Why has the American Bar Association allowed too many law schools?

Great question, one that many attorneys have attempted with no luck to get answered. It seems like someone, anyone should be speaking up for the profession.

My take on this problem begins in the 1950s. Up until that point law school was pretty impossible to get into unless a person had lots of money and connections to get them in. The ABA was like a fraternity who was the only group to take on the huge job of trying to regulate law schools. They were the ones who worked on what courses and what schools should be accredited. All the work was needed.

In the 1950's the WWII soldiers who had benefits that for the first time included paid tuition marched into law school. Those who could not afford law school were now able to get in without paying. Some of my law profs got into Harvard on the G.I. bill. And still ABA was doing the job of making law schools adhere to certain standards and providing its membership with that fraternity feeling.

Beginning late 1960s and into the 1980s the legal profession, law schools, and the ABA joined the rest of the country and decided that 'greed is good'. Now the lofty goals of getting the 'best & the brightest' into law school took back seat to the count of people enrolled in law school and how much high tuition could the school get.

At that point it may have behooved the ABA to ask if the law school's increased class size, addition of evening division, and lowering of high standards was healthy for the profession. But no one asked. Besides the issue of greed for the law schools and additional paying members for the ABA, there was the issue of diversity and letting into law school those who had been rejected due to discrimination (women). So the schools and the ABA were getting in more money, while resolving a nasty issue of discrimination, and all without any hint that the profession was getting full.

The ABA knows that the profession is full, they have known for years, yet they still let law schools start up, let current schools have large class sizes, allow evening divisions in law schools, do not insist on higher standards for entry into law school, and let the law schools graduate people 2 times a year. Could it be because the ABA gets fees from these many law schools??? Could it be because the ABA gets membership fees from the inflated number of attorneys??? And seminar fees, and book fees, and CLE fees??? Certainly continuing to graduate so many people who have fewer opportunities is not good for the profession or the the law schools or ABA. Just my opinion.

If a regulation college is ABA approved it rather ability that the curriculum and the coaching team meet the standards of the Bar affiliation. the main suitable earnings of an ABA approved college is that a regulation scholar could desire to have a much better danger of passing the Bar examination and being eligible to coach regulation.

Either the bar association doesn't think there are too many, or doesn't have the power to stop them. There are 50 state bar associations competing with one another.

Membership numbers are the motivation, not being a 'gatekeeper' of the legal profession.

there are roughly 180 law schools half of the applicants to law school every year don't get into any school.

so, i don't understand your question. There are still not enough law schools for all the people whom want to attend.