In a bold statement issued last Tuesday, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has labeled the American Bar Association’s (ABA) accreditation process for law schools as a "monopoly," arguing that it significantly inflates the cost of obtaining a law degree and restricts the entry of new attorneys into the field. The FTC’s critique comes at a time when the cost of legal education is under intense scrutiny, with many pointing to exorbitant tuition fees and associated costs as barriers to the profession.

The commission's report criticizes the ABA for requiring law schools to adhere to what it describes as "controversial ideological views prevalent among legal elitists." This includes the ABA’s diversity and inclusion standards, which, although currently suspended and possibly heading towards complete elimination, have demanded that law schools demonstrate a commitment to diversity in their recruitment, admissions, and programming. The FTC argues that these requirements contribute to the high costs of legal education and limit the supply of new lawyers.

On the flip side, the ABA has long been recognized by the Department of Education as the sole national accreditor for law schools, tying federal loan eligibility to ABA accreditation. This relationship underscores a system where ABA accreditation signals to prospective students the quality of education and the likelihood of passing the bar exam—arguably making it a beneficial monopoly that guides student investment in education and aids the government in safeguarding student loan money.

However, the FTC’s designation of the ABA as a monopoly raises questions about whether its actions are anti-competitive. The agency’s report suggests that by setting accreditation standards, the ABA potentially limits the number of new lawyers. It is crucial to note, though, that the ABA does not directly control class sizes; fluctuations in the number of practicing lawyers are more directly influenced by individual law schools’ admissions decisions and other factors, such as rankings and market demands.

Furthermore, the underlying motive for the FTC's current actions may be more politically charged than it appears. Some speculate that this move could be an attempt by the current administration to challenge what it sees as a politically inconvenient institution through antitrust laws, particularly as states like Texas, Florida, and Tennessee explore establishing their own accreditation standards.

If the FTC were to dismantle the ABA’s accrediting authority, it could compel states to develop alternative evaluation systems for law schools, potentially leading to a chaotic and cost-intensive overhaul of legal education nationwide.

As the debate continues, the legal community and prospective law students are keenly watching the developments, understanding that any significant change to accreditation standards could have far-reaching implications for the accessibility and diversity of the legal profession in the United States.