Indiana State Bar Association Public Feedback on Proposed Amendments to the Admission and Discipline

April 17, 2023

To the Indiana Supreme Court:

The Indiana State Bar Association respectfully offers the following feedback on the proposed amendments to the Admission and Discipline Rules allowing graduates of non-ABA accredited law schools to sit for the Indiana bar exam.

The Indiana State Bar Association (ISBA) opposes the proposed amendments to Rules 6 (Admission on Foreign License), 13 (Educational Requirements for Admission to Examination), and 17.1 (Admission by Transferred Uniform Bar Examination Score) of the Admission and Discipline Rules.

ISBA is not inherently opposed to online legal education, nor did this position come as a direct evaluation of Purdue Global’s Concord Law School – although public debate has largely focused on those issues.

ISBA’s opposition is rooted in its belief that a quality legal education is vital to the high-level practice of law, which better serves Indiana’s citizens. The best way to ensure quality and consistent legal education is through a reliable accreditation process. Indiana has no such independent process, nor does it have a body that evaluates the standards of non-ABA accreditation entities. Without confirming that all such entities’ standards align with what we in Indiana consider crucial to providing a high quality legal education and that all such entities have a robust procedure for monitoring accreditation compliance, we do not support allowing graduates of law schools accredited by those other entities to sit for the Indiana bar. 

ISBA understands that Indiana has an attorney shortage, especially in rural communities. It also understands that online legal education may be an affordable avenue for underrepresented populations. Online education is an increasing reality, and a carefully designed online law program may very well be of sufficient quality to meet other important accreditation standards. The ABA appears to be moving in that direction with its approval of certain hybrid J.D. programs as well as some recently approved fully online pilot programs associated with existing accredited law schools. 

In considering its position, ISBA solicited feedback on the proposed rule changes from its members and received numerous responses. The majority of members who shared feedback were overwhelmingly opposed to the proposed rule amendments for a variety of reasons. After deep research into the issue, a review of member feedback, and substantial discussion, the ISBA Board of Governors voted unanimously on April 14 to oppose the proposed amendments. 

In conclusion, unless and until Indiana puts resources in place to become an independent accreditor of law schools or creates a body to evaluate the accreditation standards of other states, the ISBA supports maintaining our reliance on the ABA’s accreditation standards and compliance monitoring. Therefore, we oppose the rule changes as proposed.

Thank you for considering these comments,

Amy Noe Dudas
Indiana State Bar Association President
Dudas Law, Richmond