The material in this article is general legal information for educational use only. It should not be treated as legal, financial, or tax advice, and reading it does not form an attorney-client relationship. Legal rules vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Questions about a specific matter belong with a qualified professional. The author and publisher disclaim liability for actions taken in reliance on this content.
Key Facts
- Federal level: 34 CFR Part 602 describes how the Secretary recognizes accrediting agencies and how the recognized-agency list is published and made available.
- Federal level: The Office of Postsecondary Education’s nationally recognized accrediting agencies list shows the American Bar Association (ABA) entity as Active.
- National overview: In 2011, ABA President Wm. T. (Bill) Robinson III transmitted Sen. Barbara Boxer a Washington Letter response described as addressing law school information transparency issues.
- National overview: The 2011 Washington Letter discussed improved graduate employment-data collection and reporting timing but described it as not requiring law schools to report certain percentages tied to graduates’ legal employment or part-time legal jobs.
- National overview: The 2011 Washington Letter described collecting graduate employment information directly from law schools and shifting reporting to about one year after graduation, using a phased approach for specified graduating classes.
- National overview: The 2011 Washington Letter also described the Standards Review Committee’s intent to draft a penalty standard addressing intentional misreporting of basic consumer information under Standard 509.
Federal webpages and published lists can change; this archive recovery uses current official sources to describe today’s framework while treating the 2011 ABA letter as a historical record of what ABA described in 2011.
- What this archive recovery is covering
- Why the 2011 ABA exchange mattered (historical frame)
- What ABA said in its 2011 Washington Letter to Sen. Boxer
- Employment data collection and reporting timing described in 2011
- Standard 509 misreporting and potential penalties described in 2011
- Federal level context accreditor recognition under 34 CFR Part 602
- How current Federal listing and current ABA materials relate to the archive record
- A compact way to read the archive item without mixing eras
- Related archive coverage on TheFirstFile
- Sources
What this archive recovery is covering
This legal information archive recovery explains what an ABA 2011 Washington Letter described in its response to Sen. Barbara Boxer about legal education information transparency. It then places that historical record beside (1) today’s Federal accreditor-recognition framework under 34 CFR Part 602 and (2) current ABA disclosure and standards pages, without treating the 2011 statements as current law.
Why the 2011 ABA exchange mattered (historical frame)
The Boxer-related 2011 discussion centered on how law schools provide information about outcomes and consumer-relevant disclosures. In the archive context, that mattered because accreditor-recognition and disclosure systems depend on reliable data collection and reporting processes, and disagreements often focus on what data is collected, when it is reported, and what oversight exists for inaccuracies.
What ABA said in its 2011 Washington Letter to Sen. Boxer
The historical anchor for this archive recovery is ABA’s Washington Letter page describing “ABA Provides Enhanced Law School Data Collection,” which summarizes ABA’s response in the ongoing dialogue with Sen. Boxer. See: ABA Provides Enhanced Law School Data Collection (Washington Letter).
Employment data collection and reporting timing described in 2011
In the 2011 Washington Letter summary, ABA described an approach intended to improve accuracy and timeliness by collecting graduate employment information directly from law schools (rather than using an intermediary collection process). The summary also described reporting employment-data information at about one year after graduation and described phased reporting for specified graduating classes (including details tied to the class of 2010 and additional distinctions for the class of 2012).
Standard 509 misreporting and potential penalties described in 2011
The 2011 Washington Letter summary also addressed Standard 509 concerns described as involving misreporting and stated that the Standards Review Committee would begin drafting a new standard for imposing specific and severe penalties for intentional misreporting of basic consumer information, including admissions and placement data.
Federal level context accreditor recognition under 34 CFR Part 602
Federal “accreditor recognition” is a separate concept from ABA’s internal standards and disclosures. Federal regulation at 34 CFR Part 602 describes how the Secretary recognizes accrediting agencies and explains that the Department publishes a list of recognized accrediting agencies in connection with that framework.
How current Federal listing and current ABA materials relate to the archive record
Today’s Federal accreditor-recognition status can be checked using the Office of Postsecondary Education’s list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies. ABA’s current organizational materials also provide separate disclosure/standards framing, including (among other things) current “Standards” timeframe information and current “Required Disclosures”/statistics descriptions on the ABA Section of Legal Education pages: Standards and ABA Required Disclosures.
A compact way to read the archive item without mixing eras
Because this is an archive recovery, it is best read as describing what ABA represented in 2011 (plans, collection sources, reporting timing, and oversight initiatives at that time). The Federal accreditor-recognition framework described in 34 CFR Part 602, and the current listing/disclosure framing described in current official pages, are used here as the present-day “structure” against which readers can understand what the 2011 letter was discussing historically.
Related archive coverage on TheFirstFile
TheFirstFile also maintains other ABA-related archive items in the same historical theme, including ABA legal education award coverage.
Sources
- ABA Provides Enhanced Law School Data Collection (Washington Letter)
- 34 CFR Part 602 — The Secretary’s Recognition of Accrediting Agencies
- View Agencies (OPE) — Nationally Recognized Accrediting Agencies
- Standards — ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar
- Statistics — ABA Section of Legal Education (ABA Required Disclosures)
