The American Bar Association’s latest proposal to double mandatory hands-on learning credits for law students has sparked a firestorm—not of applause, but of protest.
At the heart of the storm is the ABA’s plan to increase required experiential learning credits from six to twelve, with a catch: at least three of those credits must come from a legal clinic or field placement. While the intention is to better align legal education with real-world practice, a chorus of law school deans and educators say the move is misfiring on almost every front.
The backlash isn’t a whisper—it’s a full-throated objection from more than 50 law deans across the country, including the heavyweights from Yale, Stanford, and NYU. Their collective message? Slow down. Rethink. The timing is a disaster.
In a detailed letter, the deans argue that law schools are already navigating a maze of financial pressures, student visa uncertainties, and reduced federal support. Nonprofits that once offered externships are shrinking, and government externships are evaporating as the federal workforce contracts. With less space to place students and less cash to build clinics, they say the ABA’s mandate is less a helping hand and more a tightening noose.
Then there’s the issue of curriculum control. Many schools feel the proposal steps on academic autonomy and could box them into a rigid model that kills innovation. Others warned that the plan would hit part-time students particularly hard—those who balance full-time jobs and take night classes may struggle to squeeze in supervised experiential credits.
Former Georgetown Law Dean William Treanor painted a stark picture of what compliance would look like: eight new clinics or 17 new externship seminars in just three years—this, despite most of their grads already meeting the proposed standard.
Supporters of the change do exist. Groups like the Clinical Legal Education Association argue that students deserve more than lectures and casebooks—they need practice. They also reject the idea that more experiential learning would break the bank. But the numbers don’t lie: out of 37 public comments submitted to the ABA, a majority—21—either opposed the plan outright or urged a delay.
The ABA, for its part, has stayed silent amid the blowback. Whether the proposal will proceed as scheduled—or get sent back to the drawing board—could be decided as early as August.
In the words of the deans: meaningful reform requires thoughtful pace, not reckless speed. Whether the ABA listens remains to be seen.
