Below is my column in The Hill on the decline of the American Bar Association and the move in various states to find alternatives to the ABA in bar admissions and legal education. The dwindling membership and influence of the ABA is a familiar tale for many in academia and the media.
Here is the column:
This week, the Federal Trade Commission issued a little-noticed letter to the Texas Supreme Court that could have a significant impact on the legal profession. The state justices are exploring a radical change in bar admissions, seeking alternatives to the American Bar Association.
In their letter, FTC officials indicated that they view the ABA as an effective monopoly in bar admissions. The potential state change itself may be less important than how the ABA itself has changed in bringing about these growing calls for separation from the roughly 150-year-old organization.
In the fall, the Texas Supreme Court issued a tentative opinion that declared that the ABA “should no longer have the final say on whether a law school’s graduates are eligible to sit for the Texas bar exam and become licensed to practice law.”
After the court invited public comment, two FTC officials, Clarke Edwards and Daniel Guarnera, signaled support for potentially moving away from ABA accreditation in a nine-page letter. They not only objected to the possible monopoly but also to the “rigid and costly requirements” imposed by law schools that often reinforce an “elitist model of legal education.”
Whether the ABA constitutes a true monopoly can be (and likely will be) hotly contested. What is less debatable is the value of some competition or alternatives to the ABA. The organization is a textbook example of how the lack of competition can instill not just a sense of institutional impunity but arrogance.
For decades, the ABA has moved steadily to the left, taking on a greater level of advocacy and activism as an organization. When it was founded on August 21, 1878, in Saratoga Springs, New York, the 75 lawyers from 20 states (and the District of Columbia) were seeking an organization to create a national system of standards for “the advancement of the science of jurisprudence, the promotion of the administration of justice.” The profession at the time was a largely ad hoc and informal collection of state rules and apprentice-based systems.
The ABA brilliantly filled that void and helped professionalize lawyering through bar and educational standards. The dominance of the ABA was due to the fact that it filled that needed and uncontroversial role. As a result, some estimate that as many as half of the nation’s lawyers were members in 1979.
However, in the last few decades, the ABA followed the same trend as higher education and the media, as activists on the left took over key positions and used the organization to advance their own social, political, and legal viewpoints. Neutrality was tossed aside in favor of advocacy.
The shift at the ABA is illustrated in the long debate over abortion. For decades, abortion (and the constitutional basis for Roe v. Wade) has sharply divided not just the public but the bar as well. But in 1990, activists succeeded in getting the association’s House of Delegates to adopt a pro-abortion resolution that said that the right was protected under the Constitution (a view adopted but later rejected by the Supreme Court).
Many were shocked that the ABA would simply take a side on an issue that divided many legal scholars, lawyers, and judges. Another vote was taken and the members decided by a vote of 200 to 188 that the issue was “extremely divisive” and that the ABA should not take an organizational position.
But it did not matter to the activists that the group itself was divided down the middle. They came back and adopted a pro-abortion position again in 1992. This time, the vote was 276 to 168.
So, with almost 40 percent of the delegates asking the ABA to respect opposing views on a divisive matter of constitutional interpretation, the ABA simply muscled through the vote.
What followed was the opening of the floodgates for activists to get the ABA to declare on an array of divisive issues on the side of liberal interpretations and agendas. Not surprisingly, lawyers left the organization in droves.
Today, there are roughly 1.3 million lawyers in the United States. Even if the ABA represented just half of that number, it would have 650,000 members. However, by 2015, it had fallen to 400,000. Last year it fell to 227,000 members, or just 17 percent of the bar.
Notably, the American Medical Association — which also has been accused of becoming increasingly political — has experienced the same drop from a high of representing 75 percent of the nation’s doctors to just 15 percent in recent years.
With the ABA representing less than two out of every 10 lawyers, it is still treated as the inviolate and indisputable voice of the profession.
The exodus from the ABA has left a liberal echo chamber that is similar to the one in higher education. The purging of conservatives and libertarians in academia has left many departments without a single Republican or conservative.
A Georgetown study recently found that only nine percent of law school professors identify as conservative at the top 50 law schools.
There is a symbiotic relationship between the ABA and law schools, as they feed off each other—giving each other awards and speaking opportunities. However, both are becoming largely irrelevant to the public at large.
The truly tragic fact is that it does not matter. As ABA leadership has presided over the decline of their institution, they are still personally rewarded for using it to amplify political values. They are thriving as their organization dies.
