Amidst the gavel’s echo and the weighty tomes of jurisprudence, a murmuring dissent rises from the corridors of legal academia. Deans from a cohort of esteemed law schools, a cadre numbering 26, have penned a missive to the American Bar Association (ABA), beseeching a halt to a proposed paradigm shift. Their plea: to withhold the ABA’s imprimatur from fully online law schools until a more exhaustive dossier, replete with employment metrics and bar passage rates, is tendered for inspection.
The veracity of this appeal lies in its substance, as articulated by luminaries such as those from the venerable University of California, Berkeley School of Law, the erudite bastion of legal knowledge that is the University of Houston Law Center, and the Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law. These august institutions aver that the rationale underpinning the ABA’s dalliance with accrediting solely physical law schools remains shrouded in ambiguity.
At the heart of the matter lies the ABA’s dalliance with altering its accreditation standards to encompass fully online law schools, a proposition that proponents argue would democratize access to legal education while mitigating the fiscal burdens inherent in procuring a juris doctorate. Proponents paint a picture of a legal landscape broadened, where graduates of these virtual sanctuaries of legal erudition could traverse state boundaries, armed with the imprimatur of ABA approval, to sit for bar examinations.
Yet, amidst the clamor of support, dissenting voices punctuate the discourse. The Illinois Board of Bar Admissions cautions against the dissolution of the venerable tradition of in-person instruction, emphasizing the irreplaceable value of face-to-face interaction within the crucible of legal pedagogy. Dean Alberto Gonzales, a legal luminary in his own right and erstwhile U.S. Attorney General, issues a solemn admonition: the accreditation of online law schools poses an existential threat to the hallowed halls of brick-and-mortar institutions, beckoning forth an era where quality is sacrificed at the altar of convenience.
In this crucible of contention, the ABA finds itself ensconced, buoyed by letters of support from quarters both expected and unexpected. Purdue Global Law School’s stalwart advocates, stalwarts of the virtual legal realm, rally to its defense, championing the cause of online legal education. The State Bar of Montana and the Indiana Supreme Court, stalwart sentinels of jurisprudence, stand as witnesses to the potential boon of accrediting online law schools, citing the dire need to address attorney shortages that blight their lands.
As the ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar prepares to convene in May, the scales of justice teeter upon a precipice. Will the hallowed halls of legal academia embrace the digital zeitgeist, or shall tradition hold sway, resolute in its fidelity to the tactile rigors of legal instruction? The verdict lies in the balance, awaiting the final pronouncement of those entrusted with safeguarding the sanctity of legal pedagogy.
