- Joined
- Dec 28, 2025
Don’t dox yourselves, retards.
Law School Rankings
Does it matter anymore?
It seems that BigLaw is much more friendly toward lower ranked schools these days, so long as you’re at the top of your class. Is this because Harvard students are now whiny, entitled cunts? Or, have they just realized that they will have a more loyal associate if they give them a leg up? …Or, are they just cheaper?
Bar Prep Programs
Barbri vs. Themis
Honestly, these are the only two anyone I know uses. Are there others that aren’t a complete waste of money?
Is it worth it to buy Critical Pass? I’ve heard their flashcards are very helpful for the MEE.
For the KiwiLawFag who needs direction, it would be nice to have a collection of decent resources.
https://www.quimbee.com/ (not free, but worth the money IMO).
https://samuelbutcher.net/120.html (just basic MEE rules).
Law School Rankings
Does it matter anymore?
It seems that BigLaw is much more friendly toward lower ranked schools these days, so long as you’re at the top of your class. Is this because Harvard students are now whiny, entitled cunts? Or, have they just realized that they will have a more loyal associate if they give them a leg up? …Or, are they just cheaper?
Bar Prep Programs
Barbri vs. Themis
Honestly, these are the only two anyone I know uses. Are there others that aren’t a complete waste of money?
Is it worth it to buy Critical Pass? I’ve heard their flashcards are very helpful for the MEE.
For the KiwiLawFag who needs direction, it would be nice to have a collection of decent resources.
https://www.quimbee.com/ (not free, but worth the money IMO).
https://samuelbutcher.net/120.html (just basic MEE rules).
Forgive me if this is required to be placed in A&H since it includes articles. Thank you to whichever mod moves/edits in that event.
University of Arkansas withdraws incoming law dean’s offer in wake of Republican complaints
By: Andrew DeMillo, Antoinette Grajeda, Tess Vrbin and Ainsley Platt
Updated January 16, 202612:28 pm
The University of Arkansas abruptly revoked its offer to the incoming dean of its law school following complaints from key Republicans about her background and legal positions on transgender athletes, sparking complaints that the move violated academic freedom and would chill faculty speech.
The school cited “key external stakeholders” in its decision to withdraw its offer to Emily Suski less than a week after she was announced as the law school’s new dean.
The university said in a statement that it “decided to go a different direction in filling the vacancy” following feedback “about the fit” between Suski and the university’s vacancy. UA spokesperson John Thomas said, to his knowledge, something like this hasn’t happened at the law school previously, and next steps are still being determined.
Suski said Thursday night that she was honored to be selected for the position and “was preparing to serve the students, faculty, and the state of Arkansas with integrity and commitment.”
“I am disappointed and hurt by the University’s decision to rescind my contract,” Suski said in an email. “I have been informed that the decision was not in any way a reflection of my qualifications to serve as dean, but rather the result of influence from external individuals. Questions concerning that feedback are best directed to the University of Arkansas.”
The about-face by the university came eight days after it sent Suski a signed letter offering her a total annual compensation of $350,000, subject to the approval of the UA Board of Trustees, according to records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.
“University officials are very grateful for Professor Suski’s interest in the position and continue to hold Professor Suski in high regard,” the statement reads. “We wish Professor Suski well as she moves forward with her career.”
The move comes as Republican lawmakers in Arkansas and elsewhere have taken steps to restrict what can be taught in the classroom. Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who has advocated for prohibiting transgender athletes, has complained about schools indoctrinating students.
One of the lawmakers who objected to Suski’s appointment was Senate President Pro Tempore Bart Hester, a Cave Springs Republican.
“There’s no way the people of Arkansas want somebody running and educating our next generation of lawyers and judges [to be] someone that doesn’t understand the difference between a man and a woman,” said Hester, who also cited Suski’s position on transgender athletes as a concern.