While these officials and academics would attract little attention in filings with the Supreme Court as individuals, they can generate endless headlines from an enabling media by declaring their views as the position of “America’s lawyers.” Those media outlets rarely note that ABA now represents less than 20 percent of all lawyers.
Critics have objected that such filings show that the ABA’s interpretation of its mission is so “expansive and malleable … to cover just about anything.”
For example, the ABA filed on behalf of its members to declare that the Constitution demands that male transgender students should be able to use female bathrooms. In an amicus brief filed in 2017, the ABA stated that “[d]iversity and inclusion are essential to public confidence in the bench and bar.” It further asserted that if transgender students “are excluded from bathrooms that align with their gender identities,” they “are less likely to pursue a legal education, depriving the bar of voices capable of speaking on behalf of those marginalized for their gender.”
What percentage of lawyers do you think would support that claim?
The answer, again, is that it does not matter.
The ABA is likely to continue on this path. The costs are being borne by the organization not by its officers. The question is why states and universities should continue to treat the ABA as if it represented a significant percentage of lawyers in the U.S., let alone the values of a majority of such lawyers.
The ABA has long relied on the myth maintained by political and media allies that it is still the voice of American lawyers. A little competition would be a great help, not just to the profession but also to the ABA itself. It may yet be possible for this institution to return to its roots as a neutral body focused on professional standards.
I hope so. I miss the ABA.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
As a off-and-on again ABA member, I only join when there is a financial advantage in purchasing a book or a CLE class that I find relevant to my interests. I filter out all the other woke and politically correct nonsense that they spew out. Which is significant.
Professor Turley’s lead-in: Below is my column in The Hill on the decline of the American Bar Association and the move in various states to find alternatives to the ABA in bar admissions and legal education.
The American Bar Association and its members are no less corrupt (particularly politically corrupt) than the Washington DC Bar Association and it’s members. Change my mind; prove to me that is wrong.
Professor Turley won’t even comply with his own Bar Association’s Professional Rules Of Conduct to clean up his home bar association, the Washington DC Bar Association. Those rules that are to provide for the ethical and legitimate practice of law by its member lawyers. Those rules of professional and ethical conduct put a duty on all members including Jonathan Turley to report in writing any knowledge any of them have of fellow members like Marc Elias, James Comey, Merrick Garland, Judge Boasberg, etc engaging in unethical or illegal conduct.
Why avoid criticizing and listing the corruption in your own bar association first in hopes of cleaning it up? Rather than making no mention of that and skipping over to condemn the ABA instead? Can’t even multitask and do both at the same time?
Professor Turley can cash in writing column after column at The Hill or here on the unethical and criminal behavior of his fellow Democrat lawyers and members of the Washington DC Bar Association who are either serving in appointed federal legal positions or serving Democrat party interests.
But he absolutely will not comply with his ethical and professional obligations as a lawyer given professional status by the Washington DC Bar Association. That is, to fulfill his obligation to give written notice of what he believes to be unethical, corrupt, or outright criminal conduct by his fellow Bar association fellow Democrat lawyers.
So he’ll tear apart the American Bar Association (that’s nice, we’ve long known they’re corrupt Democrat apparatchiks). But he won’t tear apart his own Bar Association who gives professional accreditation to Elias, Comey, Smith, Garland, Boasberg et al.
Democrat lawyers appear to ALL be professionally corrupt as soon as they choose a way to make their living as lawyers in some aspect of politics.
Whether serving as a FBI Director, Attorney Generals like Loretta Lynch or Merrick Garland – or being Democrat lawyer media pundits and analysts like Jeffrey Toobin and constitutional law Professors Lawrence Tribe and Jonathan Turley.
Again; go ahead, change my mind and prove me wrong.
so long story short, you jelly lol
Thank you Professor Turley. This is one of the most courageous, persuasive, and presented cases expressed for individual freedom, rights, independence, using irrefutable logic and evidence, since “Common Sense” – Thomas Paine. It demonstrates clarity of definition pinpointing the underlying assault of democracy which has led to the debilitation of the Executive and Legislative branch, AND the identifiable power structure that has supported it.
Thank you. We admire – and support your valor.
Jon,
“pro-abortion” is an inflammatory way to put it. “Pro-choice” is the more accurate way to do so, but realize that many abortions aren’t done out of choice, but necessity, though even then it is still a choice; a woman can decline the operation and take her chances.
When the embryo or fetus dies, an abortion is performed to prevent that failed start from rotting and the toxins from the spoilage killing the mother. Your attitude supports digging a larger grave at a point in time when it is avoidable.
Small wonder you are not happy when you make unethical arguments.
