Opinion ID: 1997123
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: ABA Accreditation

Text: [¶ 10] Among other provisions, M. Bar Admission R. 10(c) requires that any applicant seeking to take the Maine Bar Examination shall produce to a board of bar examiners satisfactory evidence establishing that he: (1) graduated from a law school that had received its provisional or final accreditation from the American Bar Association by the time of the graduation of the applicant; (2) graduated from a law school in another jurisdiction that is accredited by that jurisdiction, has been admitted to practice in that jurisdiction, and has been actively engaged in the practice of law there for at least three years; (3) graduated from a foreign law school that is equivalent to an ABA-accredited law school and has either been admitted to practice in that country, or has passed the bar examination in at least one jurisdiction within the United States and has been in active practice in that jurisdiction for at least three years; or (4) has completed two-thirds of the requirements for graduation from an ABA-accredited law school, and has completed at least twelve months of study with a practicing attorney. M. Bar Admission R. 10(c)(2)-(5). Title 4 M.R.S. § 803(2) (2009) echoes these requirements. [¶ 11] As a threshold issue, Husson contends that, as the ultimate entity governing the admission of attorneys to the Bar of the State of Maine, this Court has the authority to grant exceptions to both the relevant statutes and bar admission rules requiring ABA accreditation. We agree with this interpretation of the statutes and rules, as we did in Husson I, and recognize that among the three branches of government, it is the Judicial Branch, specifically this Court, that has the inherent authority and exclusive jurisdiction over the admission of attorneys to the practice of law in this state. 2008 Me. Lexis 93, at , 7-8 n. 3; see also In re Application of Feingold, 296 A.2d 492, 496 (Me.1972). [¶ 12] Husson encourages us to exercise this authority and jurisdiction by announcing in advance of its operation of a law school that its future graduates may sit for the Maine Bar Examination despite Husson's lack of ABA accreditation. Although it reports that it is willing to have its program judged by ABA accreditation standards and is confident that it would meet those standards despite the fact that it has not yet begun operating as a law school, Husson nevertheless declines to have the ABA itself evaluate Husson's proposed law school to determine if it meets those standards. Husson identifies only one reason why it refuses to subject itself to the ABA accreditation process at this time: Husson's faculty voted more than fifteen years ago to eradicate a system of faculty tenure, and the ABA's accreditation standards require that, in order to attract and retain a competent faculty, a law school must have an established academic freedom and tenure policy, and shall afford to full-time clinical faculty members a form of security of position reasonably similar to tenure. [3] 2009-2010 ABA Standards for Approval of Law Schools 405. Husson indicates in its filings that it will apply for ABA accreditation as soon as the ABA's faculty tenure requirements are revised, and anticipates that such application will be filed no later than 2015, for approval in 2017. If the ABA declines to change its standard on faculty tenure, however, it appears unlikely that Husson will ever apply for ABA accreditation. [¶ 13] Whatever the reason for its decision not to seek ABA accreditation at this time, Husson asserts that a comparable evaluation by some other entity should be sufficient to support its application. In Husson I, we agreed that ABA accreditation might not be the only acceptable review process, and invited Husson to identify another existing process to accomplish the same task. 2008 Me. Lexis 93, at -13. [¶ 14] In this, its second application, Husson has failed to identify another existing review process, and instead invites us to create a new review process for its benefit. In the absence of any other mechanism to assure the quality of the legal education Husson proposes to provide to its future law students, Husson encourages the Court to devise a set of state standards by which Husson's program may be judged, and to create a Law School Evaluation Commission tasked with determining if Husson's program meets those standards. More specifically, Husson proposes that we take some extraordinary steps: first, that we create a set of standards or criteria for determining whether a law school is providing a sound legal education; [4] second, that we establish a body to determine whether Husson meets those standards; and, third, that we pre-approve the program by agreeing now that members of Husson's first three graduating law school classes will be eligible to sit for the Maine Bar Examination. [¶ 15] Husson's decision not to apply for accreditation from the ABA, whether based on a business or policy decision not to offer tenure, or because such a process would be expensive, provides an insufficient basis for us to take these extraordinary steps, and therefore we decline Husson's request.