103A

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES

AUGUST 11-12, 2014

RESOLUTION

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association House of Delegates concurs in the action of the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar in making amendments dated August 2014 to the ABA Standards for Approval of Law Schools.

103AAmerican Bar Association

Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar

Revised Standards for Approval of Law SchoolsAugust 2014

Strike-outs and underlines show changes from the current Standards.

As used in the Standards, Interpretations and Rules of Procedure:

(1) “Accreditation Committee” or “Committee” means the Accreditation Committee of the Section.

(2) “Approved law school” means a fully approved law school that the Council or Accreditation Committee has determined meets the requirements of Standard 103 or a provisionally approved law school that the Council or the Accreditation Committee has determined meets the requirements of Standard 102.

(3) “Association” means the American Bar Association.

(4) “Branch campus” means a type of separate location at which a student may earn more than two-thirds of the credit hours that the law school requires for the award of a J.D.

(5) “Council” means the Council of the Section.

(6) “Dean” means the chief administrative officer of a law school and includes an acting or interim dean.

(7) “Full-time faculty member” means an individual whose primary professional employment is with the law school, who is designated by the law school as a full-time faculty member, who devotes substantially all working time during the academic year to responsibilities described in Standard 404(a), and whose outside professional activities, other than those described in Standard 404(a), if any, do not unduly interfere with his or her responsibilities as a full-time faculty member.

(8) “Governing board” means a board of trustees, board of regents, or comparable body that has ultimate policy making authority for a law school or the university of which the law school is a part.

(9) “House” means the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association.

(10) “Interpretations” mean the Interpretations of the Standards for Approval of Law Schools.

(11) “J.D. degree” means the professional degree in law granted upon completion of a program of legal education that is governed by the Standards.

2

103A

(12) “Managing Director” means the Managing Director of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar of the American Bar Association.

(13) “President” means the chief executive officer of a university or, if the university has more than one administratively independent unit, of the independent unit. If a law school is not part of a university, “president” refers to the chief executive officer of any entity that owns the law school, if there is such a person, or else the Chair of the Board of Directors of the law school.

(14) “Probation” is a public status indicating that a law school is not being operated in compliance with the Standards and is at risk of having its approval withdrawn.

(15) “Rules” mean the Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools.

(16) “Section” means the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar of the American Bar Association.

(17) “Separate location” means a location within the United States at which the law school offers more than sixteen credit hours of the program of legal education and that is not in reasonable proximity to the law school’s main location.

(18) “Standards” mean the Standards for the Approval of Law Schools.

(19) “University” means a post-secondary educational institution, whether referred to as a university, college, or by any other name, that confers a baccalaureate degree (and may grant other degrees).

3

103AChapter 1 – GENERAL PURPOSES AND PRACTICES

Standard 101. BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL

(a) A law school seeking approval by the Council shall demonstrate that it is being operated in compliance with the Standards.

(b) Approval of a law school by the Council is not transferable. A transfer of all, or substantially all, of the academic programs or assets of (1) a law school or (2) a university or college of which the law school is a part does not include the transfer of the law school’s approval.

Standard 102. PROVISIONAL APPROVAL (a) The Council shall grant provisional approval to a law school if at the time the school seeks such approval it demonstrates that it has achieved substantial compliance with the Standards and presents a reliable plan for bringing the law school into full compliance with each of the Standards within three years after receiving provisional approval. In order to demonstrate that it has a reliable plan to come into full compliance with the Standards within three years after receiving provisional approval, a law school must clearly state the specific actions that it plans to take to bring the school into full compliance and demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that such actions will be successful. A provisionally approved law school may apply for full approval no earlier than two years after receiving provisional approval and must obtain full approval within five years after receiving provisional approval.

(b) The Council may withdraw provisional approval if the Council determines that the law school is no longer in substantial compliance with the Standards, is not making adequate progress toward achieving full compliance with each of the Standards, or is no longer able to demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that the school will achieve full compliance with each of the Standards within the allotted time frame.

(c) If five years have elapsed since the law school was provisionally approved and the Council has not granted full approval, provisional approval shall terminate. Before the end of the five-year period, in an extraordinary case and for good cause shown, the Council may extend the time within which the law school must obtain full approval.

(d) A provisionally approved law school shall not offer a post-J.D. degree program or other non-J.D. degree program, offer a program in a country outside the United States, or seek to establish a separate location.

(e) A provisionally approved law school shall state that it is provisionally approved in all of its printed and electronic materials describing the law school and its program and in any other publication that references the law school’s approval by the Council.

4

103A(f) A law school seeking provisional approval shall make its status clear in any printed and electronic materials describing the law school and its program and in any other publication that references the law school’s approval status. At a minimum, the law school shall state the following in all such communications:

The law school is not currently approved by the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar of the American Bar Association and makes no representation to any applicant that it will receive approval from the Council before the graduation of any matriculating student.

(g) A law school seeking provisional approval shall not delay conferring a J.D. upon a student in anticipation of obtaining approval. An approved law school may not retroactively grant a J.D. degree as an approved school to a student who graduated from the law school before its approval.

Interpretation 102-1Plans to achieve substantial compliance with any of the Standards are not sufficient to demonstrate substantial compliance.

Standard 103. FULL APPROVAL (a) The Council shall grant full approval to a provisionally approved law school if at the time the school seeks such approval it demonstrates that it is in full compliance with each of the Standards. Plans to achieve full compliance with any Standard are not sufficient to demonstrate full compliance.

(b) A law school granted approval under this Standard remains approved unless the Council withdraws that approval.

Standard 104. PROVISION OF INFORMATION BY LAW SCHOOLS TO ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE AND COUNCILA law school shall furnish a completed annual questionnaire, self-study, site evaluation questionnaire, and such other information as the Accreditation Committee or Council may require. This information must be complete, accurate, and not misleading, and must be submitted in the form, manner, and time frame specified by the Council.

Standard 105. ACQUIESCENCE FOR MAJOR CHANGE IN PROGRAM OR STRUCTURE

(a) Before a law school makes a major change in its program of legal education or organizational structure, it shall obtain the acquiescence of the Council for the change. A major change in program or structure that requires application for acquiescence includes:

(1) Acquiring another law school, program, or educational institution;

5

103A(2) Acquiring or merging with another university by the parent university where it appears that there may be substantial impact on the operation of the law school;

(3) Transferring all, or substantially all, of the program of legal education or assets of the approved law school to another law school or university;

(4) Merging or affiliating with one or more approved or unapproved law schools;

(5) Merging or affiliating with one or more universities;

(6) Materially modifying the law school’s legal status or institutional relationship with a parent institution;

(7) A change in control of the school resulting from a change in ownership of the school or a contractual arrangement;

(8) A change in the location of the school that could result in substantial changes in the faculty, administration, student body, or management of the school;

(9) Establishing a branch campus;

(10) Establishing a separate location;

(11) A significant change in the mission or objectives of the law school; and

(12) The addition of courses or programs since the most recent AC period , such as that represent a significant departure from existing offerings or method of delivery since the last most recent accreditation period including combined undergraduate and J.D. programs, such as 2/4, 4/2 programs, and programs leading to a J.D. and a first-degree program at foreign institution; instituting a new full-time or part-time division; or changing from a full-time to a part-time program or from a part-time to a full-time program;

(13) The addition of a permanent location at which the law school is conducting a teach-out for students at another law school that has ceased operating before all students have completed their program of study;

(14) Contracting with an educational entity that is not certified to participate in Title IV, HEA programs, that would permit a student to earn 25 percent or more of the course credits required for graduation from the approved law school;

(15) Establishing a new or different program leading to a degree other than the J.D. degree;

(16) A change in program length measurement from clock hours to credit hours; and

6

103A(17) A substantial increase in the number of clock or credit hours required for graduation.

(b) The Council shall grant acquiescence only if the law school demonstrates that the change will not detract from the law school’s ability to remain in compliance with the Standards.

Standard 106. SEPARATE LOCATIONS AND BRANCH CAMPUSES

(a) A law school that offers a separate location shall provide:

(1) Full-time faculty adequate to support the curriculum offered at the separate location and who are reasonably accessible to students at the separate location;

(2) Library resources and staff that are adequate to support the curriculum offered at the separate location and that are reasonably accessible to the student body at the separate location;

(3) Academic advising, career services and other student support services that are adequate to support the student body at the separate location and that are reasonably equivalent to such services offered to similarly situated students at the law school’s main location;

(4) Access to co-curricular activities and other educational benefits adequate to support the student body at the separate location; and

(5) Physical facilities and technological capacities that are adequate to support the curriculum and the student body at the separate location.

(b) In addition to the requirements of section (a), a branch campus must:

(1) Establish a reliable plan that demonstrates that the branch campus is reasonably likely to be in substantial compliance with each of the Standards within three years of the effective date of acquiescence as required by Rule 22;

(2) Comply with instructional requirements and responsibilities as required by Standard 403(a) and Standard 404(a); and

(3) Offer reasonably comparable opportunities for access to the law school’s program of legal education, courses taught by full-time faculty, student services, co-curricular programs, and other educational benefits as required by Standard 311.

(c) A law school is not eligible to establish a separate location until at least four years after the law school is granted initial full approval.

7

103AInterpretation 106-1“Separate location” and “branch campus” as used in this Standard are defined terms that apply only to locations at which a law school offers more than sixteen credits of the program of legal education.

Interpretation 106-2A law school with more than one location may have one dean for all locations.

Standard 107. VARIANCES

(a) A law school proposing to make any change that is or may be inconsistent with one or more of the Standards may apply to the Council for a variance only on one of the following bases:

(1) A law school may apply for a variance in response to extraordinary circumstances in which compliance with the relevant Standard or Standards would create or constitute extreme hardship for the law school and/or its students. In such cases, the law school must demonstrate that: i) the proposed variance is consistent with the general purposes and objectives of the overall Standards, and ii) the anticipated benefits of granting the variance outweigh any anticipated harms to the law school’s program or its students.

The variance, if granted, will be for a term certain and limited to the expected duration of the extraordinary circumstances on the basis of which it was granted. It may be extended once for a further term certain, but only if the extraordinary circumstances persist and are beyond the control of the law school.

The decision granting a variance on this basis may require the law school to report to the Managing Director, the Accreditation Committee, or the Council regularly as specified in the decision.

(2) In all variance applications that do not fall within subsection (a)(1), the law school must demonstrate that: i) the proposed variance is consistent with the general purposes and objectives of the overall Standards, ii) the proposed changes or actions that are the basis for the requested variance are experimental or innovative and have the potential to improve or advance the state of legal education, and iii) the anticipated benefits of granting the variance outweigh any anticipated harms to the law school’s program or its students.

The variance, if granted, shall be for a term certain and can be extended once, with the extension being for either a further term certain or indefinite, but subject to revocation on the basis of either a change in the showing made by the law school when the variance was granted or a change in circumstances.

8

103AThe decision granting a variance on this basis may require the law school to report to the Managing Director, the Accreditation Committee or the Council regularly as specified in the decision.

(b) If the changes that are the subject of the application for a variance constitute or come to constitute a major change in programs or structure under Standard 105 or 106, then the law school shall seek acquiescence by the Council in order to initiate or continue the changes.

(c) A variance, when granted, is school specific and shall be based on and limited to the facts and circumstances that existed at the law school at the time it applied for the variance.

9

103AChapter 2 - ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION

Standard 201. LAW SCHOOL GOVERNANCE

(a) The dean and the faculty shall have the primary responsibility and authority for planning, implementing, and administering the program of legal education of the law school, including curriculum,; methods of instruction and evaluation, admissions policies and procedures, and academic standards.

(b) The dean and the faculty shall recommend the selection, retention, promotion, and tenure (or granting of security of position) of members of the faculty.

(c) The dean and the faculty shall each have a significant role in determining educational policy.

(d) The policies of a university that are applicable to a law school shall be consistent with the Standards. The law school shall have separate policies where necessary to ensure compliance with the Standards.

(e) A law school that is not part of a university shall be governed by a board with responsibility and authority for ensuring operation of the law school in compliance with the Standards.

Standard 202. RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM

(a) The current and anticipated financial resources available to the law school shall be sufficient for it to operate in compliance with the Standards and to carry out its program of legal education.

(b) A law school that is part of a university shall obtain at least annually from its university an accounting and explanation for all charges and costs assessed against resources generated by the law school and for any use of resources generated by the law school to support non-law school activities and central university services.

(c) A law school is not in compliance with the Standards if its current financial condition has a negative and material effect on the school’s ability to operate in compliance with the Standards; or to carry out its program of legal education.

(d) A law school is not in compliance with the Standards if its anticipated financial condition is reasonably expected to have a negative and material effect on the school’s ability to operate in compliance with the Standards; or to carry out its program of legal education.

10

103A(e) A law school shall be given the opportunity to present its recommendations on budgetary matters to the university administration before the budget for the law school is submitted to the governing board for adoption.

Interpretation 202-1“Resources generated” includes law school tuition and fees, appropriated support, endowment restricted to the law school, gifts to the law school, and revenue from grants, contracts, and property of the law school.

Standard 203. DEAN

(a) A law school shall have a full-time dean with the authority and support necessary to discharge the responsibilities of the position.

(b) Except in extraordinary circumstances, a dean shall also hold appointment as a member of the faculty with tenure.

(c) The dean shall be selected by the university or the governing board of the law school, as appropriate, which shall have and follow a procedure for decanal appointment or reappointment that assures meaningful involvement by the faculty or a representative body of the faculty in the selection of a dean.

Interpretation 203-1Except for good cause, a dean should not be appointed or reappointed to a new term over the stated objection of a substantial majority of the faculty.

Interpretation 203-2In the appointment of an interim or acting dean, the university or the governing board of the law school, as appropriate, should follow a procedure that assures meaningful consultation with the faculty or a representative body of the faculty.

Interpretation 203-3The extension of an interim or acting dean’s service beyond two years is a regular decanal appointment or reappointment for the purposes of Standard 203(c).

Standard 204. SELF STUDY

Before each site evaluation visit the law school shall prepare a self-study comprised of (a) a completed site evaluation questionnaire, (b) a statement of the law school’s mission and of its educational objectives in support of that mission, (c) an assessment of the educational quality of the law school’s program, (d) an assessment of the school’s continuing efforts to improve educational quality, (e) an evaluation of the school’s effectiveness in achieving its stated educational objectives, and (f) a description of the strengths and weaknesses of the law school’s program of legal education.

Interpretation 204-1

11

103AThe evaluation of the school's effectiveness and description of its strengths and weaknesses should include a statement of the availability of sufficient resources to achieve the school's mission and its educational objectives.

Standard 205. NON-DISCRIMINATION AND EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY

(a) A law school shall not use admission policies or take other action to preclude admission of applicants or retention of students on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability.

(b) A law school shall foster and maintain equality of opportunity for students, faculty, and staff, without discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability.

(c) This Standard does not prevent a law school from having a religious affiliation or purpose and adopting and applying policies of admission of students and employment of faculty and staff that directly relate to this affiliation or purpose so long as (1) notice of these policies has been given to applicants, students, faculty, and staff before their affiliation with the law school, and (2) the religious affiliation, purpose, or policies do not contravene any other Standard, including Standard 405(b) concerning academic freedom. These policies may provide a preference for persons adhering to the religious affiliation or purpose of the law school, but may not be applied to use admission policies or take other action to preclude admission of applicants or retention of students on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability. This Standard permits religious affiliation or purpose policies as to admission, retention, and employment only to the extent that these policies are protected by the United States Constitution. It is administered as though the First Amendment of the United States Constitution governs its application.

(d) Non-discrimination and equality of opportunity in legal education includes equal employment opportunity. A law school shall communicate to every employer to whom it furnishes assistance and facilities for interviewing and other placement services the school’s firm expectation that the employer will observe the principles of non-discrimination and equality of opportunity on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age and disability in regard to hiring, promotion, retention and conditions of employment.

Interpretation 205-1A law school may not require applicants, students, faculty or employees to disclose their sexual orientation, although they may provide opportunities for them to do so voluntarily.

Interpretation 205-2So long as a school complies with Standard 205(c), the prohibition concerning sexual orientation does not require a religiously affiliated school to act inconsistently with the essential elements of its religious values and beliefs. For example, Standard 205(c) does not require a school to recognize or support organizations whose purposes or objectives with respect to sexual

12

103Aorientation conflict with the essential elements of the religious values and beliefs held by the school.

Interpretation 205-3 Standard 205(d) applies to all employers, including government agencies, to which a school furnishes assistance and facilities for interviewing and other placement services. However, this Standard does not require a law school to implement its terms by excluding any employer unless that employer discriminates unlawfully.

Interpretation 205-4The denial by a law school of admission to a qualified applicant is treated as made upon the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability if the basis of denial relied upon is an admission qualification of the school that is intended to prevent the admission of applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability though not purporting to do so.

