A recent empirical study conducted by Adam Chilton from the University of Chicago Law School, alongside colleagues from Northwestern and Cleveland State, sheds light on the contentious debate surrounding the American Bar Association’s (ABA) role in legal education. The study, titled "Alternative Educational Pathways into the Legal Profession," analyzes data spanning from 1984 to 2019, focusing on states that have experimented with allowing aspiring lawyers to qualify without attending an ABA-approved law school.

The timing of these findings coincides with a heightened political campaign led by the Trump administration and supported by FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, who have criticized the ABA’s accreditation process as ideologically biased and monopolistic. States like Florida and Texas have already taken steps toward eliminating ABA accreditation requirements for bar exam eligibility, citing a need to dismantle what they perceive as an extension of Democratic ideologies.

However, the study presents a stark contrast to the political narrative, highlighting significant shortcomings in the alternative pathways to legal accreditation. The data reveals that candidates from non-ABA approved schools and programs, including apprenticeships and correspondence courses, have struggled considerably on bar exams. For instance, these candidates represent nearly 23 percent of all failed bar exam attempts but only account for 4 percent of successful ones. The bar passage rates for non-ABA graduates are alarmingly low, ranging from 20 to 30 percent, compared to 60 to 70 percent for their ABA-accredited counterparts.

The implications of these alternative pathways extend beyond bar exam failures. Graduates from non-ABA schools are notably less likely to secure positions at large law firms, rarely achieve partner status, and face higher disciplinary rates than even the lowest-ranked ABA school graduates. Moreover, their careers are often geographically limited, as they are less likely to obtain licensure in additional states.

The study also touches on high-profile cases such as Kim Kardashian’s pursuit of legal credentials through an apprenticeship rather than traditional law school. Her struggles with the bar exam underscore the broader challenges faced by individuals attempting to enter the legal profession via non-traditional routes.

While the study acknowledges the real need for increased access to legal education and services, it critically evaluates the effectiveness of alternative pathways that have been tested over decades. The authors argue that the issue with legal education in America is not the existence of the ABA or its accreditation standards, but rather the high costs and uneven distribution of legal services. They suggest that dismantling established quality controls under the guise of ideological disputes does not genuinely address the underlying issues facing legal education and access to justice.

As the debate over the ABA’s role continues, this comprehensive study provides crucial evidence that questions the efficacy and outcomes of diminishing the ABA’s gatekeeping function in legal education, highlighting the potential risks to the quality and integrity of the legal profession.