Tuesday, December 9, 2026
“Now they tell me?!?!” That was my first thought when I read about the Federal Trade Commission’s letter to the Texas Supreme Court about the American Bar Association.
I didn’t grow up in a town with an ABA accredited law school, and going away to one wasn’t really a viable option for my family. The thought of being able to qualify for the bar through a different pathway — something that feels like a new idea today — makes you pause and realize how much opportunity in professional life has historically depended on geography, resources, and circumstance.
Last week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) stepped into a debate that has traditionally been managed by the states, signaling a potential shift in how professional oversight is handled. In a letter to the Texas Supreme Court, the FTC endorsed a proposed rule change that would remove the requirement that law‑school graduates attend an American Bar Association (ABA) accredited school in order to sit for the bar exam.
The FTC framed the ABA’s long-standing control over accreditation as a “monopoly,” arguing that it can restrict who enters the legal profession, limit competition, and increase costs for consumers of legal services. According to the letter, the ABA’s accreditation requirements are often costly and burdensome, creating barriers that go beyond what is necessary to ensure competent practice.
If Texas moves forward with this change, it would become the first state to formally reject the ABA’s exclusive authority in accrediting law schools. Under the proposed rule, the Texas Supreme Court would reclaim control over which schools qualify graduates to sit for the bar exam. For students, schools, and the legal profession, this represents a major shift in the gate-keeping process that has long shaped entry into law.
The proposed change raises a few key questions. ABA accreditation has historically been a signal of educational quality and a tool to maintain consistent standards across states. Some law-school deans have expressed concerns that removing ABA oversight could affect degree portability, educational quality, and the broader reputation of Texas-trained lawyers.
At the same time, the FTC’s involvement highlights another frequent theme: the federal government weighing in on areas traditionally overseen by states. For those who work in industries like title insurance — which are also primarily state-regulated — this may resonate as a familiar tension between federal oversight and state control.
Whether or not this change takes hold in Texas, it’s a reminder of how the structures around professional licensing shape who gets in and how. For those of us outside the inner workings of law schools, it’s an invitation to re-examine the paths that have been available and the ways access and opportunity have been distributed.
This story is one to watch; it highlights both the tension between private-association oversight and state control, as well as the growing influence of federal regulators in areas traditionally managed by the states. And for those in Texas, it might even change who you’re working with — or opposing — in the near future.
Until Next Time,
Mary Schuster
Chief Knowledge Officer
October Research, LLC