Anonymous 10:47 AM: Even though this may be deemed a very clever personal attack by trolling against the Professor, it is irrelevant to this particular topic. Please desist and escalate your arguments to a higher bar.
Nonsense. Pro-Choice is simply a euphemism for killing babies.
This is a misconception and a misunderstanding of the term. A procedure to remove a fetus who has died in utero is not an abortion. In an abortion, it is the pregnancy that is aborted, resulting in the death of the developing infant.
The aborted child had no “choice.” Anyway, a great (and highly ethical) article. Radical feminists took over the ABA and destroyed it — way to go!
The rise and fall of the corrupt American ABA, lawyers, courts, the Supreme Court, and the “dictatorship of the juristocracy.”
The juristocracy ignores and nullifies the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and rules ad libitum for the communist welfare state and against freedom and self-reliance.
Case One: Is the 5th Amendment Right to Private Property Absolute?
AI Overview
“While no single justice definitively declared property rights non-absolute in a famous quote around that time, the evolving understanding, especially with cases like Muller v. Oregon (1908) and New Deal era cases (1930s), saw justices like Justice Louis Brandeis, who often emphasized balancing private rights with public welfare, and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who championed judicial restraint and legislative supremacy over economic matters, chipping away at absolute property interpretations in favor of social regulation, though specific quotes on
“not absolute” are hard to pinpoint to one person.”
Where does the Constitution mandate “balancing private rights with public welfare,” understanding that general welfare is comprised solely of security and basic infrastructure ensuring that all, or the whole, fare well—not one, some, or a few and not individual, specific, or particular welfare, or favor or charity?
Answer: Nowhere.
“We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” — Preamble to the Constitution of the United States
“We the People” was never intended to value the power of the state over the power of the individual. The word “We” does not mean “The State”. It means individuals are viewed as the core of society, with their rights and freedoms being paramount.
@Anonymous, 8:32 PM
You’ve heard me mention a couple of our Supreme Court of Texas steps in the direction away from ABA accreditation of our law schools as Johnathan discussed. There’s another Supreme Court in this mix. SCOTUS. When the President nominates a replacement for a vacancy the ABA gives a grade to that person in terms of how qualified the nominee is to serve. The ABA grade in its heyday had clout. That was when ABA was neutral. Today, in the same way confidence in ABA accreditation has waned, we will likely see its nominee grade at Senate confirmation hearing time also lose its lustre. There is something to be said for “They don’t make them like they used to”,
Jonathan. Just copy and paste it if necessary.
You have expressed my exact sentiments on the ABA’s positions disenfranchising half of the attorneys who must represent clients with opposing positions – letting the Courts rather than the ABA decide who is right.
They are thriving as their organization dies.
Sounds like the leaders of any Communist nation.
… they “are less likely to pursue a legal education, depriving the bar of voices capable of speaking on behalf of those marginalized for their gender.”
Wait, what? What logic is being used? Only transgender lawyers can successfully represent the views of transgender people? How does that not contradict everything taught in law school about representing a client? Is it also true that only gay lawyers can effectively represent gay clients? Only lawyers accused of murder can defend clients on trial for murder? When the ABA writes things like that, do they even think about what they are saying?
As Dennis Prager says, the left ruins everything it touches.
oldmanfromkansas,
The difference is that “can” is not the same as “will.” In the past it was difficult to find a White lawyer who would fight hard for a Black man because of attitude, so it can be difficult to find a non-Transgender lawyer who will fight hard for a transgender person for the same reason.
There is a near infinite supply of lawyers who just take the money, push the paper, and simply don’t care much about win or lose. “At least I tried” does little good vs. someone putting their best effort into it when the fight is personal.
I’m sure, after finding out just how bigoted you are, that a transgender woman lawyer appointed to your defense would probably fight harder for you, just to demonstrate a dedication to the law, than a good ol’ southern boy who golfs with the prosecutor every weekend would.
Dennis Prager says a lot of things. He’s a huckster, so he talks a great deal.
“The truly tragic fact is that it does not matter. As ABA leadership has presided over the decline of their institution, they are still personally rewarded for using it to amplify political values. They are thriving as their organization dies.”
Rather reminds me of a self-perpetuating Politburo. They cannot tolerate any dissension.
Amazon sells individual beach changing tents for about $30 each. To change clothes on public beaches, approved by every police department near any beach.
Problem solved: any school could invest $30 to have complete privacy inside any locker room. Benefits all students including transgender students.
Sure. Knock someone down in that tent and beat the crap out of them, unable to see who is doing it and preventing them from fighting back. Great idea for a school locker room.