Suski had been one of 17 law professors who had signed on to a brief defending transgender students’ right to play on the teams of their gender identity. The brief was filed before the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard a pair of cases about state laws banning transgender athletes.
Arkansas has a similar law in effect.
“Although Title IX does not guarantee a student a right to win or even make the team, supra, it does protect every student from being denied the benefits of school sports based on sex, including sex-based generalizations that do not apply to them,” the brief Suski joined said.
American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas Executive Director Holly Dickson called on the university to reverse its decision, saying the move was unconstitutional. Suski’s decision to sign an amicus brief was not unusual nor controversial, Dickson said.
“The implications are staggering. This sends a chilling message to every faculty member: stay silent or risk your career,” Dickson wrote in the statement. “It tells future educators to look elsewhere. It damages the credibility of the University of Arkansas School of Law and its ability to function as a serious institution committed to independent thought and rigorous legal education.”
Suski hiring prompted GOP complaints
Hester said he was surprised that “this person who has these beliefs made it through the initial scanning processes.” He also said he heard from several concerned individuals as soon as Suski’s selection was made public.
Hester said he didn’t threaten to withhold funding, but “there’s just a basic understanding that the legislature controls the purse strings.”
Republican Attorney General Tim Griffin also had raised concerns about Suski, his office said.
“The Attorney General simply expressed his dismay at the selection and his confidence that many more qualified candidates could have been identified,” spokesperson Jeff LeMaster said. “He never requested or even contemplated that the offer be rescinded, but he applauds the decision nonetheless.”
Sam Dubke, a spokesperson for Sanders, wouldn’t say whether the governor was involved in the university’s decision.
“Governor Sanders appreciates the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, for reaching the commonsense decision on this matter in the best interests of students,” Dubke said in a statement.
Republican Lt. Gov. Leslie Rutledge was also supportive of the university’s decision.
House Speaker Brian Evans, a Republican from Cabot, said while his office isn’t involved in university hiring decisions, “we are confident the university will ultimately identify and select a strong candidate for this important role.”
Critics decry “horrifying” abuse of power
Rep. Nicole Clowney, a Fayetteville Democrat and adjunct lecturer at the law school, said in a social media post that she was concerned about the university’s aboutface.
“I am still gathering information but based on what I’ve learned so far, it seems clear that what happened is a horrifying, unprecedented, and absolutely unconstitutional abuse of state power,” Clowney said.
Suski is a professor and associate dean at University of South Carolina’s Joseph F. Rice School of Law. Suski’s areas of expertise include education law, particularly Title IX and civil rights in public schools; health and poverty law; and clinical legal education, according to her USC biography. She holds degrees from Georgetown University Law Center and the University of North Carolina.
The University of Arkansas’ decision to rescind its offer to the incoming dean of its law school sparked mixed reactions on Jan. 15, 2025. (Photo by Antoinette Grajeda/Arkansas Advocate)
Issac Kamola, director of the American Association of University Professors’ Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom, said the move fits with broader attacks on academic freedom in recent years and the start of the second Trump administration.
It’s “really chilling” that the decision cited feedback from unnamed, external stakeholders, he said.
“This is an extension of the attacks on higher education and it’s an attack on the notion of shared governance,” Kamola said.
Susan Goldberg, lead counsel on the brief Suski signed, said penalizing law professors for sharing their expertise with courts would be a loss for society and the legal system. She said the brief dealt with a very narrow issue.
“My first reaction was to wonder if they had actually read the brief,” said Goldbert, a professor at Columbia University’s law school and expert on gender law. “It’s a brief that presents a narrow and careful argument for why these cases should be sent back to the lower court.”
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, an advocacy group for university student and faculty rights, condemned the university’s decision as “political interference in academic decision-making” and a threat to academic freedom.
“The University of Arkansas’ shameful capitulation to political pressure betrays its commitment to Professor Suski and threatens the rights of all who teach, study, and work there,” FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley said. “The message to every dean, professor, and researcher is unmistakable: Your job hinges on whether politicians approve of your views.”