Interpretation 205-5The denial by a law school of employment to a qualified individual is treated as made upon the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability if the basis of denial relied upon is an employment policy of the school that is intended to prevent the employment of individuals on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability though not purporting to do so.

Standard 206. DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION

(a) Consistent with sound legal education policy and the Standards, a law school shall demonstrate by concrete action a commitment to diversity and inclusion by providing full opportunities for the study of law and entry into the profession by members of underrepresented groups, particularly racial and ethnic minorities, and a commitment to having a student body that is diverse with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity.

(b) Consistent with sound educational policy and the Standards, a law school shall demonstrate by concrete action a commitment to diversity and inclusion by having a faculty and staff that are diverse with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity.

Interpretation 206-1The requirement of a constitutional provision or statute that purports to prohibit consideration of gender, race, ethnicity, or national origin in admissions or employment decisions is not a justification for a school’s non-compliance with Standard 206. A law school that is subject to such constitutional or statutory provisions would have to demonstrate the commitment required by Standard 206 by means other than those prohibited by the applicable constitutional or statutory provisions.

Interpretation 206-2In addition to providing full opportunities for the study of law and the entry into the legal profession by members of underrepresented groups, the enrollment of a diverse student body

13

103Apromotes cross-cultural understanding, helps break down racial, ethnic, and gender stereotypes, and enables students to better understand persons of different backgrounds. The forms of concrete action required by a law school to satisfy the obligations of this Standard are not specified. If consistent with applicable law, a law school may use race and ethnicity in its admissions process to promote diversity and inclusion. The determination of a law school’s satisfaction of such obligations is based on the totality of the law school’s actions and the results achieved. The commitment to providing full educational opportunities for members of underrepresented groups typically includes a special concern for determining the potential of these applicants through the admission process, special recruitment efforts, and programs that assist in meeting the academic and financial needs of many of these students and that create a favorable environment for students from underrepresented groups.

Standard 207. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION FOR QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES

(a) Assuring equality of opportunity for qualified individuals with disabilities, as required by Standard 205, requires a law school to provide such students, faculty and staff with reasonable accommodations consistent with applicable law.

(b) A law school shall adopt, publish, and adhere to written policies and procedures for assessing and handling requests for reasonable accommodations made by qualified individuals with disabilities.

Interpretation 207-1Applicants and students shall be individually evaluated to determine whether they meet the academic standards requisite to admission and participation in the law school program. The use of the term “qualified” in the Standard requires a careful and thorough consideration of each applicant and each student’s qualifications in light of reasonable accommodations. Reasonable accommodations are those that are consistent with the fundamental nature of the school’s program of legal education, that can be provided without undue financial or administrative burden, and that can be provided while maintaining academic and other essential performance standards.

14

103AChapter 3 - PROGRAM OF LEGAL EDUCATION

Standard 301. OBJECTIVES OF PROGRAM OF LEGAL EDUCATION

(a) A law school shall maintain a rigorous program of legal education that prepares its students, upon graduation, for admission to the bar and for effective, ethical, and responsible participation as members of the legal profession.

(b) A law school shall establish and publish learning outcomes designed to achieve these objectives. Standard 302. LEARNING OUTCOMES

A law school shall establish learning outcomes that shall, at a minimum, include competency in the following:

(a) Knowledge and understanding of substantive and procedural law;

(b) Legal analysis and reasoning, legal research, problem solving, and written and oral communication in the legal context;

(c) Exercise of proper professional and ethical responsibilities to clients and the legal system; and

(d) Other professional skills needed for competent and ethical participation as a member of the legal profession.

Interpretation 302-1For the purposes of Standard 302(d), other professional skills are determined by the law school and may include skills such as, interviewing, counseling, negotiation, fact development and analysis, trial practice, document drafting, conflict resolution, organization and management of legal work, collaboration, cultural competency, and self-evaluation.

Interpretation 302-2A law school may also identify any additional learning outcomes pertinent to its program of legal education.

Standard 303. CURRICULUM

(a) A law school shall offer a curriculum that requires each student to satisfactorily complete at least the following:

(1) one course of at least two credit hours in professional responsibility that includes substantial instruction in the history, goals, structure, values, and responsibilities of the legal profession and its members;

15

103A(2) one writing experience in the first year and at least one additional writing

experience after the first year, both of which are faculty supervised; and

(3) one or more experiential course(s) totaling at least six credit hours. An experiential course must be a simulation course, a law clinic, or a field placement. To satisfy this requirement, a course must be primarily experiential in nature and must:

(i) integrate doctrine, theory, skills, and legal ethics, and engage students in performance of one or more of the professional skills identified in Standard 302;

(ii) develop the concepts underlying the professional skills being taught;

(iii) provide multiple opportunities for performance; and

(iv) provide opportunities for self-evaluation.

(b) A law school shall provide substantial opportunities to students for:

(1) law clinics or field placement(s); and

(2) student participation in pro bono legal services, including law-related public service activities.

Interpretation 303-1 A law school may not permit a student to use a course to satisfy more than one requirement under this Standard. For example, a course that includes a writing experience used to satisfy the upper-class writing requirement [see 303(a)(2)] cannot be counted as one of the experiential courses required in Standard 303(a)(3).

Interpretation 303-2Factors to be considered in evaluating the rigor of a writing experience include the number and nature of writing projects assigned to students, the form and extent of individualized assessment of a student’s written products, and the number of drafts that a student must produce for any writing experience.

Interpretation 303-3 Rule 6.1 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct encourages lawyers to provide pro bono legal services primarily to persons of limited means or to organizations that serve such persons. In addition, lawyers are encouraged to provide pro bono law-related public service. In meeting the requirement of Standard 303(b)(2), law schools are encouraged to promote opportunities for law student pro bono service that incorporate the priorities established in Model Rule 6.1. In addition, law schools are encouraged to promote opportunities for law students to provide over their law school career at least 50 hours of pro bono service that complies with Standard 303(b)(2). Pro bono and public service opportunities need not be structured to accomplish any of the outcomes required by Standard 302. Standard 303(b)(2) does not preclude the inclusion of credit-granting activities within a law school’s overall

16

103Aprogram of law-related pro bono opportunities so long as law-related non-credit bearing initiatives are also part of that program.

Interpretation 303-4Law-related public service activities include (i) helping groups or organizations seeking to secure or protect civil rights, civil liberties, or public rights; (ii) helping charitable, religious, civic, community, governmental, and educational organizations not able to afford legal representation; (iii) participating in activities providing information about justice, the law or the legal system to those who might not otherwise have such information; and (iv) engaging in activities to enhance the capacity of the law and legal institutions to do justice.

Standard 304. SIMULATION COURSES AND LAW CLINICS

(a) A simulation course provides substantial experience not involving an actual client, that (1) is reasonably similar to the experience of a lawyer advising or representing a client or engaging in other lawyering tasks in a set of facts and circumstances devised or adopted by a faculty member, and (2) includes the following:

(i) direct supervision of the student's performance by the faculty member; (ii) opportunities for performance, feedback from a faculty member, and self-evaluation; and (iii) a classroom instructional component.

(b) A law clinic provides substantial lawyering experience that (1) involves one or more actual clients, and (2) includes the following:

(i) advising or representing a client; (ii) direct supervision of the student’s performance by a faculty member; (iii) opportunities for performance, feedback from a faculty member, and self-evaluation; and (iv) a classroom instructional component.

Standard 305. FIELD PLACEMENTS AND OTHER STUDY OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM

(a) A law school may grant credit toward the J.D. degree for courses that involve student participation in studies or activities in a format that does not involve attendance at regularly scheduled class sessions, including courses approved as part of a field placement program, moot court, law review, and directed research.

(b) Credit granted for such a course shall be commensurate with the time and effort required and the anticipated quality of the educational experience of the student.

(c) Each student’s educational achievement in such a course shall be evaluated by a faculty member. When appropriate a school may use faculty members from other law schools to supervise or assist in the supervision or review of a field placement program.

17

103A(d) The studies or activities shall be approved in advance and periodically reviewed following the school’s established procedures for approval of the curriculum.

(e) A field placement program shall include:

(1) a clear statement of its goals and methods, and a demonstrated relationship between those goals and methods and the program in operation;

(2) adequate instructional resources, including faculty teaching in and supervising the program who devote the requisite time and attention to satisfy program goals and are sufficiently available to students;

(3) a clearly articulated method of evaluating each student’s academic performance involving both a faculty member and the site supervisor;

(4) a method for selecting, training, evaluating, and communicating with site supervisors;

(5) for field placements that award three or more credit hours, regular contact between the faculty supervisor or law school administrator and the site supervisor to assure the quality of the student educational experience, including the appropriateness of the supervision and the student work;

(6) a requirement that each student has successfully completed instruction equivalent to 28 credit hours toward the J.D. degree before participation in the field placement program; and

(7) opportunities for student reflection on their field placement experience, through a seminar, regularly scheduled tutorials, or other means of guided reflection. Where a student may earn three or more credit hours in a field placement program, the opportunity for student reflection must be provided contemporaneously.

(f) A law school that has a field placement program shall develop, publish, and communicate to students and site supervisors a statement that describes the educational objectives of the program.

Interpretation 305-1Regular contact may be achieved through in-person visits or other methods of communication that will assure the quality of the student educational experience.

Interpretation 305-2A law school may not grant credit to a student for participation in a field placement program for which the student receives compensation. This Interpretation does not preclude reimbursement of reasonable out-of-pocket expenses related to the field placement.

18

103AStandard 306. DISTANCE EDUCATION (a) A distance education course is one in which students are separated from the faculty member or each other for more than one-third of the instruction and the instruction involves the use of technology to support regular and substantive interaction among students and between the students and the faculty member, either synchronously or asynchronously.

(b) Credit for a distance education course shall be awarded only if the academic content, the method of course delivery, and the method of evaluating student performance are approved as part of the school’s regular curriculum approval process.

(c) A law school shall have the technological capacity, staff, information resources, and facilities necessary to assure the educational quality of distance education.

(d) A law school may award credit for distance education and may count that credit toward the 64 credit hours of regularly scheduled classroom sessions or direct faculty instruction required by Standard 310(b) if:

(1) there is opportunity for regular and substantive interaction between faculty member and student and among students;

(2) there is regular monitoring of student effort by the faculty member and opportunity for communication about that effort; and

(3) the learning outcomes for the course are consistent with Standard 302. (e) A law school shall not grant a student more than a total of 15 credit hours toward the J.D. degree for courses qualifying under this Standard.

(f) A law school shall not enroll a student in courses qualifying for credit under this Standard until that student has completed instruction equivalent to 28 credit hours toward the J.D. degree.

(g) A law school shall establish an effective process for verifying the identity of students taking distance education courses and that also protects student privacy. If any additional student charges are associated with verification of student identity, students must be notified at the time of registration or enrollment.

Interpretation 306-1 Technology used to support a distance education course may include, for example:

(a) The Internet;

(b) One-way and two-way transmissions through open broadcast, closed circuit, cable, microwave, broadband lines, fiber optics, satellite, or wireless communications devices;

19

103A(c) Audio and video conferencing; or

(d) Video cassettes, DVDs, and CD–ROMs, if the cassettes, DVDs, or CD–ROMs are used in a course in conjunction with any of the technologies listed in paragraphs (a) through (c).

Interpretation 306-2Methods to verify student identity as required in Standard 306(g) include, but are not limited to, (i) a secure login and pass code, (ii) proctored examinations, and (iii) other technologies and practices that are effective in verifying student identity. As part of the verification process, a law school shall verify that the student who registers for a class is the same student that participates and takes any examinations for the class.

Standard 307. STUDIES, ACTIVITIES, AND FIELD PLACEMENTS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

(a) A law school may grant credit for (1) studies or activities outside the United States that are approved in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Criteria as adopted by the Council and (2) field placements outside the United States that meet the requirements of Standard 305 and are not held in conjunction with studies or activities that are approved in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Criteria as adopted by the Council.

(b) The total credits for student participation in such studies or activities may not exceed one-third of the credits required for the J.D. degree.

Interpretation 307-1The three Criteria adopted by the Council are the Criteria for Approval of Foreign Summer and Intersession Programs Established by ABA-Approved Law Schools, the Criteria for Approval of Foreign Semester and Year-Long Study Abroad Programs Established by ABA-Approved Law Schools, and the Criteria for Accepting Credit for Student Study at a Foreign Institution.

Interpretation 307-2For purposes of Standard 307, a brief visit to a country outside the United States that is part of a course offered and based primarily at the law school and approved through the school's regular curriculum approval process is not considered to be studies outside the United States.

Standard 308. ACADEMIC STANDARDS

(a) A law school shall adopt, publish, and adhere to sound academic standards, including those for good standing, academic integrity, graduation, and dismissal.

(b) A law school shall adopt, publish, and adhere to written due process policies with regard to taking any action that adversely affects the good standing or graduation of a student.

20

103AStandard 309. ACADEMIC ADVISING AND SUPPORT

(a) A law school shall provide academic advising for students that communicates effectively the school’s academic standards and graduation requirements, and that provides guidance on course selection.

(b) A law school shall provide academic support designed to afford students a reasonable opportunity to complete the program of legal education, graduate, and become members of the legal profession.

Standard 310. DETERMINATION OF CREDIT HOURS FOR COURSEWORK

(a) A law school shall adopt, publish, and adhere to written policies and procedures for determining the credit hours that it awards for coursework.

(b) A "credit hour" is an amount of work that reasonably approximates:

(1) not less than one hour of classroom or direct faculty instruction and two hours of out-of-class student work per week for fifteen weeks, or the equivalent amount of work over a different amount of time; or

(2) at least an equivalent amount of work as required in subparagraph (1) of this definition for other academic activities as established by the institution, including simulation, field placement, clinical, co-curricular, and other academic work leading to the award of credit hours.

Interpretation 310-1For purposes of this Standard, fifty minutes suffices for one hour of classroom or direct faculty instruction. An "hour" for out-of-class student work is sixty minutes. The fifteen-week period may include one week for a final examination.

Interpretation 310-2A school may award credit hours for coursework that extends over any period of time, if the coursework entails no less than the minimum total amounts of classroom or direct faculty instruction and of out-of-class student work specified in Standard 310(b).

Standard 311 ACADEMIC PROGRAM AND ACADEMIC CALENDAR

(a) A law school shall have an academic year of not fewer than 140 days on which classes and examinations are regularly scheduled in the law school, extending into not fewer than eight calendar months. The law school shall provide adequate time for reading periods and breaks, but such time does not count toward the 140-day academic year requirement.

(b) A law school shall require, as a condition for graduation, successful completion of a course of study of not fewer than 83 credit hours. At least 64 of these credit hours shall be

21

103Ain courses that require attendance in regularly scheduled classroom sessions or direct faculty instruction. 

(c) A law school shall require that the course of study for the J.D. degree be completed no earlier than 24 months and, except in extraordinary circumstances, no later than 84 months after a student has commenced law study at the law school or a law school from which the school has accepted transfer credit.

(d) A law school shall not permit a student to be enrolled at any time in coursework that exceeds 20 percent of the total credit hours required by that school for graduation.

(e) Credit for a J.D. degree shall only be given for course work taken after the student has matriculated in a law school. A law school may not grant credit toward the J.D. degree for work taken in a pre-admission program.

(f) A law school shall adopt, publish, and adhere to a written policy requiring regular class attendance.

Interpretation 311-1A law school may not count more than five class days each week toward the 140-day requirement.

Interpretation 311-2(a) In calculating the 64 credit hours of regularly scheduled classroom sessions or direct faculty instruction for the purpose of Standard 311(b), the credit hours may include:

(1) Credit hours earned by attendance in regularly scheduled classroom sessions or direct faculty instruction;(2) Credit hours earned by participation in a simulation course or law clinic in compliance with Standard 304;(3) Credit hours earned through distance education in compliance with Standard 306; and(4) Credit hours earned by participation in law-related studies or activities in a country outside the United States in compliance with Standard 307.

(b) In calculating the 64 credit hours of regularly scheduled classroom sessions or direct faculty instruction for the purpose of Standard 311(b), the credit hours shall not include any other coursework, including, but not limited to:

(1) Credit hours earned through field placements and other study outside of the classroom in compliance with Standard 305; (2) Credit hours earned in another department, school, or college of the university with which the law school is affiliated, or at another institution of higher learning; (3) Credit hours earned for participation in co-curricular activities such as law review, moot court, and trial competition; and(4) Credit hours earned by participation in studies or activities in a country outside the United States in compliance with Standard 307 for studies or activities that are not law-related.

22

103A

Interpretation 311-3 Whenever a student is permitted on the basis of extraordinary circumstances to exceed the 84-month program limitation in Standard 311(c), the law school shall place in the student's file a statement signed by an appropriate law school official explaining the extraordinary circumstances leading the law school to permit an exception to this limitation. Such extraordinary circumstances, for example, might include an interruption of a student’s legal education because of an illness, family exigency, or military service.