Knock someone down in that tent and beat the crap out of them, unable to see who is doing it and preventing them from fighting back.
Yeah, sure: let’s pretend that would happen for sure while everybody outside watched. Try that while hoping people ignore the tranny students who DID rape female students in girls’ school changerooms and bathrooms.
You’ve made an awesome case for women subjugating themselves to the misogynist demands of the Democrats Alphabet Sex Pride Tribe.
It is ironic that an organization representing a profession (attorneys) whose general reason to exit is representing both sides of a legal question should take a organizational stand on a legal question. Thereby telling those attorneys representing clients on the other side of the question that they are representing the WRONG legal position.
I feel ya. I am ashamed of the American Psychological Association. The lack of adherence to any fact based research has created a side show of the mentally ill enabling the mentally ill.
Very similar political developments for the New York State Bar Association. As a result I resigned my membership in 2004.
ACLU has also evolved into political versus neutral constitutional advocacy. Things change, the larger picture is lost. Excellence and principle devolve into bias and agendas. No longer a surprising trend.
The public does need some protection from incompetent and/or unethical lawyers, and wannabe lawyers need some protection from diploma mills and worthless ideological courses. Sad that the ABA can’t fill that role, and the courts and state bars aren’t doing a very good job either. Example, Eastman’s disbarment for taking intellectually respectable positions re the 2020 election fiasco.
Eastman’s intellectually respectable positions re the 2020 election fiasco?
“The Eastman memos, also known as the “coup memo”, are documents by John Eastman, an American law professor retained by then-President Donald Trump, advancing the fringe legal theory that the Presiding Officer of the United States Senate, either the President of the Senate or the President pro tempore, has the unilateral authority to count, deliberate over, and reject certified state electors and electoral votes.”
I doubt very much that the Republicans would have appreciated Vice President Kamala Harris acting on that theory and rejecting all the states that made the insane selection of Donald John Trump for President, thereby cementing her victory in the 2024 race.
But the goal wasn’t to allow that. The goal was to make a one-time change to an unending sequence of corrupt Republicans rejecting the Democratic electoral college votes for all eternity.
That’s an intellectually dishonest position to take on this forum.
Eastman’s intellectually respectable positions re the 2020 election fiasco?
Oh, looky at you! Copied and pasted verbatim from Wikopedia – and straight into Wikipedia from the original article published in Rolling Stone. Where the author cribbed articles from the WaPoo repeating claims from the Pelosi’s police state fascist carefully chosen J6 Committee. Nobody here has ever seen THAT before!
Too dishonest to provide a link to where you got it to go along with your copy and paste opening of this fiasco that is your disingenuous BS?
Let’s go deeper in the game you want us to play limited to the validity of legal theories straight down through all the layers of Democrat Obama Administration lawyers committing felonies. I call.
In fact I’ll raise you and your non-intellectual and dishonest desperate playing of the Democrat police state fascists’ “It’s Insurrection Eastman card”.
I raise you the outright felonies – not opinions – of all the Obama lawyers serving in the DOJ and FBI while they promoted and perjured themselves about the fictional and felonious Trump Russia Dossier. Not a single one of whom gets anything remotely similar in treatment from either Rolling Stone or the Wikipedia copy and paste crowd.
Want to call – or fold?
And BTW: was that a desperate attempt at claiming a moral equivalency? Or equally pathetic whataboutism?
I quit the ABA long ago for some of the reasons mentioned in Turley’s article.
Fortunately, now Florida is acting.
https://amgreatness.com/2025/12/06/florida-leads-fight-against-corrupt-american-bar-association
Bar Sinister
Accreditation groups like the ABA, and state bar associations, add to the cost of legal services, which are already too high for middle class Americans.
I agree. There should be a fight for the bottom among lawyers. There is already an oversupply of candidates unable to get past the bar quotas and being burdened with huge school debts they cannot pay off in professional work. They need a chance to undercut the more expensive ones; get them closer to minimum wage. When I go into a lawyer’s office I want to see them selling Slim Jims from the receptionist’s desk to make up the income shortfall, like many small businesses do.
If you saw some of the law school graduates who can’t pass bar exams that I have seen, you’d change your mind. They are truly scarily incompetent.
Having the ABA have ANY say in who can become a lawyer is insane. It is a private professional organization – essentially a guild – with clearly vested interests and political biases. That is like having the Electricians Union decide who can get licensed as an electrician. A private organization should have zero say if a non-member gets to ply his or her trade.