By: Andrew DeMillo, Antoinette Grajeda, Tess Vrbin and Ainsley Platt
Updated January 16, 202612:28 pm
The University of Arkansas abruptly revoked its offer to the incoming dean of its law school following complaints from key Republicans about her background and legal positions on transgender athletes, sparking complaints that the move violated academic freedom and would chill faculty speech.
The school cited “key external stakeholders” in its decision to withdraw its offer to Emily Suski less than a week after she was announced as the law school’s new dean.
The university said in a statement that it “decided to go a different direction in filling the vacancy” following feedback “about the fit” between Suski and the university’s vacancy. UA spokesperson John Thomas said, to his knowledge, something like this hasn’t happened at the law school previously, and next steps are still being determined.
Suski said Thursday night that she was honored to be selected for the position and “was preparing to serve the students, faculty, and the state of Arkansas with integrity and commitment.”
“I am disappointed and hurt by the University’s decision to rescind my contract,” Suski said in an email. “I have been informed that the decision was not in any way a reflection of my qualifications to serve as dean, but rather the result of influence from external individuals. Questions concerning that feedback are best directed to the University of Arkansas.”
The about-face by the university came eight days after it sent Suski a signed letter offering her a total annual compensation of $350,000, subject to the approval of the UA Board of Trustees, according to records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.
“University officials are very grateful for Professor Suski’s interest in the position and continue to hold Professor Suski in high regard,” the statement reads. “We wish Professor Suski well as she moves forward with her career.”
The move comes as Republican lawmakers in Arkansas and elsewhere have taken steps to restrict what can be taught in the classroom. Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who has advocated for prohibiting transgender athletes, has complained about schools indoctrinating students.
One of the lawmakers who objected to Suski’s appointment was Senate President Pro Tempore Bart Hester, a Cave Springs Republican.
“There’s no way the people of Arkansas want somebody running and educating our next generation of lawyers and judges [to be] someone that doesn’t understand the difference between a man and a woman,” said Hester, who also cited Suski’s position on transgender athletes as a concern.
Suski had been one of 17 law professors who had signed on to a brief defending transgender students’ right to play on the teams of their gender identity. The brief was filed before the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard a pair of cases about state laws banning transgender athletes.
Arkansas has a similar law in effect.
“Although Title IX does not guarantee a student a right to win or even make the team, supra, it does protect every student from being denied the benefits of school sports based on sex, including sex-based generalizations that do not apply to them,” the brief Suski joined said.
American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas Executive Director Holly Dickson called on the university to reverse its decision, saying the move was unconstitutional. Suski’s decision to sign an amicus brief was not unusual nor controversial, Dickson said.
“The implications are staggering. This sends a chilling message to every faculty member: stay silent or risk your career,” Dickson wrote in the statement. “It tells future educators to look elsewhere. It damages the credibility of the University of Arkansas School of Law and its ability to function as a serious institution committed to independent thought and rigorous legal education.”
Suski hiring prompted GOP complaints
Hester said he was surprised that “this person who has these beliefs made it through the initial scanning processes.” He also said he heard from several concerned individuals as soon as Suski’s selection was made public.
Hester said he didn’t threaten to withhold funding, but “there’s just a basic understanding that the legislature controls the purse strings.”
Republican Attorney General Tim Griffin also had raised concerns about Suski, his office said.
“The Attorney General simply expressed his dismay at the selection and his confidence that many more qualified candidates could have been identified,” spokesperson Jeff LeMaster said. “He never requested or even contemplated that the offer be rescinded, but he applauds the decision nonetheless.”
Sam Dubke, a spokesperson for Sanders, wouldn’t say whether the governor was involved in the university’s decision.
“Governor Sanders appreciates the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, for reaching the commonsense decision on this matter in the best interests of students,” Dubke said in a statement.