Interpretation 311-4For purposes of Standard 311(c), the time for determining the commencement of law study is ordinarily the time when a student commences law study at any institution. For example, if a law school accepts transfer credit from another institution, the time begins when the student commenced study at the law school from which the transfer credit is accepted. If a law school accepts a student who has completed law studies at a law school outside the United States as permitted under Standard 505, only the time commensurate with the amount of credit given counts toward the length of study requirements of Standard 311(c).

Standard 312. REASONABLY COMPARABLE OPPORTUNITIES

A law school providing more than one enrollment or scheduling option shall ensure that all students have reasonably comparable opportunities for access to the law school’s program of legal education, courses taught by full-time faculty, student services, co-curricular programs, and other educational benefits. Identical opportunities are not required.

Standard 313. DEGREE PROGRAMS IN ADDITION TO J.D.

A law school may not offer a degree program other than its J.D. degree program unless:

(a) the law school is fully approved;

(b) the Council has granted acquiescence in the program; and

(c) the degree program will not interfere with the ability of the law school to operate in compliance with the Standards and to carry out its program of legal education.

Interpretation 313-1 Acquiescence in a degree program other than the J.D. degree is not an approval of the program itself and, therefore, a school may not announce that the program is approved by the Council.

Standard 314. ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING

A law school shall utilize both formative and summative assessment methods in its curriculum to measure and improve student learning and provide meaningful feedback to students.

23

103AInterpretation 314-1Formative assessment methods are measurements at different points during a particular course or at different points over the span of a student’s education that provide meaningful feedback to improve student learning. Summative assessment methods are measurements at the culmination of a particular course or at the culmination of any part of a student’s legal education that measure the degree of student learning.

Interpretation 314-2A law school need not apply multiple assessment methods in any particular course. Assessment methods are likely to be different from school to school. Law schools are not required by Standard 314 to use any particular assessment method.

Standard 315. EVALUATION OF PROGRAM OF LEGAL EDUCATION, LEARNING OUTCOMES, AND ASSESSMENT METHODS

The dean and the faculty of a law school shall conduct ongoing evaluation of the law school's program of legal education, learning outcomes, and assessment methods; and shall use the results of this evaluation to determine the degree of student attainment of competency in the learning outcomes and to make appropriate changes to improve the curriculum.

Interpretation 315-1Examples of methods that may be used to measure the degree to which students have attained competency in the school’s student learning outcomes include review of the records the law school maintains to measure individual student achievement pursuant to Standard 314; evaluation of student learning portfolios; student evaluation of the sufficiency of their education; student performance in capstone courses or other courses that appropriately assess a variety of skills and knowledge; bar exam passage rates; placement rates; surveys of attorneys, judges, and alumni; and assessment of student performance by judges, attorneys, or law professors from other schools. The methods used to measure the degree of student achievement of learning outcomes are likely to differ from school to school and law schools are not required by this standard to use any particular methods.

Standard 316. BAR PASSAGE

(a) A law school’s bar passage rate shall be sufficient, for purposes of Standard 301(a), if the school demonstrates that it meets any one of the following tests:

(1) That for students who graduated from the law school within the five most recently completed calendar years:

(i) 75 percent or more of these graduates who sat for the bar passed a bar examination; or

(ii) in at least three of these calendar years, 75 percent of the students graduating in those years and sitting for the bar have passed a bar

24

103Aexamination.

In demonstrating compliance under sections (1)(i) and (ii), the school must report bar passage results from as many jurisdictions as necessary to account for at least 70 percent of its graduates each year, starting with the jurisdiction in which the highest number of graduates took the bar exam and proceeding in descending order of frequency.

(2) That in three or more of the five most recently completed calendar years, the school’s annual first-time bar passage rate in the jurisdictions reported by the school is no more than 15 points below the average first-time bar passage rates for graduates of ABA-approved law schools taking the bar examination in these same jurisdictions.

In demonstrating compliance under section (2), the school must report first-time bar passage data from as many jurisdictions as necessary to account for at least 70 percent of its graduates each year, starting with the jurisdiction in which the highest number of graduates took the bar exam and proceeding in descending order of frequency. When more than one jurisdiction is reported, the weighted average of the results in each of the reported jurisdictions shall be used to determine compliance.

(b) A school shall be out of compliance with this Standard if it is unable to demonstrate that it meets the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) or (2).

(c) A school found out of compliance under paragraph (b) and that has not been able to come into compliance within the two-year period specified in Rule 13(b) of the Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools, may seek to demonstrate good cause for extending the period the law school has to demonstrate compliance by submitting evidence of:

(1) The law school’s trend in bar passage rates for both first-time and subsequent takers: a clear trend of improvement will be considered in the school’s favor, a declining or flat trend against it.

(2) The length of time the law school’s bar passage rates have been below the first-time and ultimate rates established in paragraph A: a shorter time period will be considered in the school’s favor, a longer period against it.

(3) Actions by the law school to address bar passage, particularly the law school’s academic rigor and the demonstrated value and effectiveness of its academic support and bar preparation programs: value-added, effective, sustained and pervasive actions to address bar passage problems will be considered in the law school’s favor; ineffective or only marginally effective programs or limited action by the law school against it.

(4) Efforts by the law school to facilitate bar passage for its graduates who did not pass the bar on prior attempts: effective and sustained efforts by the law school will

25

103Abe considered in the school’s favor; ineffective or limited efforts by the law school against it.

(5) Efforts by the law school to provide broader access to legal education while maintaining academic rigor: sustained meaningful efforts will be viewed in the law school’s favor; intermittent or limited efforts by the law school against it.

(6) The demonstrated likelihood that the law school’s students who transfer to other ABA-approved schools will pass the bar examination: transfers by students with a strong likelihood of passing the bar will be considered in the school’s favor, providing the law school has undertaken counseling and other appropriate efforts to retain its well-performing students.

(7) Temporary circumstances beyond the control of the law school, but which the law school is addressing: for example, a natural disaster that disrupts operations or a significant increase in the standard for passing the relevant bar examination(s).

(8) Other factors, consistent with a law school’s demonstrated and sustained mission, which the school considers relevant in explaining its deficient bar passage results and in explaining the school’s efforts to improve them.

26

103AChapter 4 - THE FACULTY

Standard 401. QUALIFICATIONS

A law school shall have a faculty whose qualifications and experience enable the law school to operate in compliance with the Standards and carry out its program of legal education. The faculty shall possess a high degree of competence, as demonstrated by academic qualification, experience in teaching or practice, teaching effectiveness, and scholarship.

Standard 402. SIZE OF FULL-TIME FACULTY

A law school shall have a sufficient number of full-time faculty to enable the law school to operate in compliance with the Standards and carry out its program of legal education. The number of full-time faculty necessary depends on (a) the size of the student body and the opportunity for students to meet individually with full-time faculty members; (b) the nature and scope of the program of legal education; and (c) the opportunities for the full-time faculty to adequately fulfill its teaching obligations, conduct scholarly research, participate effectively in the governance of the law school, and provide service to the legal profession and the public.

Interpretation 402-1 A full-time faculty member who is teaching an additional full-time load at another law school may not be considered as a full-time faculty member at either institution.

Interpretation 402-2 Regularly engaging in law practice or having an ongoing relationship with a law firm or other business creates a presumption that a faculty member is not a full-time faculty member under this Standard. This presumption may be rebutted if the law school is able to demonstrate that the individual has a full-time commitment to teaching, research, and public service, is available to students, and is able to participate in the governance of the law school to the same extent expected of full-time faculty.

Standard 403. INSTRUCTIONAL ROLE OF FACULTY (a) The full-time faculty shall teach substantially all of the first one-third of each student’s coursework. The full-time faculty shall also teach during the academic year either (1) more than half of all of the credit hours actually offered by the law school, or (2) two-thirds of the student contact hours generated by student enrollment at the law school.

(b) A law school shall ensure effective teaching by all persons providing instruction to its students.

Interpretation 403-1 Efforts to ensure teaching effectiveness may include: orientation, guidance and mentoring for new faculty members; a faculty committee on effective teaching,; class visits; critiques of videotaped

27

103Ateaching,; institutional review of student course evaluations; colloquia on effective teaching; and recognition and use of creative scholarship in law school teaching methodology.

Standard 404. RESPONSIBILITIES OF FULL-TIME FACULTY

(a) A law school shall adopt, publish, and adhere to written policies with respect to full-time faculty members’ responsibilities. The policies shall require that the full-time faculty, as a collective body, fulfill these core responsibilities:

(1) Teaching, preparing for classes, being available for student consultation about those classes, assessing student performance in those classes, and remaining current in the subjects being taught;

(2) Participating in academic advising, creating an atmosphere in which students and faculty may voice opinions and exchange ideas, and assessing student learning at the law school;

(3) Engaging in scholarship, as defined by the law school;

(4) Service to the law school and university community, including participation in the governance of the law school, curriculum development, and other institutional responsibilities described in the Standards;

(5) Service to the profession, including working with judges and practicing lawyers to improve the profession; and

(6) Service to the public, including participation in pro bono activities.

(b) The law school shall periodically evaluate the extent to which the faculty discharges its core responsibilities under the law school’s policies and the contributions of each full-time faculty member to meeting the core responsibilities of the faculty.

Standard 405. PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT

(a) A law school shall establish and maintain conditions adequate to attract and retain a competent faculty.

(b) A law school shall have an established and announced policy with respect to academic freedom and tenure of which Appendix 1 herein is an example but is not obligatory.

(c) A law school shall afford to full-time clinical faculty members a form of security of position reasonably similar to tenure, and non-compensatory perquisites reasonably similar to those provided other full-time faculty members. A law school may require these faculty members to meet standards and obligations reasonably similar to those required of other full-time faculty members. However, this Standard does not preclude a limited

28

103Anumber of fixed, short-term appointments in a clinical program predominantly staffed by full-time faculty members, or in an experimental program of limited duration.

(d) A law school shall afford legal writing teachers such security of position and other rights and privileges of faculty membership as may be necessary to (1) attract and retain a faculty that is well qualified to provide legal writing instruction as required by Standard 302(a)(3), and (2) safeguard academic freedom.

Interpretation 405-1 A fixed limit on the percent of a law faculty that may hold tenure under any circumstances violates the Standards.

Interpretation 405-2 A law faculty as professionals should not be required to be a part of the general university bargaining unit.

Interpretation 405-3 A law school shall have a comprehensive system for evaluating candidates for promotion and tenure or other forms of security of position, including written criteria and procedures that are made available to the faculty.

Interpretation 405-4 A law school not a part of a university in considering and deciding on appointment, termination, promotion, and tenure of faculty members should have procedures that contain the same principles of fairness and due process that should be employed by a law school that is part of a university. If the dean and faculty have made a recommendation that is unfavorable to a candidate, the candidate should be given an opportunity to appeal to the president, chairman, or governing board.

Interpretation 405-5 If the dean and faculty have determined the question of responsibility for examination schedules and the schedule has been announced by the authority responsible for it, it is not a violation of academic freedom for a member of the law faculty to be required to adhere to the schedule.

Interpretation 405-6 A form of security of position reasonably similar to tenure includes a separate tenure track or a program of renewable long-term contracts. Under a separate tenure track, a full-time clinical faculty member, after a probationary period reasonably similar to that for other full-time faculty, may be granted tenure. After tenure is granted, the faculty member may be terminated only for good cause, including termination or material modification of the entire clinical program. A program of renewable long-term contracts shall provide that, after a probationary period reasonably similar to that for other full-time faculty, during which the clinical faculty member may be employed on short-term contracts, the services of a faculty member in a clinical program may be either terminated or continued by the granting of a long-term renewable contract. For the purposes of this Interpretation, “long-term contract” means at least a five-year contract that is presumptively renewable or other arrangement sufficient to ensure academic freedom. During

29

103Athe initial long-term contract or any renewal period, the contract may be terminated for good cause, including termination or material modification of the entire clinical program.

Interpretation 405-7 In determining if the members of the full-time clinical faculty meet standards and obligations reasonably similar to those provided for other full-time faculty, competence in the areas of teaching and scholarly research and writing should be judged in terms of the responsibilities of clinical faculty. A law school should develop criteria for retention, promotion, and security of employment of full-time clinical faculty.

Interpretation 405-8 A law school shall afford to full-time clinical faculty members participation in faculty meetings, committees, and other aspects of law school governance in a manner reasonably similar to other full-time faculty members. This Interpretation does not apply to those persons referred to in the last sentence of Standard 405(c).

Interpretation 405-9 Subsection (d) of this Standard does not preclude the use of short-term contracts for legal writing teachers, nor does it preclude law schools from offering fellowship programs designed to produce candidates for full-time teaching by offering individuals supervised teaching experience.

30

103AChapter 5 - ADMISSIONS AND STUDENT SERVICES

Standard 501. ADMISSIONS

(a) A law school shall maintain sound admission policies and practices consistent with the Standards, its mission, and the objectives of its program of legal education.

(b) A law school shall not admit an applicants who does not appear capable of satisfactorily completing its program of legal education and being admitted to the bar.

(c) A law school shall not admit or readmit a student who has been disqualified previously for academic reasons without an affirmative showing that the prior disqualification does not indicate a lack of capacity to complete its program of legal education and be admitted to the bar. For every admission or readmission of a previously disqualified individual, a statement of the considerations that led to the decision shall be placed in the admittee’s file.

Interpretation 501-1Among the factors to consider in assessing compliance with this Standard are the academic and admission test credentials of the law school’s entering students, the academic attrition rate of the law school’s students, the bar passage rate of its graduates, and the effectiveness of the law school’s academic support program.

Interpretation 501-2 Sound admissions policies and practices may include consideration of admission test scores, undergraduate course of study and grade point average, extracurricular activities, work experience, performance in other graduate or professional programs, relevant demonstrated skills, and obstacles overcome.

Standard 502. EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS

(a) A law school shall require for admission to its J.D. degree program a bachelor’s degree that has been awarded by an institution that is accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education.

(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), a law school may also admit to its J.D. degree program:

1) an applicant who has completed three-fourths of the credits leading to a bachelor's degree as part of a bachelor's degree/J.D. degree program if the institution is accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education; and

2) a graduate of an institution outside the United States if the law school assures that the quality of the program of legal education of that institution is equivalent to that of institutions accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education.

31

103A

(c) In an extraordinary case, a law school may admit to its J.D. degree program an applicant who does not satisfy the requirements of subsections (a) or (b) if the applicant’s experience, ability, and other qualifications clearly demonstrate an aptitude for the study of law. For every such admission, a statement of the considerations that led to the decision shall be placed in the admittee’s file.

(d) Within a reasonable time after a student registers, a law school shall have on file the student’s official transcripts verifying all academic credits undertaken and degree(s) conferred.

Interpretation 502-1Official transcript means: 1) a paper or electronic transcript certified by the issuing institution and delivered directly to the law school; or 2) a paper or electronic transcript verified by a third-party credential assembly service and delivered directly to the law school. With respect to electronic copies, it is sufficient for transcripts to be maintained at the law school or off-site by a third-party provider as long as the law school has access to the documents on demand.

Interpretation 502-2The official transcripts for any student admitted as a transfer student shall include verification of any academic credits undertaken at any other law school attended.

Standard 503. ADMISSION TEST A law school shall require each applicant for admission as a first-year J.D. degree student to take a valid and reliable admission test to assist the school and the applicant in assessing the applicant’s capability of satisfactorily completing the school’s program of legal education. In making admissions decisions, a law school shall use the test results in a manner that is consistent with the current guidelines regarding proper use of the test results provided by the agency that developed the test.

Interpretation 503-1A law school that uses an admission test other than the Law School Admission Test sponsored by the Law School Admission Council shall demonstrate that such other test is a valid and reliable test to assist the school in assessing an applicant’s capability to satisfactorily complete the school’s program of legal education.

Interpretation 503-2 This Standard does not prescribe the particular weight that a law school should give to an applicant’s admission test score in deciding whether to admit or deny admission to the applicant.

Interpretation 503-3 (a) It is not a violation of this Standard for a law school to admit no more than 10% of an entering class without requiring the LSAT from:

(1) Students in an undergraduate program of the same institution as the J.D. program; and/or(2) Students seeking the J.D. degree in combination with a degree in a different discipline.

32

103A(b) Applicants admitted under subsection (a) must meet the following conditions:

(1) Scored at or above the 85th percentile on the ACT or SAT for purposes of subsection (a)(1), or for purposes of subsection (a)(2), scored at or above the 85th percentile on the GRE or GMAT; and(2) Ranked in the top 10% of their undergraduate class through six semesters of academic work, or achieved a cumulative GPA of 3.5 or above through six semesters of academic work.

Standard 504. QUALIFICATIONS FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR

(a) A law school shall include the following statement in its application for admission and on its website:

In addition to a bar examination, there are character, fitness, and other qualifications for admission to the bar in every U.S. jurisdiction. Applicants are encouraged to determine the requirements for any jurisdiction in which they intend to seek admission by contacting the jurisdiction. Addresses for all relevant agencies are available through the National Conference of Bar Examiners.

