult to conceptualize the full extent of those hurdles in advance.”
Since graduating and passing the California Bar Exam in 2019, Sattler has maintained a pro bono practice. Under Supreme Court Rule Relating to Admissions to the Bar 4-13.4(a), Sattler submitted a compilation of five years of work to the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, along with letters of recommendation and a moral character application.
It’s still not clear, Sattler writes, whether she will be eligible to sit for the Florida Bar Exam in July. She calls the alternate process time consuming, “discouraging and costly.”
If technical competence is measured solely by passing all parts of the Florida Bar Examination, it shouldn’t matter where a student went to law school, she argues.
“I urge the workgroup to eliminate the ABA accreditation requirement.”
Ft. Lauderdale insurance attorney and commenter Steven K. Sorenson strongly disagrees. He recommends that Florida maintain the status quo.
“Deregulating the profession of law is an outcome that will lead to the profession’s demise in my opinion,” Sorenson writes. “The less tethered lawyers are to a governing body the more mercenary they will become.”