Republican Lt. Gov. Leslie Rutledge was also supportive of the university’s decision.
House Speaker Brian Evans, a Republican from Cabot, said while his office isn’t involved in university hiring decisions, “we are confident the university will ultimately identify and select a strong candidate for this important role.”
Critics decry “horrifying” abuse of power
Rep. Nicole Clowney, a Fayetteville Democrat and adjunct lecturer at the law school, said in a social media post that she was concerned about the university’s aboutface.
“I am still gathering information but based on what I’ve learned so far, it seems clear that what happened is a horrifying, unprecedented, and absolutely unconstitutional abuse of state power,” Clowney said.
Suski is a professor and associate dean at University of South Carolina’s Joseph F. Rice School of Law. Suski’s areas of expertise include education law, particularly Title IX and civil rights in public schools; health and poverty law; and clinical legal education, according to her USC biography. She holds degrees from Georgetown University Law Center and the University of North Carolina.
The University of Arkansas’ decision to rescind its offer to the incoming dean of its law school sparked mixed reactions on Jan. 15, 2025. (Photo by Antoinette Grajeda/Arkansas Advocate)
Issac Kamola, director of the American Association of University Professors’ Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom, said the move fits with broader attacks on academic freedom in recent years and the start of the second Trump administration.
It’s “really chilling” that the decision cited feedback from unnamed, external stakeholders, he said.
“This is an extension of the attacks on higher education and it’s an attack on the notion of shared governance,” Kamola said.
Susan Goldberg, lead counsel on the brief Suski signed, said penalizing law professors for sharing their expertise with courts would be a loss for society and the legal system. She said the brief dealt with a very narrow issue.
“My first reaction was to wonder if they had actually read the brief,” said Goldbert, a professor at Columbia University’s law school and expert on gender law. “It’s a brief that presents a narrow and careful argument for why these cases should be sent back to the lower court.”
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, an advocacy group for university student and faculty rights, condemned the university’s decision as “political interference in academic decision-making” and a threat to academic freedom.
“The University of Arkansas’ shameful capitulation to political pressure betrays its commitment to Professor Suski and threatens the rights of all who teach, study, and work there,” FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley said. “The message to every dean, professor, and researcher is unmistakable: Your job hinges on whether politicians approve of your views.”
Florida joins Texas in limiting ABA's law school oversight role
By Karen Sloan
January 16, 20263:55 PM ESTUpdated January 16, 2026
Jan 16 (Reuters) - Florida has become the second U.S. state to reduce its reliance on the American Bar Association to determine graduates of which law school can become lawyers, following Texas.
The Supreme Court of Florida said in an opinion on Thursday that it was replacing the ABA as the “sole accrediting agency” for law schools whose graduates may take the state’s bar exam, which is a requirement to practice in the state.
Graduates of ABA law schools are still eligible to take Florida’s exam, but the court said it plans to extend bar eligibility to law schools approved by other federally recognized accrediting agencies — though it noted that no such agencies currently have rules specific to law schools. The court said it will contact other accrediting agencies to gauge their interest in approving law schools.
“The court’s goal is to promote access to high-quality, affordable legal education in law schools that are committed to the free exchange of ideas and to the principle of nondiscrimination,” the court said in a 5-1 ruling.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican, called the decision a “good move” in a post on X. “The (highly partisan) ABA should not be a gatekeeper for legal education or the legal profession,” he wrote.
Jenn Rosato Perea, the ABA’s managing director of accreditation and legal education, said in a statement that the order “reinforces the authority” which the Florida court has always had over lawyer licensing there, and that the ABA will continue to improve its standards and promote the benefits of a national accreditation system.
The Supreme Court of Texas finalized a similar plan on January 6, saying it planned to develop its own criteria to approve non-ABA accredited law schools and allow their graduates to be licensed to practice. Ohio and Tennessee are also reviewing their ABA requirements.