(b) The law school shall, as soon after matriculation as is practicable, take additional steps to apprise entering students of the importance of determining the applicable character, fitness, and other requirements for admission to the bar in each jurisdiction in which they intend to seek admission to the bar.

Standard 505. GRANTING OF J.D. DEGREE CREDIT FOR PRIOR LAW STUDY (a) A law school may admit a student and grant credit for courses completed at another law school approved by the Council if the courses were undertaken as a J.D. degree student.

(b) A law school may admit a student and grant credit for courses completed at a law school in the United States that is not approved by the Council if graduates of the law school are permitted to sit for the bar examination in the jurisdiction in which the school is located, provided that:

(1) the courses were undertaken as a J.D. degree student; and

(2) the law school would have granted credit toward satisfaction of J.D. degree requirements if earned at the admitting school.

(c) A law school may admit a student and grant credit for courses completed at a law school outside the United States if the admitting law school would have granted credit towards satisfaction of J.D. degree requirements if earned at the admitting school.

(d) A law school may grant credit toward a J.D. degree to a graduate of a law school in a country outside the United States for credit hours earned in an LL.M. or other post-J.D. program it offers if:

33

103A(1) that study led to successful completion of a J.D. degree course or courses while the student was enrolled in a post-J.D. degree law program; and

(2) the law school has a grading system for LL.M. students in J.D. courses that is comparable to the grading system for J.D. degree students in the course.

(e) A law school that grants credit as provided in Standard 505(a) through (d) may award a J.D. degree to a student who successfully completes a course of study that satisfies the requirements of Standard 311 and that meets all of the school’s requirements for the awarding of the J.D. degree.

(f) Credit hours granted pursuant to subsection (b) through (d) shall not, individually or in combination, exceed one-third of the total required by the admitting school for its J.D. degree.

Standard 506. ENROLLMENT OF NON-DEGREE CANDIDATES

Without requiring compliance with its admission standards and procedures, a law school may enroll individuals in a limited number of courses, as auditors, non-degree candidates, or candidates for a degree other than a law degree, only if such enrollment does not interfere with the ability of the law school to operate in compliance with the Standards and to carry out its program of legal education.

Standard 507. STUDENT LOAN PROGRAMS

A law school shall demonstrate reasonable steps to minimize student loan defaults, including provision of debt counseling at the inception of a student’s loan obligations and again before graduation.

Interpretation 507-1 The student loan default rates of a law school’s graduates, including any results of financial or compliance audits and reviews, are relevant in assessing the extent to which a law school complies with this Standard.

Interpretation 507-2 For a law school not affiliated with a university, the school’s student loan cohort default rate is sufficient if it is not greater than 10% for any of the three most recently published annual cohort default rates. Failure to comply with Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, or having a student loan cohort default rate greater than the rate permitted by Title IV is cause for review of a law school’s compliance with the Standards. A school shall demonstrate that it has resolved all areas of deficiency identified in financial or compliance audits, program reviews, or other information provided by the United States Department of Education.

34

103AInterpretation 507-3 A law school has complied with this Standard if the university of which the law school is a part takes the steps described in this Standard.

Standard 508. STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES

A law school shall provide all its students, regardless of enrollment or scheduling option, with basic student services, including maintenance of accurate student records, academic advising and counseling, financial aid and debt counseling, and career counseling to assist students in making sound career choices and obtaining employment. If a law school does not provide these student services directly, it shall demonstrate that its students have reasonable access to such services from the university of which it is a part or from other sources.

Standard 509. REQUIRED DISCLOSURES

(a) All information that a law school reports, publicizes, or distributes shall be complete, accurate and not misleading to a reasonable law school student or applicant. A law school shall use due diligence in obtaining and verifying such information. Violations of these obligations may result in sanctions under Rule 16 of the Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools. (b) A law school shall publicly disclose on its website, in the form and manner and for the time frame designated by the Council, the following information:

(1) admissions data;

(2) tuition and fees, living costs, and financial aid;

(3) conditional scholarships;

(4) enrollment data, including academic, transfer, and other attrition;

(5) numbers of full-time and part-time faculty, professional librarians, and administrators;

(6) class sizes for first-year and upper-class courses; number of seminar, clinical and co-curricular offerings;

(7) employment outcomes; and

(8) bar passage data.

(c) A law school shall publicly disclose on its website, in a readable and comprehensive manner, the following information on a current basis:

35

103A(1) refund policies;

(2) curricular offerings, academic calendar, and academic requirements; and

(3) policies regarding the transfer of credit earned at another institution of higher education. The law school’s transfer of credit policies must include, at a minimum:

(i) A statement of the criteria established by the law school regarding the transfer of credit earned at another institution; and

(ii) A list of institutions, if any, with which the law school has established an articulation agreement.

(d) A law school shall distribute the data required under Standard 509(b)(3) to all applicants being offered conditional scholarships at the time the scholarship offer is extended.

(e) If a law school makes a public disclosure of its status as a law school approved by the Council, it shall do so accurately and shall include the name and contact information of the Council.

Interpretation 509-1Current curricular offerings, for the purposes of Standard 509(c), are only those courses offered in the current and past two academic years.

Interpretation 509-2A law school may publicize or distribute information in addition to that required by this Standard, including, without limitation, the employment outcomes of its graduates, so long as such information complies with the requirements of subsection (a).

Interpretation 509-3A conditional scholarship is any financial aid award, the retention of which is dependent upon the student maintaining a minimum grade point average or class standing, other than that ordinarily required to remain in good academic standing.

Interpretation 509-4Articulation agreement means a formal written agreement between a law school and another accredited university or institution providing for the transfer of defined academic credits between the parties to the agreement.

Standard 510. STUDENT COMPLAINTS IMPLICATING COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS

(a) A law school shall establish, publish, and comply with policies for addressing student complaints.

36

103A(b) A law school shall maintain a record of student complaints submitted during the most recent accreditation period. The record shall include the resolution of the complaints.

Interpretation 510-1A “complaint” is a communication in writing that seeks to bring to the attention of the law school a significant problem that directly implicates the school’s compliance with the Standards.

Interpretation 510-2A law school’s policies on student complaints must address, at a minimum, procedures for filing and addressing complaints, appeal rights, if any, and timelines.

37

103AChapter 6 - LIBRARY AND INFORMATION RESOURCES

Standard 601. GENERAL PROVISIONS

(a) A law school shall maintain a law library that:

(1) provides support through expertise, resources, and services adequate to enable the law school to carry out its program of legal education, accomplish its mission, and support scholarship and research;

(2) develops and maintains a direct, informed, and responsive relationship with the faculty, students, and administration of the law school;

(3) working with the dean and faculty, engages in a regular planning and assessment process, including written assessment of the effectiveness of the library in achieving its mission and realizing its established goals; and

(4) remains informed on and implements, as appropriate, technological and other developments affecting the library’s support for the law school’s program of legal education.

(b) A law school shall provide on a consistent basis sufficient financial resources to the law library to enable it to fulfill its responsibilities of support to the law school and realize its established goals.

Standard 602. ADMINISTRATION

(a) A law school shall have sufficient administrative autonomy to direct the growth and development of the law library and to control the use of its resources.

(b) The director of the law library and the dean, in consultation with the faculty, shall determine library policy.

(c) The director of the law library and the dean are responsible for the selection and retention of personnel, the provision of library services, and collection development and maintenance.

(d) The budget for the law library shall be determined as part of, and administered in the same manner as, the law school budget.

Interpretation 602-1This Standard envisions law library participation in university library decisions that may affect the law library. While it is preferred that the law school administer the law library, a law library may be administered as part of a university library system if the dean, the director of the law library, and the faculty of the law school are responsible for the determination of basic law library policies, priorities, and funding requests.

38

103A

Standard 603. DIRECTOR OF THE LAW LIBRARY

(a) A law school shall have a full-time director of the law library whose principal responsibilities are managing the law library and providing information resources in appropriate formats to faculty and students.

(b) The selection and retention of the director of the law library shall be determined by the law school.

(c) A director of a law library shall have appropriate academic qualifications and shall have knowledge of and experience in law library administration sufficient to support the program of legal education and to enable the law school to operate in compliance with the Standards.

(d) Except in extraordinary circumstances, a law library director shall hold a law faculty appointment with security of faculty position.

Interpretation 603-1Having a director of a law library with a law degree and a degree in library or information science is an effective method of assuring that the individual has appropriate qualifications and knowledge of and experience in library administration sufficient to support the program of legal education and to enable the law school to operate in compliance with the Standards. A law school not having a director with these credentials bears the burden of demonstrating that it is in compliance with Standard 603(c).

Standard 604. PERSONNEL

The law library shall have a staff sufficient in expertise and number to provide the appropriate library and information resources services to the school.

Interpretation 604-1 Factors relevant to the number and expertise of librarians and information resource staff needed to meet this Standard include the number of faculty and students, research programs of faculty and students, whether there is a dual division program in the school, any graduate programs of the school, size and growth rate of the collection, range of services offered by the staff, formal teaching assignments of staff members, and responsibilities for providing information resource services.

Standard 605. SERVICES

A law library shall provide the appropriate range and depth of reference, instructional, bibliographic, and other services to meet the needs of the law school’s teaching, scholarship, research, and service programs.

39

103AInterpretation 605-1 Factors relevant to determining whether services are appropriate under Standard 605 include the extent to which services enhance the research and bibliographic and information literacy skills of students, provide access (such as indexing, cataloging, and development of search terms and methodologies) to the library’s collection and other information resources, offer interlibrary loan and other forms of document delivery, produce library publications and manage the library’s web site, and create other services to enable the law school to carry out its program of legal education and accomplish its mission.

Standard 606. COLLECTION

(a) The law library shall provide a core collection of essential materials through ownership or reliable access. The choice of format and of ownership in the library or a particular means of reliable access for any type of material in the collection, including the core collection, shall effectively support the law school’s curricular, scholarly, and service programs and objectives, and the role of the library in preparing students for effective, ethical, and responsible participation in the legal profession.

(b) A law library core collection shall include the following:(1) all reported federal court decisions and reported decisions of the highest

appellate court of each state and U.S. territory;

(2) all federal codes and session laws, and at least one current annotated code for each state and U.S. territory;

(3) all current published treaties and international agreements of the United States;

(4) all current published regulations (codified and uncodified) of the federal government and the codified regulations of the state or U.S. territory in which the law school is located;

(5) those federal and state administrative decisions appropriate to the programs of the law school;

(6) U.S. Congressional materials appropriate to the programs of the law school;

(7) significant secondary works necessary to support the programs of the law school; and

(8) those tools necessary to identify primary and secondary legal information and update primary legal information.

(c) In addition to the core collection of essential materials, a law library shall also provide a collection that, through ownership or reliable access,

40

103A(1) meets the research needs of the law school’s students, satisfies the demands of

the law school curriculum, and facilitates the education of its students;

(2) supports the teaching, scholarship, research, and service interests of the faculty;

(3) serves the law school’s special teaching, scholarship, research, and service objectives and

(4) is complete, current, and in sufficient quantity or with sufficient continuing access to meet faculty and student needs.

(d) The law library shall formulate and periodically update a written plan for development of the collection.

(e) The law library shall provide suitable space and adequate equipment to access and use all information in whatever formats are represented in the collection.

Interpretation 606-1The appropriate mixture of collection formats depends on the needs of the library and the law school. A collection that consists of a single format may violate Standard 606.

Interpretation 606-2 Reliable access to information resources may be provided through:

(a) databases to which the library or the parent institution subscribe or own and are likely to continue to subscribe and provide access;

(b) authenticated and credible databases that are available to the public at no charge and are likely to continue to be available to the public at no charge; and or

(c) participation in a formal resource-sharing arrangement through which materials are made available, via electronic or physical delivery, to users within a reasonable time.

Interpretation 606-3Off-site storage for non-essential material does not violate the Standards so long as the material is organized and readily accessible in a timely manner.

Interpretation 606-4Cooperative agreements may be considered when determining whether faculty and students have efficient and effective access to the resources necessary to enable the law school to carry out its program of legal education and accomplish its mission. Standard 606 is not satisfied solely by arranging for students and faculty to have access to other law libraries within the region.

41

103AChapter 7 - FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND TECHNOLOGY

Standard 701. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

(a) A law school shall have facilities, equipment, technology, and technology support that enable it to operate in compliance with the Standards and carry out its program of legal education.

(b) A law school is not in compliance with the Standards if its facilities, equipment, technology, or technology support have a negative and material effect on the school's ability to operate in compliance with the Standards; or to carry out its program of legal education.

Interpretation 701-1In determining whether technology and technology support comply with this Standard, among the factors to be considered are:

(1) the hardware and software resources and infrastructure available to support the teaching, scholarship, research, service, and administrative needs of students, faculty, and staff of the law school;

(2) staff support and space for staff operations; and

(3) the law school's financial resources and overall ability to maintain and, as appropriate, adopt new technology.

Standard 702. FACILITIES(a) A law school's facilities shall include:

(1) suitable class and seminar rooms in sufficient number and size to permit reasonable scheduling of all classes, skills offerings, and seminars;

(2) a law library that is suitable and sufficient in size, location, and design in relation to the law school’s programs and enrollment to accommodate the needs of the law school’s students and faculty and the law library’s services, collections, staff, operations, and equipment;

(3) suitable and sufficient space for staff providing support services, including student support services, to the program of legal education;

(4) office space for full-time faculty members that is suitable and sufficient for faculty research, class preparation, and faculty-student conferences; and suitable and sufficient space for part-time faculty members to conduct faculty-student conferences;

(5) facilities and equipment that meet all applicable health and safety codes;

42

103A

(6) suitable and sufficient space for equipment and records;

(7) suitable and sufficient space appropriate for conducting any in-house clinical programs in a manner that assures competent and ethical representation of clients and meaningful instruction and supervision of students, including confidential space for (i) client interviewing, (ii) working on and discussing client cases, and (iii) security for client files;

(8) suitable and sufficient space for its students and faculty for quiet study and research; and

(9) suitable and sufficient space for group study and other forms of collaborative work.

(b) A law school shall provide reasonable access and accommodations to persons with disabilities, consistent with applicable law.

Interpretation 702-1If all or part of the facilities are leased or financed, determining whether the law school is in compliance with the Standards includes a determination of the law school’s right to occupy and continue to occupy the premises, including its financial and overall ability to comply with the lease or financing terms; the duration, lease renewal terms, and conditions; and termination or foreclosure provisions.

Interpretation 702-2A law school’s facilities should be under the exclusive control and reserved for the exclusive use of the law school. If the facilities are not under the exclusive control of the law school or are not reserved for its exclusive use, the arrangements must permit proper scheduling of all law classes and other law school activities.

Interpretation 702-3In determining whether class and seminar rooms comply with this Standard, among the factors to be considered are: acoustics, sight lines, seating, lighting, temperature, ventilation, and available educational technology.

43

103AREPORT

Introduction

On behalf of the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, I respectfully submit to the House of Delegates for its concurrence, the attached changes to the ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools.

In August 2008, the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar directed its Standards Review Committee (Committee) to conduct a comprehensive review of the Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools. Such a review is required of all accrediting agencies recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. The Council and its Accreditation Committee are recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as the national accrediting agency for programs leading to the J.D. degree.

The Committee was charged with reviewing the recommendations of the 2007 report of the Accreditation Task Force as well as the recommendations of the 2008 reports of the special committees on Transparency, Security of Position, and Outcome Measures. These reports encouraged the Committee to include in its review the following:

Consider whether the Standards and Interpretations are appropriately focused to accomplish the goals of accreditation as required by the U. S. Department of Education and whether they avoid unnecessarily micromanaging individual schools.

Review the Standards to ensure that they are consistent with a conception of the Standards as a set of minimum requirements designed, developed, and implemented for the purpose of advancing the basic goal of providing a sound program of legal education.

Re-examine the current Standards and reframe them to reduce their reliance on input measures and instead adopt a greater and more overt reliance on outcome measures.

Consider increased transparency regarding availability of documents, self-studies and strategic plans, and expanding consumer information.

Consider whether the alternative set of Standards and Interpretation regarding academic freedom, faculty governance, and the ability to attract and retain competent faculty developed by the Special Committee on Security of Position would better serve the interests underlying the existing Standards.

In August 2008, a memorandum was sent to deans, university presidents, state supreme court chief justices, ABA entities, and others interested in legal education advising them that a comprehensive review of the Standards would commence in September 2008. The memorandum welcomed and encouraged comments, observations and suggestions about the efficacy and appropriateness of any of the Standards or Rules.

A website was created for the comprehensive review, with links to the Special Committee Reports: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/committees/standards_review.html.

1

103A

At the outset of the review, the Committee created a Statement of Principles of Accreditation and Fundamental Goals of a Sound Program of Legal Education. The principles addressed educational quality, the core mission of legal education, accountability of accredited institutions, clarity and precision in the Standards, and assessment of program quality and student learning. Drafts of the Principles Statement were posted on the Section website and circulated broadly. The Committee requested comments on accreditation practices and principles and on the values advanced and goals served by contemporary legal education. In May 2009, the Committee posted the final adopted Statement on the website.

