Skip to main content

Breaking the ABA’s Law School Cartel: A Proposal to Make Oklahoma Top-Ten in Innovative Lawyer Education


Would we grant Devon Energy a government-enforced veto over whether its competitors should be issued drilling permits? Would we think it acceptable for the government to require new drug applicants to first obtain approval from Pfizer or Johnson & Johnson before applying for FDA approval? Of course not. Generally speaking, we are not in favor of foxes guarding hen houses, and our laws tend to reflect that instinct.

Nevertheless, when it comes to deciding who can and cannot become a lawyer, nearly all states (including Oklahoma) have delegated the design of their hen house security plan to the fox’s self-interested trade association, the American Bar Association (ABA). This is the argument of my policy analysis released today, Breaking the ABA’s Law School Cartel: A Proposal to Make Oklahoma Top-Ten in Innovative Lawyer Education.

The ABA, a private trade association for lawyers, has a government-enforced monopoly over legal education as the only approved accreditor of law schools in 47 states. The states wrote this monopoly into their laws after aggressive lobbying by the ABA, which was fairly open about its goal - limiting the number of new lawyers who could enter the market and compete with the ABA’s members. The result has been exactly what one would predict from such a state-enforced cartel: lower quality, higher prices, and stifled innovation.

Perhaps more important to the average non-lawyer, the ABA’s dominance of legal education influences our government well in excess of what you might expect from a relatively obscure trade association that only claims 14% of those practicing the trade it supposedly represents. Lawyers play a unique and highly influential role in politics and government by virtue of the type of work government does. Some government positions can only be filled by lawyers (judges, prosecutors), others’ ranks are historically populated by lawyers (legislatures), and the rest frequently rely on the assistance of lawyers to do their work.

Since lawyers play such a large role in our public life, it seems to me we should pay attention to the process for forming and educating them. After all, the conventional wisdom that lawyers as a group are well to the left of mainstream American political sentiment is conventional for a reason—it’s true. But it is not obvious from perusing history that there is anything inherent about the study and practice of law that either disproportionately attracts political liberals, or that shifts the legally trained it to the left. My paper points out historical examples of prevailing legal conservatism, such as the American founders and even the Oklahoma Bar Association during the Roosevelt presidency. Reading the vociferous opposition to the New Deal in the pages of the Bar Journal (unfortunately, these archived issues are not accessible to the public, so you’ll have to take my word for it) is rather amusing for anyone who knows the Bar Association’s current political bent.

So if it is not the study of the law itself that is producing a leftward skew among lawyers, is it possible that American law schools are a source? It does not seem farfetched to me. The ABA dictates the structure and substance of legal education, which must have at least some influence on the views of students matriculating through law schools. It is well known that law school faculties are largely populated by left of center professors. My alma mater is considered by some to be a “conservative” law school, but I would be surprised if anything like a majority of the faculty or students were conservatives at the time I attended. My colleague who attended the same law school more recently than I estimates that the faculty is close to 50-50, with conservatives having a slight edge, which is encouraging to hear. Whatever the actual numbers, what is generally meant when lawyers describe a law school as “conservative” is there are actually a few prominent conservatives on a faculty otherwise dominated by liberals, and conservative students are not made to feel like unsophisticated dolts for joining the Federalist Society.

Oklahoma can chart a different course by opening up the market for legal education and shifting our focus in licensing to lawyer competency. The way to achieve this, as outlined in my paper, is to eliminate the requirement that lawyers graduate from an ABA-approved law school to sit for the bar exam, and to reform the bar exam itself to better measure competency. Breaking the ABA stranglehold on legal education will allow market forces to operate, sparking innovation and bringing down costs. Improving the bar exam will better protect the public from incompetent lawyers.

And perhaps, after lo these many years, we will once again see the Oklahoma Bar Association denouncing big government programs. I won’t hold my breath, but a guy can dream.

Benjamin Lepak is Legal Fellow at the 1889 Institute. He can be reached at blepak@1889institute.org.

Popular posts from this blog

The Problem of Diffuse Costs and Concentrated Benefits

Do you ever find yourself observing a seemingly illogical government program , spending decision, or other strange practice and ask “how is it that no one has fixed that?” If you are like me, you encounter this phenomenon regularly. This often takes the form of a curious headline (Save Federal Funding for the Cowboy Poets!) that most people see and can’t believe is real. I would like to suggest that this phenomenon often results from the problem of diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. To understand this concept, consider a hypothetical law that assessed a $1 tax on everyone in the United States with the proceeds to be given to one individual for unrestricted use as he sees fit. The people harmed by such a law—the individual taxpayers—will not be very motivated to spend the time and effort to convince Congress to change the law. They might resent the dollar taken from them for a silly cause they don’t support, but the lost dollar isn’t worth the trouble of doing something about i...
Read more

If Data Is Supposed to Be Our Guide, the Great Coronavirus Shutdown of 2020 Should End

According to the most widely cited model projecting the course of the coronavirus outbreak, today is supposed to be Oklahoma’s peak in daily deaths. Now is a good time to go back to the beginning of the Great Coronavirus Shutdown of 2020, review the goal of our policy, and assess our current status. If our policy should be “data-driven,” as we are constantly told, then let’s actually look at the data and determine our next policy steps accordingly. Spoiler alert: according to the terms set out by those advocating for the shutdown policy, the policy’s continuance is no longer justified. The stated goal of the shutdown policy was to “flatten the curve” so as to prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed with COVID patients. The fear was that the virus would spread so fast that at its peak, the number of cases would exceed the overall capacity of the healthcare system. If that peak could be stretched out over a longer period of time, lives would be saved. This concept was il...
Read more

Even If Pandemic Models Were Right, Were Covid Lockdowns Wrong?

1889 has been quite critical of pandemic modeling that government officials have relied on for their Covid-19 response. We have also criticized shutdown orders in light of flaws in the models. But let’s assume for a moment that the worst predictions really would have come true if nothing was done. Even in those worst case scenarios, it’s fair to ask if our governments did the right thing. Were involuntary shutdowns justified, or would people have found a way to both limit the contagion and maintain some level of productivity? Was putting healthy citizens under house arrest acceptable even if they were willing to risk infection?   While large groups of people are often compared to herd animals, we are not sheep. We don’t behave like animals. We can, have, and will step up when our communities are in danger. When government and journalists give incomplete or false information, people will act irrationally. Depending on the situation, some will blindly follow the first aut...
Read more

Why Does Oklahoma License Polygraph Examiners?

Should polygraph examiners be licensed? In Oklahoma, a license is required to work as a polygraph examiner (a professional who applies lie-detector tests), and it is not at all obvious why. Generally, an occupation is licensed if it is obviously in the public’s interest to prevent potential bad actors from practicing. So, for example, it is argued that doctors must be licensed because, otherwise, some idiot might open a hospital in his garage and really hurt someone. And it is argued that accountants must be licensed because, otherwise, some college-dropout might offer to do accounting for an unsuspecting mom-and-pop shop, tell them their numbers look great (when, in fact, they don’t), and cause them to go bankrupt. In short, occupational licensing is supposed to either (1) prevent real, tangible harm, or (2) assure customers that their service-provider is trustworthy. However, interestingly, licensing polygraph examiners does not accomplish either of those goals because polygraph e...
Read more