The states' moves to shrink the ABA's oversight come amid a wider conflict between the ABA and President Donald Trump’s administration, though the ABA’s law school accreditation arm operates independently from the larger ABA.
The association has clashed with the administration over Trump's attacks on judges and law firms. In April, Trump directed the Department of Education to assess whether to suspend or terminate the ABA council as the government’s official law school accreditor, citing its “unlawful ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ requirements.”
The U.S. Justice Department in May curtailed the ABA’s longstanding role in vetting judicial nominees and in April, barred its attorneys from traveling to or speaking at ABA events, saying the organization has been engaging in "activist causes."
A White House spokesperson in March had called the ABA a “snooty” organization of “leftist lawyers,” after the ABA condemned criticism of judges by administration officials. The ABA has sued the administration over canceled domestic violence grant funding and Trump's executive orders targeting individual law firms.
The lone dissenter in Thursday's opinion, Florida Justice Jorge Labarga called the state's changes to accreditation an “extraordinary step,” and said Florida’s reliance on the ABA has worked well since 1992.
“I strongly believe that the best course for our legal educational system, our legal system, our profession, and above all, for Floridians is to stay the course with the ABA as the sole law school accreditor,” Labarga wrote.
On Friday, the ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar which oversees law schools voted to establish a new body to handle accreditation matters, separate from the council's other business such as promoting best practices and convening leaders across legal education.
It also advanced a proposal that would limit the number of times the ABA’s policymaking body, called the House of Delegates, can weigh in on proposed changes to the law school accreditation standards.
Taken together, those changes— which are not yet final — would “reinforce the council’s independent decision making and make its processes more efficient,” said the ABA's Perea
By Karen Sloan
January 16, 20263:55 PM ESTUpdated January 16, 2026
Jan 16 (Reuters) - Florida has become the second U.S. state to reduce its reliance on the American Bar Association to determine graduates of which law school can become lawyers, following Texas.
The Supreme Court of Florida said in an opinion on Thursday that it was replacing the ABA as the “sole accrediting agency” for law schools whose graduates may take the state’s bar exam, which is a requirement to practice in the state.
Graduates of ABA law schools are still eligible to take Florida’s exam, but the court said it plans to extend bar eligibility to law schools approved by other federally recognized accrediting agencies — though it noted that no such agencies currently have rules specific to law schools. The court said it will contact other accrediting agencies to gauge their interest in approving law schools.
“The court’s goal is to promote access to high-quality, affordable legal education in law schools that are committed to the free exchange of ideas and to the principle of nondiscrimination,” the court said in a 5-1 ruling.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican, called the decision a “good move” in a post on X. “The (highly partisan) ABA should not be a gatekeeper for legal education or the legal profession,” he wrote.
Jenn Rosato Perea, the ABA’s managing director of accreditation and legal education, said in a statement that the order “reinforces the authority” which the Florida court has always had over lawyer licensing there, and that the ABA will continue to improve its standards and promote the benefits of a national accreditation system.
The Supreme Court of Texas finalized a similar plan on January 6, saying it planned to develop its own criteria to approve non-ABA accredited law schools and allow their graduates to be licensed to practice. Ohio and Tennessee are also reviewing their ABA requirements.
The states' moves to shrink the ABA's oversight come amid a wider conflict between the ABA and President Donald Trump’s administration, though the ABA’s law school accreditation arm operates independently from the larger ABA.
The association has clashed with the administration over Trump's attacks on judges and law firms. In April, Trump directed the Department of Education to assess whether to suspend or terminate the ABA council as the government’s official law school accreditor, citing its “unlawful ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ requirements.”
The U.S. Justice Department in May curtailed the ABA’s longstanding role in vetting judicial nominees and in April, barred its attorneys from traveling to or speaking at ABA events, saying the organization has been engaging in "activist causes."