During the Comprehensive Review, the Committee held 23 meetings, all open to the public, from November 2008 to April 2014. The Chair, Committee members, and the Managing Director (formerly the Consultant) met with various interest groups and participated in numerous conferences, including those held by the Association of American Law Schools, Law School Admission Council, National Conference of Bar Examiners, National Conference on Professional Responsibility, State Bar of California’s Council on Access and Fairness, Southeastern Association of Law Schools, Special Committee on the Professional Education Continuum, and multiple groups of law school deans and faculty.

Information pertaining to the Comprehensive Review process was published in Syllabus (the e-newsletter of the Section), posted to the Section’s website, and widely distributed to affiliated organizations, law school deans and associate deans, the judiciary, directors of state bar admission authorities, presidents of universities affiliated with ABA-approved law schools, and other organizations concerned with legal education.

In addition to the review of the comments received during the Comprehensive Review, the Committee held two open forum meetings for interested parties to provide oral comments to the Committee.

During 2013 and 2014, the Committee forwarded its recommendations for changes to the Standards and Rules to the Council, which distributed them for comment from interested constituencies. All comments received were posted on the Section’s website and reviewed by the Committee and the Council. In addition, four hearings were held on matters distributed for comment. Transcripts of the testimony received were also posted on the website.

At its meeting in March 2014, the Council approved the vast majority of the recommendations that had been circulated for Notice and Comment. In addition, the Council approved several additional matters for Notice and Comment, including revised Rules of Procedure. After reviewing the comments received on the matters circulated for comment in March 2014, the Council made final determinations on the recommendations at its meeting on June 6, 2014.

The changes achieved the following results:

2

103A Modified Standards to be more objective rather than subjective Highlighted reporting requirements Incorporated student learning outcomes into the Standards Clarified/strengthened curricular requirements Acknowledged the three competencies from the MacCrate Report – knowledge,

skills, and values Modified existing rules to provide greater clarity regarding requirements of

Standards Provided increased guidance in Standards Streamlined the sabbatical review process Implemented directions of the Council to review the three special committee

reports  Responded to changes and requirements in Department of Education regulations Addressed changes in legal education  Provided schools with increased flexibility  Increased consumer information Improved structure of Standards Moved Interpretations into Standards where substance of the Interpretation

belonged in the Standards Moved Standards that provided guidance into Interpretations Eliminated Standards and Interpretations that are unenforceable, unnecessary,

unclear, or repetitive

A clean copy of the revised Standards for Approval of Law Schools can be found here:http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/201406_revised_standards_clean_copy.pdf.

Explanation of Changes

Definitions SectionA new Definitions Section applies to both the Standards and the Rules of Procedure. In the current Standards, definitions are found in Standard 106, and under the current Rules, definitions are found in Rule 1. Almost all of the changes are clarifying amendments.

“Approved law school” is no longer defined as a school that appears on the list of law schools approved by the Council. An approved law school under the revised definitions is one that the Council has determined meets the requirements of the Standards.

Under the current definitions, a “Branch campus” is a separate location at which the law school offers sufficient courses to allow a student to earn at the separate location all of the credits required for the J.D. degree. Under the revised definitions, a branch campus is a type of separate location at which a student may earn more than two-thirds of the credit hours required for the J.D. degree. Under the revised definitions, the term “Satellite campus” is no longer used. The term “Separate location” in the revised definitions means any location within the United States at which the law school offers more than sixteen credit hours of the

3

103Aprogram of legal education and that is not in reasonable proximity to the law school’s main campus. A branch campus is a type of separate location.

The revised definition of “Full-time faculty member” has been moved from current Standard 402 to the new Definitions section. The definition adds a reference to faculty members who are designated by the law school as full-time faculty members and deletes the limitation that outside professional activities must be limited to those that relate to major academic interests, enrich the faculty member’s capacity as a scholar and teacher, or are of service to the legal profession and the public generally.

Under the revised definitions, “J.D. degree” is no longer defined as the first professional degree in law. The new definition states that the J.D. degree means the professional degree in law granted upon completion of a program of legal education that is governed by the Standards.

The revised definition of “President” includes a reference to law schools that are not part of a university.

Chapter 1 – General Purposes and Practices

Standard 101. BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVALRevised Standard 101 clarifies the basic requirements for approval of a law school, focusing on the ability of a law school to operate in compliance with the Standards. The Standard clarifies that the approving entity is the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar.

Current Interpretation 101-2, which states that approval of a law school by the Council is not transferrable, has been moved into the Standards as revised Standard 101(b).

Current Interpretation 101-1, covering information that must be furnished to the Accreditation Committee and the Council, has been moved into revised Standard 104.

Standard 102. PROVISIONAL APPROVALThe requirements for provisional approval are clarified and a number of restrictions are refocused on what a provisionally approved school can undertake prior to achieving full approval. All of the current Interpretations have been removed or moved into the Standard.

Standard 103. FULL APPROVALRevised Standard 103(a) clarifies that a law school must be in full compliance with each of the Standards in order to achieve full approval.

Revised Standard 103(b) provides that a law school retains approval unless approval is withdrawn by the Council.

4

103AStandard 104. PROVISION OF INFORMATION BY LAW SCHOOLS TO ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE AND COUNCILCurrent Interpretation 101-1, covering information that must be furnished to the Accreditation Committee and the Council, has been moved into revised Standard 104. Revised Standard 104 clearly states the requirement that the information furnished by a law school must be complete, accurate, and not misleading, and must be submitted in the form, manner, and time frame specified by the Council.

Standard 105. ACQUIESCENCE FOR MAJOR CHANGE IN PROGRAM OR STRUCTUREThe major change provision has been re-worked and divided into a Standard dealing with major changes in general, and a separate Standard, revised Standard 106, covering separate locations opened by a law school.

Current Interpretation 105-1, which lists the types of changes that require Council acquiescence, has been moved into Standard 105(a).

Standard 106. SEPARATE LOCATIONS AND BRANCH CAMPUSESRevised Standard 106 is a new Standard on separate locations. It clarifies and expands upon several Interpretations that are in current Standard 105. A separate location at which more than 16 credits, but less than two-thirds of the credits required for graduation, are offered must provide certain full-time faculty and other resources on site. A separate location at which a student may earn more than two-thirds of the credits required for graduation is designated a branch campus and must provide additional resources and services.

Definitions of “Separate location” and “Branch campus” have been added to the Definitions section of the Standards. The term “Satellite campus” is no longer used.

Standard 107. VARIANCESThe variances provision has been moved from Chapter 8 into Chapter 1. The Standard has been re-written to distinguish clearly between variances in an emergency or other exigent circumstances, and those sought to experiment with a new or innovative program or concept.

DEFINITIONSThe definitions in the Standards are being moved from current Standard 106 to a separate Definitions Section.

Chapter 2 - ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION

Revised Standard 201. LAW SCHOOL GOVERNANCE This is a reworking and consolidation of current Standard 204 (Governing Board of an Independent Law School), Standard 205 (Governing Board and Law School Authority), Standard 207 (Allocation of Authority between Dean and Faculty), and parts of Standard 210 (Law School-University Relationship).

5

103A

The current language in Standard 205(b), that the dean and faculty “shall formulate and administer the educational program of the law school,” has been replaced with the requirement in revised Standard 201(a) that the dean and faculty “shall have primary responsibility and authority for planning, implementing and administering the program of legal education.”

The current language in Standard 205(b) that the dean and faculty “shall recommend the selection, retention, promotion, and tenure (or granting of security of position) of the faculty” is retained in revised Standard 201(b).

Current Standard 207 has been replaced by revised Standard 201(c), which requires that the dean and faculty shall each have “a significant role in determining educational policy.”

Revised Standard 201(d) replaces current Standard 210(b) and makes clear that where the law school is part of a university, either the policies applicable to the law school “shall be consistent with the Standards,” or the law school will need to promulgate separate policies “where necessary to ensure compliance with the Standards.”

Revised Standard 201(e) replaces current Standard 204 and makes clear that a law school that is not part of a university must be governed by a board with “responsibility and authority for ensuring operation of the law school in compliance with the Standards.”

Revised Standard 202. RESOURCES FOR PROGRAMS This Standard is a reworking and consolidation of current Standard 201 (Resources for Program) and parts of Standard 210 (Law School-University Relationship). Revised Standard 202(a) requires that the “current and anticipated financial resources available to the law school” be sufficient for it to operate in compliance with the Standards and carry out its program of legal education.

Revised Standard 202(c) makes clear that a law school is not in compliance with the Standards if either its current financial condition has, or its anticipated financial condition is reasonably expected to have, “a negative and material effect on the school's ability to operate in compliance with the Standards or carry out its program of legal education.”

Revised Standard 202(b) provides that a law school that is part of a university must obtain from its university (at least annually) an accounting for all charges and costs assessed against the “resources generated by the law school” and for any such resources used to “support non-law school activities and central university services.”

Revised Standard 202(e) retains the requirement in current Standard 210(d), which requires that the law school be given the opportunity to present its recommendations on budgetary matters to the university administration before the budget for the law school is submitted to the governing board for adoption. Current Interpretations 210-1 and 210-2 are essentially incorporated into revised Standard 202 in an appropriate and less intrusive

6

103Aform. Revised Interpretation 202-1 defines “resources generated” by the law school for purposes of the revised Standards. Current Interpretation 201-2 regarding compensation based on a number of persons enrolled in a law school has been eliminated.

Revised Standard 203. DEANThis revised Standard is a reworking of current Standard 206 (Dean), the majority of which is retained in the proposal. It provides that a law school shall have a full-time dean, selected by the appropriate governing body, with the authority and support necessary to discharge the responsibilities of the position (explicated elsewhere in the Standards).

The Standards Review Committee had recommended that the language of current Standard 206(c), which states that “a dean shall also hold appointment as a member of the faculty with tenure,” be replaced in revised Standard 203(b) with the requirement that the dean “shall hold appointment as a member of the law faculty with the rights and protections accorded to other members of the full-time faculty under Standard 405.” Based on the Council’s decision to make no change to current Standard 405, this proposed change was also not approved.

Revised Standard 203(c) adds new language (reflected in part in current Interpretation 206-1) requiring that the decanal appointment procedure “assure meaningful involvement by the faculty or a representative body of the faculty.”

This Standard is buttressed by three revised Interpretations: 203-1 providing (as does current Interpretation 206-1) that in the absence of “good cause,” a dean “should not be appointed or reappointed for a new term over the stated objection of a substantial majority of the faculty”; 203-2 regarding the procedures for the appointment of an interim or acting dean that assures “meaningful consultation with the faculty or a representative body”; and 203-3 which defines the extension of the service of an interim or acting dean beyond two years as a regular decanal appointment or reappointment.

Revised Standard 204. SELF-STUDY This revised Standard is a broadened delineation of the self-study required by current Standard 202. This broadened delineation is deemed necessary to make the product of the self-study more meaningful to the site evaluation process and the Accreditation Committee. The self-study now incorporates the sabbatical questionnaire, eliminating some of the duplication in the two prior requirements.

Current Standard 203 (Strategic Planning and Assessment) has been eliminated in light of revised Standard 315, which requires a law school to conduct ongoing evaluations of its program of legal education, learning outcomes, and assessment methods, and accordingly, to make changes necessary to the improvement of its curriculum.

Revised Standard 205. NON-DISCRIMINATION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITYRevised Standard 205 replaces current Standard 211. No significant changes are recommended. The change in revised Standard 205(b) clarifies that the Standard applies to students, faculty, and staff.

7

103A

A suggestion to include “gender identity” in the list of non-discrimination categories was not adopted by the Council.

Revised Standard 206. DIVERSITY AND INCLUSIONRevised Standard 206 replaces current Standard 212. The title of the revised Standard has been changed from “Equal Opportunity and Diversity” in current Standard 212 to “Diversity and Inclusion” to emphasize the purpose of the Standard. The words “diversity and inclusion” have been added to revised Standards 206(a) and 206(b).

Revised Interpretation 206-2 deletes a specific reference to Grutter v. Bollinger and states that a law school may use race and ethnicity in its admissions process to promote diversity and inclusion “if consistent with applicable law.”

A suggestion to include “gender identity, sexual orientation, age, and disability” in the list of specifically identified underrepresented groups was not adopted by the Council.

Revised Standard 207. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIESRevised Standard 207 replaces current Standard 213. The word “may” has been deleted in revised 207(a) and the words “consistent with applicable law” have been added to the Standard to clarify that schools must provide accommodations for qualified individuals with disabilities consistent with applicable law.

Revised Standard 207(b) is new and requires law schools to adopt, publish, and adhere to written policies and procedures for assessing and handling requests for reasonable accommodations made by qualified individuals with disabilities.

As a result of this change in Revised Standard 207(a), current Interpretations 213-1 and 213-2 have been deleted.

Current Standard 208. INVOLVEMENT OF ALUMNI, STUDENTS AND OTHERSThis Standard has been deleted as extraneous and unnecessary in light of the inherent authority of law schools to involve others in its affairs, and the clearly delineated authority of the dean and faculty over the program of legal education of the law school in Revised Standard 201.

Current Standard 209. NON-UNIVERSITY AFFILIATED LAW SCHOOLSThis Standard has been deleted as redundant and adequately covered by the general requirement that all law schools must satisfy each of the Standards.

Chapter 3 – PROGRAM OF LEGAL EDUCATION

BackgroundIn 2007, the Council appointed an Outcome Measures Committee. This committee recommended changes in the current Standards to effect a reduction in reliance on input

8

103Ameasures and to “adopt a greater and more overt reliance on outcome measures.” This shift was viewed as consistent with best practices in legal education and encouraged by the U.S. Department of Education guidelines.

The Outcome Measures Committee emphasized that outcome Standards should have the following characteristics:

1. Aside from the traditional curricular requirements found in the current Standards, the outcome Standards should provide law schools substantial flexibility in identifying outcomes that are consistent with their missions.

2. The outcomes Standards should not impose unnecessary costs on law schools. In particular, burdensome assessment regimes of individual student achievement for each learning outcome should not be required.

3. Law schools should have flexibility in determining what assessment methods to use across the curriculum.

4. A phase-in period for development of learning outcomes and assessment methods by law schools should be provided.

Revised Standard 301. OBJECTIVES OF PROGRAM OF LEGAL EDUCATION The requirement of a rigorous program of legal education is moved from current Interpretation 301-3 to revised Standard 301(a). The requirement of preparation for ethical participation in the legal profession, while found in various Standards and Interpretations, is placed upfront in Standard 301(a) pertaining to objectives of the program of legal education.

Revised Standard 301(b) is a new provision that introduces the requirement that law schools establish and publish learning outcomes to achieve the objectives of the program of legal education.

Current Standard 301(b), pertaining to comparable opportunities, is moved to Standard 312.

Current Interpretations 301-4 and 301-5 that address comparable opportunities have been deleted.

Current Interpretations 301-1 and 301-2 have been deleted as unnecessary.

Current Interpretation 301-6 on bar passage has been moved to become Standard 316.

Revised Standard 302. LEARNING OUTCOMES Current Standard 302 [Curriculum] has been replaced with revised Standard 302 [Learning Outcomes] and revised Standard 303 [Curriculum].

9

103ARevised Standard 302 is a new Standard that outlines the minimum learning outcomes that must be established by a law school. The responsibility of a law school to assess student learning and to evaluate its program of legal education is found is revised Standards 314 and 315. The learning outcomes are broadly stated to give law schools maximum flexibility.

Interpretation 302-1 provides a non-exclusive listing of “other professional skills.”

Interpretation 302-2 provides that a law school “may also identify any additional learning outcomes pertinent to its program of legal education.”

10

103ARevised Standard 303. CURRICULUM Current Standard 302(a) has a list of mandatory requirements for the law school curriculum. The current Standard does not prescribe any credit hour requirements for specific areas. Revised Standard 303 includes a requirement of two credit hours in professional responsibility.

In September 2013, the Council circulated for Notice and Comment revised Standard 303(a)(3), which included a new requirement of six credits of instruction in an experiential course or courses. To qualify, the experiential course or courses must be a simulation, law clinic, or field placement, all as defined in subsequent Standards. Four requirements for a qualifying experiential course are set out.

In December 2013, the Council circulated an alternative proposal for Standard 303(a)(3), which increases the new requirement from six to 15 credits of instruction in an experiential course or courses.

At its meeting on March 14 – 15, 2014, the Council approved the first alternative, requiring six credits of instruction in an experiential course or courses.

Revised Standard 303(b) is a revision of current Standard 302(b), which requires law schools to provide “substantial opportunities” for live-client or other real-life practice experiences; student participation in pro bono activities; and small group work. The proposal changes “live-client or other real-life practice experiences” to “law clinics or field placements” and eliminates “small group work” from the Standard. It also changes “pro bono activities” to “pro bono legal services or law-related public service.” Current Interpretation 302-10 has been replaced by revised Interpretations 303-2 and 303-3, which reference pro bono activities as defined in the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and provide a description of law-related public service activities. The Council also added language to Interpretation 303-2 encouraging law schools to promote opportunities for law students to provide at least 50 hours of pro bono service during law school.