A White House spokesperson in March had called the ABA a “snooty” organization of “leftist lawyers,” after the ABA condemned criticism of judges by administration officials. The ABA has sued the administration over canceled domestic violence grant funding and Trump's executive orders targeting individual law firms.
The lone dissenter in Thursday's opinion, Florida Justice Jorge Labarga called the state's changes to accreditation an “extraordinary step,” and said Florida’s reliance on the ABA has worked well since 1992.
“I strongly believe that the best course for our legal educational system, our legal system, our profession, and above all, for Floridians is to stay the course with the ABA as the sole law school accreditor,” Labarga wrote.
On Friday, the ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar which oversees law schools voted to establish a new body to handle accreditation matters, separate from the council's other business such as promoting best practices and convening leaders across legal education.
It also advanced a proposal that would limit the number of times the ABA’s policymaking body, called the House of Delegates, can weigh in on proposed changes to the law school accreditation standards.
Taken together, those changes— which are not yet final — would “reinforce the council’s independent decision making and make its processes more efficient,” said the ABA's Perea
US law schools face loan limits, oversight pressures in 2026
By Karen Sloan
Updated January 5, 2026
Jan 5 (Reuters) - U.S. law schools are heading into a challenging year, with major financial and oversight changes on the horizon even as the application pool has soared. Here are some of the top issues law schools are watching out for in 2026.
STUDENT LOANS
Looming over all law schools this year is the question of how future students will fund their education.
President Donald Trump’s 2025 budget bill capped annual professional degree borrowing at $50,000, with a cumulative cap of $200,000. That's a big change for students attending the priciest law schools, who have been able to borrow their full costs under the current system.
More than half of the 197 American Bar Association-accredited law schools had full-time annual tuition above $50,000 in 2024, according to an analysis by the Law School Admission Council’s LawHub, while 29 had tuition of $70,000 or more. Those figures don’t include living costs such as food and rent.
That means many law students starting in the fall will have to find alternative funding if they max out their annual $50,000 federal borrowing limit. Experts say most will end up taking out private student loans, which could mean higher interest rates and denials for students with fewer financial resources.
The Santa Clara University School of Law in September said it will give guaranteed annual scholarships of $16,000 to all new students this year to bring its current $63,280 tuition below the new cap.
ACCREDITATION
The American Bar Association’s longstanding role as the nation’s primary law school accreditor came under fire in 2025, with attacks from the White House and a handful of Republican-led states.
The ABA will likely remain under the microscope throughout the year as it launches a sweeping effort to streamline its law school standards and make them less burdensome.
Texas' Supreme Court is planning to develop its own system to determine which law schools’ graduates may sit for the state’s bar exam — replacing ABA accreditation as the standard. Other states could follow suit. Florida, Ohio, and Tennessee have each said they are reviewing their own ABA requirements.
Much of the recent pushback against the ABA stems from its diversity and inclusion rules for law schools, which are now suspended and may be eliminated altogether. Trump in April called the rules “unlawful” and directed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to assess whether to suspend or terminate the ABA as the government’s official law school accreditor.
Others claim the ABA’s myriad law school requirements have driven up the cost of legal education and hindered innovation.
NEW BAR EXAM AND LICENSURE REFORMS
The long-awaited new national bar exam — called the NextGen UBE — will debut in July when six states give the overhauled test.
The National Conference of Bar Examiners has been developing the exam since 2021 with the goal of testing practical skills better and deemphasizing memorization. The new test is shorter — a day and a half instead of two days-long — and will be given entirely by computer at in-person testing locations.
A handful of states have said they won’t use the revamped test, though California is reconsidering after its alternative online exam in February was plagued with problems. Nevada is moving to its own lawyer licensing process this year, combining multiple-choice and performance testing with supervised practice.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Law schools' adoption of artificial intelligence is poised to accelerate this year as legal educators become more comfortable with the technology and its use expands among lawyers.