Revised Standard 304. SIMULATION COURSES AND LAW CLINICS This is a new Standard that defines and sets out the requirements for two of the three experiential courses that qualify for the new experiential course requirement in revised Standard 303(a).

Revised Standard 305. FIELD PLACEMENTS AND OTHER STUDY OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOMThis is largely a restatement of current Standard 305. The title of the Standard has been changed from “Study Outside the Classroom” to “Field Placements and Other Study Outside the Classroom.”

The revised change in 305(a) is designed to clarify what is included in study outside the classroom. Interpretation 305-1 has been deleted and the explanation of what constitutes study outside the classroom has been moved to the text of 305(a). The reference that was

11

103Ain 305-1 regarding courses taken in parts of a college or university has been deleted as this subject is covered in Standard 311.

Revised Standard 305(e), which is largely the same as the current Standard, outlines the requirements for field placement courses, which are the third of the types of courses that will satisfy the new experiential course requirement of revised Standard 303.

Revised Standard 305(e)(5) reflects a strengthening of the current provision pertaining to supervision of the student experience. In revised Standards 305(e)(5) and 305(e)(7), the number of credits that require increased oversight by the law school has been decreased from four to three.

Current Interpretation 305-4(a) has been moved into the Standard as 305(f).

Unnecessary Interpretations have been eliminated.

Interpretation 305-2.Current Interpretation 305-3 is unchanged and renumbered in the revised Standards as Interpretation 305-2. The Standards Review Committee recommended the deletion of current Interpretation 305-3. The Committee was not unanimous but a sizable majority of the members felt that the Standards should not have a blanket prohibition against receiving credit for a field placement where a student receives compensation. They felt that a blanket prohibition puts significant limits on the available field placement opportunities. While there was some concern about the pedagogical difficulties when students are paid and receive credit, the Committee noted that whether or not students are paid, schools must meet all of the requirements of Standard 305. The Council circulated the proposed deletion for Notice and Comment. After reviewing the comments, which were largely opposed to the change, the Council decided not to delete the Interpretation.

Revised Standard 306. DISTANCE EDUCATION A clearer and updated definition of a distance education course is provided in revised Standard 306(a). The definition clarifies that only courses in which more than one-third of the instruction consists of distance education are treated as distance education course. Current Interpretation 306-3, which addresses that issue, has been deleted.

The examples of technology found in current Standard 306(a) have been placed in new Interpretation 306-1. Current Interpretation 306-5, which uses mandatory language and pertains to a law school’s capacity to provide distance education, has been moved to revised Standard 306(c). A new provision requiring that the learning outcomes for a distance education course must be consistent with Standard 302 is added as revised Standard 306(d)(3).

More generally, the language of the revised Standard is improved and updated and unnecessary Interpretations are eliminated.

12

103ARevised Standard 307. PARTICIPATION IN STUDIES OR ACTIVITIES IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY The portion of current Interpretation 307-1 that relates to field placements in foreign countries has been moved into revised Standard 307(a)(2). This does not represent a change in substance.

Revised Standard 307(b) provides that the total credits permitted for activities and studies abroad is limited to one-third of the credits required for the J.D. degree. This limitation was previously found in the Criteria relating to foreign study.

Revised Standard 308. ACADEMIC STANDARDS The revised Standard replaces current Standard 303 (Academic Standards and Achievements) and focuses on academic standards. Revised Standard 308(b) is a new provision pertaining to due process policies.

Current Standard 303(b) is deleted because the topic is covered by revised Standards 314 and 315.

Current Standard 303(c) is deleted due to the creation of revised Standard 309.

Revised Standard 309. ACADEMIC ADVISING AND SUPPORT This is a new Standard that replaces current Interpretations 303-3 and 303-4 on academic advising and support.

Revised Standard 310. DETERMINATION OF CREDIT HOURS FOR COURSEWORKThis is a new Standard that utilizes the U.S. Department of Education definition of credit hours. More generally, this provision involves a shift from the use of minutes to the use of the concept of credit hours to describe the various requirements of the Standards.

Revised Standard 311. ACADEMIC PROGRAM AND ACADEMIC CALENDAR The revised Standard, which replaces current Standard 304, incorporates the new concept of a credit hour and defines the minimum academic year to include examination periods.

Revised Standard 311(a) clarifies that with the new definition of credit hours, examination periods can be included in the academic year.

Revised Standard 311(b) replaces “58,000 minutes of instruction time” found in current Standard 304(a) with “83 credit hours,” 64 of which must be in courses that require attendance in regularly scheduled classroom sessions or “direct faculty instruction.”

Revised Standard 311(c) retains the language of current Standard 304(c) and adds an “extraordinary circumstances” exception.

The 20 hour limit on student employment, contained in the current Standard 304(f), is eliminated on the ground that is has been unenforceable.

13

103A

Revised Interpretation 311-2 is a restructuring of current Interpretation 304-3. It provides a complete list of credit hours that do qualify and do not qualify for the 311(b) requirement of 64 credits of regularly scheduled classroom sessions or direct faculty instruction. This clarification will eliminate current ambiguities and uncertainties.

Current Interpretation 304-5 is moved to revised Standard 311(e).

Revised Interpretation 311-3 provides guidance regarding the “extraordinary circumstances” exception in revised Standard 311(c).

Revised Interpretations 311-4 and 311-5 provide guidance to law schools regarding the operation of revised Standard 311(c) in certain circumstances.

Current Interpretation 304-7 has been moved to Standard 505(b).

Unnecessary Interpretations have been deleted.

Revised Standard 312. REASONABLY COMPARABLE OPPORTUNITIES This revised Standard is taken from current Standard 301(b) and it is redrafted to provide greater clarity.

Revised Standard 313. DEGREE PROGRAMS IN ADDITION TO J.D . This is a redrafting of current Standard 308. There is no change in substance.

Current Interpretation 308-2 is eliminated as unnecessary.

Revised Standard 314. ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING This is a new Standard that introduces the obligation of law schools to use assessment methods in the curriculum to measure and improve student learning and to provide feedback to students.

Both formative and summative assessments are described in revised Interpretation 313-1.

Revised Interpretation 314-2 makes it clear that law schools have flexibility in implementing the assessment requirement.

Revised Standard 315. EVALUATION OF PROGRAM OF LEGAL EDUCATION, LEARNING OUTCOMES, AND ASSESSMENT METHODSThis is a new Standard. It requires the dean and faculty of the law school to engage in an ongoing evaluation of the program of legal education, learning outcomes, and assessment methods. It also requires that the results of the evaluations be used to make appropriate changes.

The Interpretation offers examples of methods that may be used in these evaluations.

14

103ARevised Standard 316. BAR PASSAGE Current Interpretation 301-6 on bar passage has been moved to become Standard 316.

Chapter 4 - THE FACULTY

Standard 401. QUALIFICATIONSConsistent with other changes in the Standards, revised Standard 401 clarifies that the law school must have a faculty whose qualifications and experience “enable the law school to operate in compliance with the Standards and carry out its program of legal education.”

As a factor in demonstrating whether the faculty possesses a high degree of competence, “scholarly research and writing” has been replaced by “scholarship.” A similar change is made in Standard 404.

Standard 402. SIZE OF FULL-TIME FACULTYRevised Standard 402 is largely unchanged from current Standard 402(a).

Current Standard 402(b), which defines “full-time faculty member,” has been moved to the Definitions section of the Standards.

Current Interpretations 402-1 and 402-2 on student-faculty ratio have been removed from the Standards. In 2008, the same recommendation was made by the Standards Review Committee and was sent out for Notice and Comment by the Council. When the Comprehensive Review of the Standards began, the matter was postponed for later review.

In approving this change, the Council agreed with the explanation provided by the Standards Review Committee:

The Standards Review Committee concluded that the student-faculty ratio as derived under the current Interpretations to Standard 402 should be discontinued because the ratio does not account for all students enrolled in a law school and because it does not appropriately account for size of the faculty given the important changes in law school curriculum, teaching methodologies, and administrative structures in law schools since adoption of these Interpretations many years ago. Furthermore, the Standards Review Committee concluded that the present student-faculty ratio is misleading because it does not provide a useful measure of the adequacy of the full-time faculty’s size to address the totality of the faculty’s obligations under Standard 404.

The Standard Review Committee concluded that the difficulties in developing a ratio that would fully and fairly measure the adequacy of the size of the full-time faculty to address all of the responsibilities of the full-time faculty under Standard 404 made calculation of a ratio practically unfeasible.

15

103AThe Accreditation Committee, in determining whether a law school’s faculty is large enough, looks at a number of factors including what portions of the first-year curriculum and upper-level curriculum in the day and evening divisions are taught by full-time and part-time faculty, what core subjects beyond the first-year courses are taught by full-time and part-time faculty, and the extent to which faculty members are meeting all of their obligations under Standard 404.

Law schools are required to report annually useful consumer information regarding teaching resources. Much of the data reports on full- and part-time faculty and students and provides other data such as the typical size of first-year classes, whether there are small section first-year classes beyond legal writing, the typical size of those other small section classes, number of courses offered beyond the first year of law school, the numbers of upper-level classes offered in various size ranges, number of seminars, and number of positions available and filled in seminars, simulation courses, and clinical courses. The student-faculty ratio, however, has not proven to be a useful or accurate indicator of what ranges of class size prospective students will experience in law school. The Standards Review Committee believes that Standard 509 ought to require disclosure of additional data on faculty, such as number of courses taught by adjuncts and full-time faculty, as a matter of consumer information related to the adequacy of the faculty to satisfy its core teaching responsibilities under 402(a)(1).

Standard 403. INSTRUCTIONAL ROLE OF FACULTYRevised Standard 403(a) clarifies the current requirement by stating that full-time faculty shall teach “more than half of all of the credit hours actually offered by the school or two-thirds of the student contact hours generated by student enrollment at the school” rather than “the major portion of law school’s curriculum.” The revised Standard retains the direction that full-time faculty shall teach substantially all of the first one-third of each student’s coursework.

Current Standard 403(c), regarding the use of practicing lawyers and judges, has been deleted. Law schools may, of course, use practicing lawyers and judges to deliver instruction, but are not obligated under the Standards to do so.

Current Interpretation 403-1 is also deleted because it is unnecessary and is addressed in the Standard itself.

Revised Interpretation 403-1 is a redraft of current Interpretation 403-2.

Standard 404. RESPONSIBILITIES OF FULL-TIME FACULTYRevised Standard 404(a) clarifies that a law school must provide written policies with respect to the responsibilities of the full-time faculty as a whole. The areas of responsibility addressed in the revised Standard are generally the same as those in the current Standard with some clarifications. The responsibility of teaching in 404(a)(1) also addresses the responsibility to assess student performance and to remain current in the subjects being taught. Revised Standard 404(a)(3) clarifies that scholarship is defined by

16

103Athe law school. Revised Standard 404(a)(4) clarifies that the faculty are responsible for governance as well as curriculum development and other institutional responsibilities described in the Standards.

Revised Standard 404(b) requires a law school to periodically evaluate the extent to which the faculty discharges its core responsibilities as well as the contributions of each faculty member in meeting those responsibilities.

Standard 405. PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT One of the important goals of the Comprehensive Review of the Standards is to ensure that accreditation requirements are clear to law schools and can readily be interpreted by the Accreditation Committee. Therefore, interests of greater clarity and transparency require that the revised Standards explicitly state whether or not schools must provide tenure rights and, if so, for whom on the law faculty.

The Council distributed two alternatives for comment: Alternative 1 includes a requirement that law schools provide full-time faculty members with a form of security of position sufficient to ensure academic freedom and to attract and retain a competent full-time faculty; Alternative 2 does not include a provision regarding security of position.

The Council reviewed two other alternatives that had been prepared by the Standards Review Committee. One was intended to be a clarification of the current Standard and the other would have required all full-time faculty to have the same form of security of position. The Council determined that it would not send out the other two alternatives for Notice and Comment.

In four respects – on the issues of attracting and retaining a competent faculty, academic freedom, participation in governance, and due process – the alternatives are very similar. The main difference in the alternatives is the treatment of security of position.

Protection of academic freedom Both alternatives explicitly articulate the obligation that schools have processes or programs that protect the academic freedom of their faculty members and possess the ability to attract and retain a qualified faculty. This is a significant change from the current language that requires only that approved schools have an “announced policy” concerning academic freedom protections. Moreover, the proposed Interpretations create a clearer statement of presumptions and burdens of proof in the accreditation process.

Law school governance Both alternatives require law schools to provide for the meaningful participation of all full-time faculty members in the governance of the law school.

Conditions to attract and retain a competent full-time faculty Both alternatives retain the current requirement that law schools must establish and maintain conditions that are adequate to attract and retain a competent full-time faculty.

17

103ADue process Both alternatives add into the Standard a due process provision similar to one that is currently found in Interpretation 405-3.

Security of Position Alternative 1 requires, in 405(d), that all full-time faculty have a form of security of position sufficient to ensure academic freedom and to attract and retain a competent full-time faculty. It does not require that all full-time faculty have the same form of security of position, and it does not require tenure.

Proposed Interpretations 405-1 and 405-2 provide that a tenure system is a safe harbor for satisfying the security of position required in Standard 405(d). For full-time faculty positions not covered by tenure, the law school must establish that its policies establish conditions sufficient to attract and retain a competent full-time faculty and protect academic freedom.

Alternative 2 requires a law school to maintain conditions adequate to attract and retain a competent full-time faculty sufficient to permit the law school to comply with the Standards. It requires policies to protect academic freedom of its faculty and provide for meaningful participation of full-time faculty in the governance of the school. Alternative 2 does not require tenure or security of position for any full-time faculty.

Proposed Interpretations 405-1 and 405-2 provide that a tenure system is a safe harbor for satisfying the attract and retain provision and the academic freedom provision of Alternative 2. For full-time faculty positions not covered by tenure, the law school must establish that its policies establish conditions sufficient to attract and retain a competent full-time faculty and protect academic freedom.

The proposed alternatives generated significant public comment. A majority of the Council expressed dissatisfaction with current Standard 405. However, neither of the alternative proposals that the Council had circulated for Notice and Comment were acceptable to a majority of the Council. Both of those proposals were loudly criticized by law school faculty during the comment period. Because no proposal for change garnered a majority of the Council, current Standard 405 was not amended.

Chapter 5 - ADMISSIONS AND STUDENT SERVICES

Revised Standard 501. ADMISSIONS Revised Standards 501(a) and (b) are essentially reworkings of current language.

Revised Standard 501(c) is drawn from current Standard 505 (Previously Disqualified Applicant) and now speaks to both admission and readmission. The documentation requirement assigned to the law school has been simplified and clarified, and it is stated straightforwardly.

18

103ACurrent Interpretations 501-1 and 501-3 have been retained and are now numbered 501-2 and 501-1, respectively.

Interpretation 501-2 has been eliminated because it simply admonishes the law school to follow certain Standards.

Interpretation 501-4 has been eliminated because it is unnecessary. The underlying concept in the first sentence is addressed more pertinently in other Chapters, and the second sentence is a statement of the obvious.

Revised Standard 502. EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS Revised Standard 502 sets forth with greater clarity the educational routes by which law schools may admit individual applicants. By splitting current Standard 502(a) into two parts—now 502(a) and (b)(1)—the language now avoids the collision of two concepts embodied in the current rule (that the school “shall require” a bachelor’s degree followed immediately by the lesser requirement of a percentage of credits toward such a degree). Further, revised Standard 502(b)(2) now addresses the issue of foreign law school graduates under the appropriate Standard.

Revised Standard 502(c) retains the substance of Standard 502(b).

Interpretation 502(1) has been retained and simplified.

Revised Standard 503. ADMISSION TEST The Standards Review Committee presented the Council with two alternatives for Standard 503. One alternative was to eliminate the Standard and the other was to make minor changes to the Standard.

The Council chose to circulate for comment only the alternative that retained the Standard. That proposal retains the language of the current Standard with a small stylistic change. Current Interpretation 503-1 has been retained because it is well settled that the LSAT has been validated as a predictor of first-year law school grades, and generally accepted that first-year grades are predictive of the student’s ultimate capability of completing the program. Current Interpretations 503-3 and 503-4 have been eliminated.

The memorandum from the Standards Review Committee to the Council explaining the two alternatives stated:

The Council is presented with the opportunity to resolve an issue that has divided the Committee over several years, with each of two positions prevailing at different times on straw votes.

The question presented is whether compelling law schools to use an admission test is appropriately an accreditation requirement.

One alternative is to eliminate Standard 503. The other alternative is to retain it as modified in revised Standard 503.

19

103A

It is important that the Council understand that a decision to delete what, for shorthand purposes, will be termed the LSAT requirement, does not suggest, and indeed should not be taken to express a lack of confidence in that instrument or in the wisdom of using a fair and valid objective test as one key measure in winnowing a class of entering students from each school’s applicant pool. The LSAT can and does provide a fair measure of first-year law school performance and correlates well with the final law school grade-point average, rank in class, and performance on bar examinations. It helps a law school identify promising performers. It also helps schools avoid the admission of those who are not capable of satisfactorily completing the law school program. Given the enormous investment of resources that individuals make in securing a legal education, the LSAT offers would-be students some predictability when they make such an important investment. In the future the LSAT probably will continue to be viewed by most law schools as an essential factor in the admissions equation since an LSAT score has consistent meaning across the applicant pool.

The issue here is not the wisdom of employing the LSAT as a valuable tool in calculating admissions decisions; rather, it is whether, as a matter of judging institutional quality, law school accrediting authorities should require the use of a valid and reliable test. It is our understanding that accreditation standards governing other professions are not so specific. It is also true that such entrance tests are still used in the admission process in other professional schools because they provide helpful evidence as well as added efficiency in the admissions context. Note that revised Interpretation 501-2 specifically cites “admission test scores” when describing “sound admission policies.”

The removal of Standard 503 will heighten the importance of adding rigorous requirements about disclosure of admission criteria in both Standard 509 and in the questionnaires that law schools complete. Removal will also require effective sanctions for schools that are not accurate or transparent in disclosing their admission criteria, which should include the percentage of the entering class producing an LSAT score (as opposed to selective reporting of the number of students for whom an LSAT score was taken into consideration at the point of the admissions decision).

To the extent that Standard 503 is retained, the basis for substituting tests other than the LSAT should be well-documented and public, the burden for establishing the validity of any test should be properly documented using accepted methods of measurement, and all departures from use of the LSAT should be disclosed in Standard 509.

If Standard 503 is retained, the revised language of the Standard has been shortened to eliminate the final sentence of the current Standard for two reasons. First, current Interpretation 503-2 already grants permission to law schools to assign any weight it chooses to an admission test score for any applicant. Second,

20

103Asince it is understood that some variances from use of law school admission test scores have been granted, thereby permitting the use of other tests to serve as surrogates, this sentence should be eliminated.

Current Interpretation 503-1 has been retained because it is well settled that the LSAT has been validated as a predictor of first-year law school grades, and generally accepted that first-year grades are predictive of the student’s ultimate capability of completing the program.

Revised Interpretation 503-3.At its March 2014 meeting, the Council reviewed a report and recommendation from the Accreditation Committee on 503 Variances. The new Interpretation is based on the recommendations in that report.

Revised Interpretation 503-3 describes a particular admissions program that meets the requirements of Standard 503. Such programs have been proposed by a number of law schools, and the Council has granted variances when the proposals have satisfied the criteria for a variance. The interpretation provides a safe harbor and clear guidance to schools on when and how such programs comply with Standard 503.

The Interpretation provides that a law school may admit no more than 10 percent of an entering class without requiring the LSAT from students in an undergraduate program of the same institution as the J.D. program; and/or students seeking the J.D. degree in combination with a degree in a different discipline. Applicants admitted must have scored at the 85th percentile nationally, or above, on a standardized college or graduate admissions test, specifically the ACT, SAT, GRE, or GMAT; and must have ranked in the top 10 percent of their undergraduate class through six semesters of academic work, or achieved a cumulative GPA of 3.5 or above through six semesters of academic work.

Outside these specific criteria Standard 503 continues to apply to the law school admissions process. The variance process is available to clarify when any other alternative test admissions programs may be employed on an experimental basis.

Schools that follow the admission process outlined in Interpretation 503-3 will be required to report annually on their admission programs and to follow the guidelines developed by the Council and the Managing Director’s Office.

BackgroundCurrent Standard 503 Admission Test, prescribes that “a law school shall require each applicant for admission as a first-year J.D. student to take a valid and reliable admission test to assist the school and the applicant in assessing the applicant’s capability of satisfactorily completing the school’s educational program.” Interpretation 503-1 specifies that “a law school that uses an admission test other than the Law School Admission Test sponsored by the Law School Admission Council shall establish that such other test is a valid and reliable test to assist the school in assessing an applicant’s capability to satisfactorily complete the school’s education program.”

21

103A

Current Standard 802 (Variance) states that “a law school proposing to offer a program of legal education, a portion of which is inconsistent with a Standard, may apply for a variance.” The authority to grant such a variance is reserved for the Council, which may impose conditions and shall impose time limits it considers appropriate. As provided in Interpretation 802-1, variances are generally limited to proposals based on a response to extraordinary circumstances that would create extreme hardship for students or a law school, or an experimental program that meets the requirements of the Standard. The Council may terminate a variance prior to the end of the stated time limit if the school fails to comply with any conditions imposed by the Council.

While a reading of Standard 503 could be that schools did not need a variance to operate an alternative-test admissions process, so long as they could subsequently prove to the satisfaction of the Accreditation Committee and the Council that its admissions process meets the requirement of the Standard that a school must require each beginning student to take a “valid and reliable” law school admissions test, in practice law schools have requested variances in advance of commencing such programs to assure themselves and the Council that their programs will meet the requirements of Standard 503.

In accordance with Standard 802, approximately 15 ABA-approved law schools have sought and been granted variances from Standard 503 by the Council in order to use other admission tests as alternatives to the LSAT. Generally, variances have been granted for two distinctly different purposes and types of alternative tests: (1) programs that aim primarily to recruit honors undergraduates from the law school’s own universities by excusing them from taking the LSAT and that use undergraduate admission tests such as the ACT or SAT; and (2) programs that use alternative tests for joint degree programs with business or other disciplines and that use graduate-level tests such as the GMAT or GRE. In these cases, excusing applicants from submitting LSAT scores relieves those applicants from taking two separate graduate-level admissions tests. In each case the Accreditation Committee and the Council had determined that the law school’s request for a variance was in accordance with Interpretation 802-1(b) of the Standards, which classifies the proposed admission programs as experimental.

For programs that have been in existence long enough for results to be known, special admission students have performed as well or better than regularly admitted students in graduating on time and passing the bar examination. It is important to recognize that the purpose of Standard 503 is “to assist the school and the applicant in assessing the applicant’s capability of satisfactorily completing the school’s education program.” From the data presented to the Accreditation Committee thus far, the alternative tests have been valid in terms of predicting academic success in law school.

Revised Standard 504. QUALIFICATIONS FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR Revised Standard 504(a) treats the matter of the notification that law schools provide to prospective applicants by setting forth explicit language of such notification to avoid uncertainty or ambiguity.

22

103AThe balance of current Standard 504(a) is covered in revised Standard 504(b), which treats the matter of the law school’s obligation to students who have matriculated.

Current Standards 504(b) and (c) have been eliminated. The language of (b) is not a Standard; it is merely instructive, as an Interpretation might be. However, the processes and value judgments that bar examiners in different jurisdictions apply to bar admission applications renders current (b) of negligible value. As to (c), this too, appears to exist more as an admonishment than as a Standard.

Revised Standard 505. GRANTING OF J.D. CREDIT FOR PRIOR LAW STUDY Revised Standard 505 seeks to consolidate in one Standard all the circumstances that lead to the granting of J.D. degree credit for prior study. Thus, it incorporates and simplifies material appearing in current Standards 506 (Applicants from Law Schools not Approved by the ABA) and 507 (Applicants from Foreign Law Schools), and Interpretation 304-7 regarding transfer of credits earned in an LL.M. program (generally by a graduate of a law school outside of the United States) into to a J.D. program. For the first time, the Standard also encompasses the student who transfers from another ABA-approved school.

This significantly streamlined Standard concludes with 505(e), which establishes a cap of one-third on credits that may be allowed by the admitting school on prior law study unless the study was undertaken as a J.D. degree student at another law school approved by the Council.

Under current practice, some law schools will allow a student who transfers into a J.D. program from an LL.M. program to receive up to one-third of the credits required for graduation from the law school outside the United States and to receive additional credits from the LL.M. program under current Interpretation 304-7. The Standard limits the total number of credits in such a situation to one-third of the credits required for graduation.

Revised Standard 506. ENROLLMENT OF NON-DEGREE CANDIDATES Revised Standard 506 represents a rewording of current Standard 508 chiefly to parallel other language in the Standards.

Revised Standard 507. STUDENT LOAN PROGRAMS Revised Standard 507 is a renumbering of current Standard 510. Language is intended to meet U.S. Department of Education requirements.

Revised Standard 508. STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES Revised Standard 508 is a renumbering of current Standard 511 and contains only minor edits. The only substantive change is the addition of debt counseling to the list of support services that a law school must provide.

Revised Standard 509. CONSUMER INFORMATION Revised Standard 509 represents a reworking of a Standard that has received Council action recently. Given the work undertaken by the Committee to look deeply and

23

103Athoroughly at the Standards, it was perhaps inevitable that additional articulations of what consumer information should be required would result.

The revised Standard 509 divides the information that the Standard requires a law school to publish on its website into two categories: (1) that for which the Council prescribes a particular form and manner of publication; and (2) that which the school must disclose in a readable and comprehensive manner. The revised Standard covers these two categories in 509(b) and 509(c), respectively. There are prescribed charts for employment and conditional scholarship information [509(b)(3) and (b)(7)], and the other items in 509(b) are included in a table that is generated by schools within the Annual Questionnaire. The items in 509(c) are not susceptible to a uniform format, and so are governed by the “readable and comprehensible” requirement. The revised Standard deletes “library resources” and “facilities” as consumer information items. The provisions in current Standard 509(d)(1), (2) and (4) are redundant and unnecessary once “form and manner designated by the Council” is added to 509(b).

Revised Standard 510. STUDENTS COMPLAINTS IMPLICATING COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS Revised Standard 510 is a renumbering of current Standard 512. Language is intended to meet U.S. Department of Education requirements.

Chapter 6 - LIBRARY AND INFORMATION RESOURCES

Revised Standard 601. GENERAL PROVISIONSThe opaque requirement that a law library be “an active and responsive force,” in the life of the law school has been replaced by the more specific requirement that the library provide support adequate to enable a law school to carry out its program of legal education. The only significant addition to the current Standard is that the library is required to engage in planning and assessment. While all other requirements remain the same, the revised Standard has been rewritten to eliminate Interpretations by moving the information into the Standard. The revised Standard now clearly states four basic requirements for the library (provide support, develop a responsive relationship with users, engage in planning and assessment, and implement technology when appropriate) and one requirement for the law school (provide sufficient financial resources for the library to fulfill its responsibilities).

Revised Standard 602. ADMINISTRATIONNo significant changes are recommended. The revised Standard has been rewritten for greater clarity.

Current Standard 603. DIRECTOR OF THE LAW LIBRARYRevised Standard 603(a) adds “providing information resources in appropriate formats to faculty and students” as one of the overall management responsibilities of the law library director.

24

103AIn revised Standard 603(c), the requirement that the law library director must have specific degrees for the position has been replaced with a requirement that the director must have “appropriate academic qualifications.” As in other provisions in the revised Standards, the Committee added the requirement that the director’s knowledge and experience must be “sufficient to support the program of legal education and to enable the law school to operate in compliance with the Standards.”

Revised Interpretation 603-1 provides guidance for the Accreditation Committee by elaborating on how a law school could meet the Standard.

The Standards Review Committee had recommended that the language of current Standard 603(d), which states that “a law library director shall hold a law faculty appointment with security of faculty position,” be replaced in revised Standard 603(d) with the requirement that the law library director “shall hold appointment as a member of the law faculty with the rights and protections accorded to other members of the full-time faculty under Standard 405.” Based on the Council’s decision to make no change to current Standard 405, this revised change was also not approved.

25

103ARevised Standard 604. PERSONNELThe current Standard has been changed slightly to require a staff with expertise that will support the goals of the library and law school.

Revised Standard 605. SERVICESNo changes are recommended to the current Standard. The current Interpretation has been rewritten to better state how those services can be provided.

Revised Standard 606. COLLECTIONThe revisions to current Standard 606 reflect the change from an emphasis on ownership of materials to providing reliable access to legal information. The revised Standard also links the choices of format and means of access to the needs of the institution. Revised Interpretation 606-2 elaborates on the definition of “reliable access” by providing ways to meet the Standard through ongoing access to databases or participation in a formal resource-sharing arrangement with other libraries.

Chapter 7 - FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND TECHNOLOGY

Revised Standard 701. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Current Standard 701 is now revised Standard 701(a) and has been expanded to include equipment, technology, and technology support. The language of current Standard 701, that a law school must have “physical facilities” that are “adequate for both its current program of legal education and for growth anticipated in the immediate future,” and of current Interpretation 704-1, that “inadequate technological capacities are those that have a negative and material effect on the education students receive,” have been replaced with the requirement that a law school shall have “facilities, equipment, technology, and technology support” that “enable it to operate in compliance with the Standards and carry out its program of legal education.” This new language is used throughout the revised Standards to make the Standards more objective and provide greater clarity.

Current Standard 704 and current Interpretations 701-1 and 704-1 have been incorporated into revised Standard 701(b), explaining that in order to violate the requirements of the Standards, the facilities, equipment, technology, or technology support must “have a negative and material effect on the school’s ability . . . to operate in compliance with the Standards; or . . . carry out its program of legal education.” The purpose is to highlight the mandatory nature of this requirement.

This language is parallel to revised Standard 202 on resources. During its work, the Standards Review Committee heard from the Accreditation Committee that the current Standard regarding the adequacy or inadequacy of facilities presented interpretation problems. This change should facilitate interpretation of this requirement.

In light of the rapid changes in technology and technology support, Revised Interpretation 701-1 (current Interpretation 704-2 on adequate technological capacity), has been rewritten to highlight factors to be considered rather than requirements to be met.

26

103ARevised Standard 702. FACILITIES Revised Standard 702 is a new Standard and is based on a number of provisions that are in current Interpretation 701-2. It also incorporates current Standards 702 (Library) and 703 (Research and Study Space). Again, the purpose of this change is to highlight the mandatory nature of the facilities required.

As in revised Standard 701, the term “physical” has been deleted from the current Standard as redundant.

The word “adequate” is deleted throughout the revised chapter. The terms “suitable” or “suitable and sufficient” are used to make the revised Standards more objective.

Current Interpretations 701-2(1) and (2) have been combined by adding “skills offerings” in revised Standard 702(a)(1).

Current Standard 702 (Law Library) has been incorporated into revised Standard 702(a)(2) on facilities and has been rewritten for greater clarity.

Current Interpretation 701-2(5) had been replaced with the new language in revised Standard 702(a)(3).

Current Interpretation 701-2(3) regarding faculty offices was amended and rewritten as revised Standard 702(a)(4) to incorporate the new language of “suitable and sufficient” space.

Revised Standard 702(a)(5) requires that the facilities and equipment meet all applicable health and safety codes.

Revised Standard 702(a)(6) replaces current Interpretation 701-2(6). Consistent with language elsewhere, the concept of sufficiency has been added for greater clarity.

Revised Standard 702(a)(7) replaces current Interpretation 701-2(2) and is more specific in identifying the facilities required for any “in-house clinical programs” as well as identifying the purposes that those facilities should serve, such as assuring the ability to allow a clinical program to be conducted for the “competent and ethical representation of clients and meaningful instruction and supervision of students.” Clinical facilities, then, must allow for confidential client interviewing, work and meeting space, and security for client files.

Current Standard 703 has been moved into revised Standard 702(a)(8) and (9), and has been redrafted to conform in style with revised Standard 702. The recommended language links research and study space to fulfilling the requirements of the Standards and to carrying out the school’s educational program.

The second sentence of current Interpretation 701-1 has been moved into revised Standard 702(b) to make clear its mandatory nature and also to clarify the nature of the

27

103Amandate; that is, that the law school must meet this requirement “consistent with applicable law.”

Current Interpretation 701-4 is now revised Interpretation 702-1 and has been rewritten to clarify the requirement and to address leasing, financing, renewal, termination, and foreclosure.

Current Interpretation 701-5 is now revised Interpretation 702-2. The change is made to clarify law school control of a law school’s facilities.

Revised Interpretation 702-3 is new and was added to clarify the requirements for class and seminar rooms.

Chapter 8Chapter 8 has been deleted and the provisions in Chapter 8 have been relocated to other sections in the Standards, Rules, Interpretations, or Internal Operating Practices.

Current Standard 801. COUNCIL AUTHORITY Current Standard 801, which describes the process for Council approval of amendments to Standards, Interpretations, and Rules, has been moved to Rule 56 in the revised Rules.

Current Standard 802. VARIANCECurrent Standard 802 and Interpretation 802-1 have been moved to Standard 107 in the revised Standards.

Current Interpretations 802-2 to 802-4 have been moved to Rule 25 in the revised Rules.