At least eight law schools last year required at least some AI training for first-year students while student clubs dedicated to AI proliferated, with students bringing in experts to help them understand the potential impact of AI on their careers.
AI companies are also forging into legal education. As many as 17 law schools are now using legal AI platform Harvey.
ADMISSIONS BOOM
Law schools are likely to have plenty of students to choose from, building on a blockbuster admission cycle last year that saw an 18% increase in national applicants and an 8% surge in first-year enrollment.
As of late December, the national applicant pool was up 20% over the prior year, indicating that strong demand for a legal education will carry into 2026.
By Karen Sloan
Updated January 5, 2026
Jan 5 (Reuters) - U.S. law schools are heading into a challenging year, with major financial and oversight changes on the horizon even as the application pool has soared. Here are some of the top issues law schools are watching out for in 2026.
STUDENT LOANS
Looming over all law schools this year is the question of how future students will fund their education.
President Donald Trump’s 2025 budget bill capped annual professional degree borrowing at $50,000, with a cumulative cap of $200,000. That's a big change for students attending the priciest law schools, who have been able to borrow their full costs under the current system.
More than half of the 197 American Bar Association-accredited law schools had full-time annual tuition above $50,000 in 2024, according to an analysis by the Law School Admission Council’s LawHub, while 29 had tuition of $70,000 or more. Those figures don’t include living costs such as food and rent.
That means many law students starting in the fall will have to find alternative funding if they max out their annual $50,000 federal borrowing limit. Experts say most will end up taking out private student loans, which could mean higher interest rates and denials for students with fewer financial resources.
The Santa Clara University School of Law in September said it will give guaranteed annual scholarships of $16,000 to all new students this year to bring its current $63,280 tuition below the new cap.
ACCREDITATION
The American Bar Association’s longstanding role as the nation’s primary law school accreditor came under fire in 2025, with attacks from the White House and a handful of Republican-led states.
The ABA will likely remain under the microscope throughout the year as it launches a sweeping effort to streamline its law school standards and make them less burdensome.
Texas' Supreme Court is planning to develop its own system to determine which law schools’ graduates may sit for the state’s bar exam — replacing ABA accreditation as the standard. Other states could follow suit. Florida, Ohio, and Tennessee have each said they are reviewing their own ABA requirements.
Much of the recent pushback against the ABA stems from its diversity and inclusion rules for law schools, which are now suspended and may be eliminated altogether. Trump in April called the rules “unlawful” and directed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to assess whether to suspend or terminate the ABA as the government’s official law school accreditor.
Others claim the ABA’s myriad law school requirements have driven up the cost of legal education and hindered innovation.
NEW BAR EXAM AND LICENSURE REFORMS
The long-awaited new national bar exam — called the NextGen UBE — will debut in July when six states give the overhauled test.
The National Conference of Bar Examiners has been developing the exam since 2021 with the goal of testing practical skills better and deemphasizing memorization. The new test is shorter — a day and a half instead of two days-long — and will be given entirely by computer at in-person testing locations.
A handful of states have said they won’t use the revamped test, though California is reconsidering after its alternative online exam in February was plagued with problems. Nevada is moving to its own lawyer licensing process this year, combining multiple-choice and performance testing with supervised practice.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Law schools' adoption of artificial intelligence is poised to accelerate this year as legal educators become more comfortable with the technology and its use expands among lawyers.
At least eight law schools last year required at least some AI training for first-year students while student clubs dedicated to AI proliferated, with students bringing in experts to help them understand the potential impact of AI on their careers.
AI companies are also forging into legal education. As many as 17 law schools are now using legal AI platform Harvey.
ADMISSIONS BOOM
Law schools are likely to have plenty of students to choose from, building on a blockbuster admission cycle last year that saw an 18% increase in national applicants and an 8% surge in first-year enrollment.
As of late December, the national applicant pool was up 20% over the prior year, indicating that strong demand for a legal education will carry into 2026.