Current Standard 803. AMENDMENT OF STANDARDS, INTERPRETATIONS AND RULESCurrent Standards 803(a), (b), and (c), which describes the process for review of proposed amendments by the ABA House of Delegates, have been moved to Rule 57 in the revised Rules.

Current Standard 803(d), which describes a process for submitting proposals for amendments to the Managing Director, has been moved to Rule 11 of the Internal Operating Practices (IOP). The revised IOP requires the Standards Review Committee to report its recommendations on any proposal to the Council but does not impose a time limit on its report.

28

103AConclusion

This regular review of the Standards and Rules of Procedure came at a time of change and stress for the legal profession and higher education. Changes in higher education, including a greater focus on outcomes rather than inputs, the increased importance of experiential learning, and the impact of technology on teaching and learning informed many of the revisions.

In the profession, the economic downturn had profound impacts on the practice of law and the availability of legal services to all those who need them. At a time when law school enrollments and graduates were at all-time highs, the job market contracted substantially. The combination of the cost of law school (most often financed with student loans) and declining job opportunities created a difficult environment for students, graduates, and law schools.

These forces and factors presented challenging issues for resolution as the Comprehensive Review progressed. As a result, the process took much longer than had been anticipated.

The end result is a set of Standards and Rules that are much improved over the current set. However, the process also made clear that, while it was time to bring the Comprehensive Review to conclusion, there is still work to do.

Respectfully submitted,

Hon. Solomon Oliver, Jr., ChairCouncil of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the BarAugust 2014

29

103AGENERAL INFORMATION FORM

Submitting Entity: American Bar AssociationSection of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar

Submitted By: Hon. Solomon Oliver, Jr., Chair

1. Summary of Resolution(s) .

Following a comprehensive review of the ABA Standards for Approval of Law Schools, the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar approved a complete set of revisions to the Standards.

In summary, the revisions achieved the following:

Modified Standards to be more objective rather than subjective an objective standard requiring schools to operate (or remain) in compliance

with the Standards is now used in the following Standards: o 101(a): basic requirements for approvalo 105(b): acquiescence for major changeso 201(d): university policieso 201(e): responsibility of governing boardo 202(a), (c), (d): sufficiency of resourceso 313(c): degree programs in addition to the J.D.o 401: qualifications of facultyo 402: size of full-time facultyo 506: enrollment of non-degree candidateso 603(c): qualifications of library directoro 701(a) and (b); facilities, equipment, and technology; general

requirements Standard 601: general provisions – library Standard 604: library personnel in Standards where schools are required to have policies there is a new

requirement that schools must adopt, publish, and adhere to those policies:o 207(b): accommodationso 308(a): sound academic standards, including those for good standing,

academic integrity, graduation, and dismissalo 308(b): due process policies with regard to taking any action that

adversely affects the good standing or graduation of a student.o 310(a): policies and procedures for determining the credit hours that it

awards for courseworko 311(f): attendance policyo 404(a): responsibilities of full-time facultyo 510: student complaints

30

103A

31

103AHighlighted reporting requirements

Standard 104: moved current Interpretation 101-1, covering information that must be furnished to the Accreditation Committee and the Council, into a new Standard that provides that information must be complete, accurate and not be misleading

Standard 509: strengthened reporting requirements regarding consumer information

Incorporated Student Learning Outcomes into the Standards Introduced student learning outcomes as output measures for the program of

legal education, along with related Standards pertaining to the assessment of student learning, and the evaluation of the academic program, learning outcomes, and assessment methods.

Standard 301(b): added a new requirement that schools must establish and publish each of the learning outcomes it seeks for its graduating students and for its program of legal education.

Standard 314: added a new requirement that schools must apply both formative and summative assessment methods across the curriculum to provide meaningful feedback to students.

Standard 315: added a requirement that schools conduct ongoing evaluation of the program of legal education, learning outcomes, and assessment methods.

Clarified/strengthened curricular requirements Standard 303: revised to require specific numbers of credit hours for

professional responsibility instruction; legal writing instruction; and experiential courses

Standard 304: new Standard defining simulation courses and law clinics Standard 305: clarified requirements regarding supervision of field placements Standard 305(e)(5) and (7): reduced from 4 to 3 credits the field placements

that require periodic site visits and contemporaneous student reflection Standard 307(b): clarified the permissible number of credits for foreign study Standard 307(a)(2): clarified requirements regarding field placements in

foreign countries Standard 308: clarified requirements regarding academic standards Standard 309: created new Standard on academic advising and support

(moving two Interpretations into the Standard) Standard 310: added new Standard and guidance regarding definition of credit

hour Standard 311(b): stated requirements for graduation in terms of credit hours

rather than minutes Standard 311(c): provided an exception for extraordinary circumstances

regarding completion of the J.D. degree

Acknowledged the three competencies from the MacCrate Report - knowledge, skills and values

Standard 301(a): added the word "ethical"

32

103A Standard 302: included all three competencies in student learning outcomes Standard 303(a)(1): added a requirement that each student complete a course

in professional responsibility Standard 303(a)(3): added a requirement that each student complete at least 6

credit hours of experiential courses Interpretation 303-3: added language encouraging law schools to promote

opportunities for law students to provide at least 50 hours of pro bono service during law school

Modified existing rules to provide greater clarity regarding requirements of Standards Standard 101: clarified that the approving entity is the Council of the Section

of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar Standard 102: clarified requirements for provisional approval Standard 103: clarified requirements for full approval Standard 105: clarified requirements for major changes in program or

structure Standard 107: clarified requirements for variances Standard 201: clarified requirements on law school governance by reworking

and consolidating current Standard 204 (Governing Board of an Independent Law School), current Standard 205 (Governing Board and Law School Authority), current Standard 207 (Allocation of Authority between Dean and Faculty), and parts of current Standard 210 (Law School University Relationships) into new Standard on law school governance.

Standard 203(c): clarified requirements for decanal appointments Clarified definition of full-time faculty member found in current Standard

402(b) and moved the definition to the Definitions section Standard 402: clarified requirements regarding size of faculty Standard 403: clarified instructional role of faculty Standard 404: clarified responsibilities of full-time faculty Standard 312: created separate Standard for and clarified requirements for

reasonably comparable opportunities for all students [Current Standard 301(b) was moved to new Standard 312]

Standard 501: clarified requirements for admission Standard 502: clarified education requirements for admission to law school Standard 504: clarified requirement regarding a law school's responsibility to

advise students of character and fitness requirements Standard 505: clarified requirements for granting JD credit for prior law study Standard 506: clarified Standard for enrollment of non-degree candidates Standard 507: clarified responsibility of schools to demonstrate reasonable

steps to minimize student loan defaults Standard 603(c): clarified requirements regarding education, skill and

experience of library director Standard 701(a): clarified that facilities includes equipment and technology

Provided increased guidance in Standards

33

103A Standard 106: created new Standard for separate locations and branch

campuses Standard 204: restructured and revised the Standards relating to Self Study

and Strategic Plan Interpretation 311-3: provided guidance regarding "extraordinary

circumstances" Standard 504: changed title from “Character and Fitness” to “Qualifications

for Admission to the Bar” and added requirement of a specific statement in law school application regarding admission to the bar

Standard 508: added debt counseling in the Standard on student support services

Interpretation 605-1: added guidance regarding library services Standard 606(a): added guidance on “reliable access” to information resources Interpretation 701-1: added guidance on determining whether technology and

technology support comply with Standard 701.

Streamlined the sabbatical review process Standard 204: restructured and revised the Standards relating to Self Study

and Strategic Plan

Implemented directions of the Council to review three special committee reports  Incorporated student learning outcomes into the Standards Increased clarity (transparency) in the Standards Made recommendations regarding security of position

Responded to changes and requirements in DOE regulations Standard 306(g) and Interpretation 306-2: clarified requirements for verifying

the identity of students in distance education courses Standard 310: added new Standard and guidance regarding definition of credit

hour Standard 509(c): added new Standard on transfer credit Standard 510: created a new Standard that clarifies the responsibility of law

schools to maintain records of student complaints and complies with Department of Education requirements that the Council’s requirement be specifically stated in the Standards

Addressed changes in legal education  Standard 106: clarified requirements regarding branch campuses Standard 306: increased permissible number of distance education credits and

the number that can be taken in one semester Chapter 3: added Standard to address student learning outcomes Standard 505: clarified rules for granting of J.D. credit for prior law study Standard 606: clarified requirements regarding the library collection Interpretation 701-1: clarified Standard regarding technological capacities

Provided schools with increased flexibility 

34

103A Standard 107: modified Standard on variances to emphasize experimentation Standard 306: increased permissible number of distance education credits and

the number that can be taken in one semester Standard 311(c): provided an exception for extraordinary circumstances

regarding completion of the J.D. degree Current Interpretations 402-1 and 402-2: deleted calculation of student-

faculty ratio Standard 501(c): deleted requirement in current Standard 505 that a previously

disqualified student must obtain a letter from the disqualifying school to apply to a new school if two years have not elapsed

Standard 606: provided greater flexibility on library collection with greater emphasis on reliable access

Increased consumer information Standard 509(b)(3): strengthened reporting requirements regarding

conditional scholarships Standard 509(b)(7): strengthened reporting requirements regarding

employment outcomes Standard 509(c): added new Standard on transfer credit Standard 510: created a new Standard that clarifies the responsibility of law

schools to maintain records of student complaints and complies with Department of Education requirements that the Council’s requirement be specifically stated in the Standards

Improved structure of Standards Reorganized Chapter 2 to provide better guidance and clarity Reorganized Chapter 7 Moved the requirements for variances from Chapter 8 to Chapter 1 Moved interpretations relating to variances from Chapter 8 into Rules Deleted Chapter 8 (moved provisions to Chapter 1, Rules and IOPs)

Moved Interpretations into Standards where substance of the Interpretation belonged in the Standards [first reference is to current Standards; second is to new Standards]

101-1 to 104 101-2 to 101(b) 102-2 incorporated into 102(a) 102-3 to 102(d) 102-5 and 102-9 to 102(g) 102-6 to 102(e) 102-7 to 102(f) 105-1 to 105(a) 105-2, 3, 4, 5 replaced by new Standard 106 105-6 to Rules 802-1 to 107(a) 802-2, 3, 4 to Rules 802-5 to 107(c)

35

103A 301-4 incorporated into 312 302-8 to 315 306-3 to 306(a) 306-4 incorporated into 306(a) and (d) 306-5 and 306-6 to 306(c) 303-2 to 309(a) 303-3 to 309(b) 304-5 to 311(e) 304-6 to 311(f) 304-7 to 505(d) 402(b) to definitions 601-1 moved to 606-4 606-5 to 606(b)

Moved Standards that provided guidance into Interpretations 305(e)(5): last sentence moved to 305-1 306(b): moved 306-1 

Eliminated Standards and Interpretations that are unenforceable, unnecessary, unclear, or repetitive [current Standard references]

102-4; 102-8; 102-10 103-1 201-2 204-1 209 301-1; 301-2; 301-5 302-2 to -9 304-1; 304-4 305-4(b); 305-5 306-1; 306-2; 306-7; 306-8; 306-9 402-1; 402-2 403-1 501-2; 501-4 503-3; 503-4 505-1; 505-2 603-1 to 603-4 606-3; 606-6; 606-7 702-1

2. Approval by Submitting Entity .

At its meeting in March 2014, the Council approved the vast majority of the revisions that had been circulated for Notice and Comment. In addition, the Council approved several additional matters for Notice and Comment. After reviewing the comments received on the matters circulated for comment in March 2014, the

36

103ACouncil made final determinations on the recommendations at its meeting on June 6, 2014.

3. Has this or a similar resolution been submitted to the House or Board previously ?

No.

4. What existing Association policies are relevant to this Resolution and how would they be affected by its adoption?

The revisions modify the existing ABA Standards for Approval of Law Schools.

5. If this is a late report, what urgency exists which requires action at this meeting of the House?

Not applicable.

6. Status of Legislation . (If applicable)

Not applicable.

7. Brief explanation regarding plans for implementation of the policy, if adopted by the House of Delegates.

The Council will notify ABA-Approved Law Schools and other interested entities of the changes to the ABA Standards for Approval of Law Schools. The Council and the Managing Director’s Office will prepare guidance memoranda and training materials regarding the revised Standards.

8. Cost to the Association . (Both direct and indirect costs)

Not applicable

9. Disclosure of Interest . (If applicable)

Not applicable

10. Referrals .

The revisions were circulated for Notice and Comment to the following interested persons and entities: ABA Standing and Special Committees, Task Forces, and Commission Chairs; ABA Section Directors and Delegates; Conference of Chief Justices; National Conference of Bar Presidents; National Association of Bar Executives; Law Student Division; SBA Presidents; National Conference of Bar Examiners; University Presidents; Deans and Associate Deans; Deans of Unapproved Law Schools; and Section Affiliated Organizations.

37

103A

11. Contact Name and Address Information . (Prior to the meeting. Please include name, address, telephone number and e-mail address)

Barry A. Currier, Managing DirectorAmerican Bar AssociationSection of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar321 N. Clark St., 21st floorChicago, IL 60654-7598Ph: (312) 988-6744 / Cell: (310) 400-2702Email: barry.currier@americanbar.org

12. Contact Name and Address Information . (Who will present the report to the House? Please include name, address, telephone number, cell phone number and e-mail address.)

The Honorable Ruth V. McGregor7601 North Central Ave., Unit 23Phoenix, AZ 85020Ph: (602) 395-3394 / Cell: (602) 370-4029Email: ruthvmcgregor@gmail.com

Pauline A. Schneider, Esq. Ballard Spahr1909 K. Street, N.W.12th FloorWashington, DC 20006Ph: (202) 661-2249Email: schneiderpa@ballardspahr.com

38

103AEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Summary of the Resolution

Following a comprehensive review of the ABA Standards for Approval of Law Schools, the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar approved a complete set of revisions to the Standards.

In summary, the revisions achieved the following: Modified Standards to be more objective rather than subjective Highlighted reporting requirements Incorporated student learning outcomes into the Standards Clarified/strengthened curricular requirements Acknowledged the three competencies from the MacCrate Report – knowledge,

skills, and values Modified existing rules to provide greater clarity regarding requirements of

Standards Provided increased guidance in Standards Streamlined the sabbatical review process Implemented directions of the Council to review three special committee reports  Responded to changes and requirements in Department of Education regulations Addressed changes in legal education  Provided schools with increased flexibility  Increased consumer information Improved structure of Standards Moved Interpretations into Standards where substance of the Interpretation

belonged in the Standards Moved Standards that provided guidance into Interpretations Eliminated Standards and Interpretations that are unenforceable, unnecessary,

unclear, or repetitive

2. Summary of the Issue that the Resolution Addresses

In August 2008, the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar directed its Standards Review Committee to conduct a comprehensive review of the American Bar Association’s Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools. The Committee was charged with reviewing the recommendations of the 2007 report of the Accreditation Task Force as well as the recommendations of the 2008 reports of the special committees on Transparency, Security of Position, and Outcome Measures. During the comprehensive review, the Standards Review Committee has engaged in a number of outreach efforts, held open meetings, and held hearings preliminary to the usual Notice and Comment hearing process.

The Committee was charged with reviewing the recommendations of the 2007 report of the

39

103AAccreditation Task Force as well as the recommendations of the 2008 reports of the special committees on Transparency, Security of Position, and Outcome Measures.

These reports encouraged the Committee to include in its review the following: Consider whether the Standards and Interpretations are appropriately focused to

accomplish the goals of accreditation as required by the U. S. Department of Education and whether they avoid unnecessarily micromanaging individual schools.

Review the Standards to ensure that they are consistent with a conception of the Standards as a set of minimum requirements designed, developed, and implemented for the purpose of advancing the basic goal of providing a sound program of legal education.

Re-examine the current Standards and reframe them to reduce their reliance on input measures and instead adopt a greater and more overt reliance on outcome measures.

Consider increased transparency regarding availability of documents, self-studies and strategic plans, and expanding consumer information.

Consider whether the alternative set of Standards and Interpretation regarding academic freedom, faculty governance, and the ability to attract and retain competent faculty developed by the Special Committee on Security of Position would better serve the interests underlying the existing Standards.

3. Please Explain How the Proposed Policy Position will address the issue

The revised Standards present a comprehensive, updated set of regulations governing ABA-approved law schools.

4. Summary of Minority Views

During the Notice and Comment period the Council received a number of comments opposing proposed alternatives to current Standard 405 (Professional Environment). A majority of the Council expressed dissatisfaction with current Standard 405. However, neither of the alternative proposals that the Council had circulated for Notice and Comment were acceptable to a majority of the Council. Both of those proposals were loudly criticized by law school faculty during the comment period. Because no proposal for change garnered a majority of the Council, current Standard 405 was not amended.

Another issue that generated a significant number of comments was a possible change to Interpretation 301-6 on bar passage. No proposed change to the current rule was ever circulated for Notice and Comment. The Interpretation has been moved to become Standard 316 but there has been no change in the current rule on bar passage.

40