Author
July 6, 2026
Daniel Thies, Council Chair
American Bar Association
Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar
Via email: NoticeandComment@americanbar.org
Re: Matters for Notice and Comment on Standards 205 and 207
Dear Chair Thies and Members of the Council:
The National Disabled Legal Professionals Association d/b/a Crip the Law submits this comment in opposition to the Council’s proposed revisions to Standards 205 and 207 and Interpretations 205-1, 205-2, and 207-1.
Crip the Law is a national association created by and for disabled lawyers, judges, policy experts, legislators, academics, legal workers, professionals, and organizers. Crip the Law was founded in 2022 to organize and unify disabled legal professionals into a force for change, and to advocate for and empower disabled legal professionals. Our work focuses on making legal education and the legal profession more inclusive and accessible for disabled people, including multiply marginalized disabled people. Crip the Law has a vested interest in ensuring that students from all backgrounds receive a rigorous and quality legal education. That requires that law schools be held to stringent non-discrimination and equal opportunity standards. The purpose of establishing accrediting institutions like the American Bar Association (ABA) is to create, implement, and enforce such standards.
The current Standard 207 and Interpretation 207-1 are already too limited, but they at least provide clarity for ABA accredited law schools and provide essential guidance about how the law should be applied in the law school setting. The standard and interpretation recognize that disabled applicants and students must be evaluated individually; qualification must be assessed with reasonable accommodations in mind; and that law schools may consider whether a reasonable accommodation would be a fundamental alteration to the program or its essential requirements or pose an undue burden. The current proposal deletes this critical guidance. Instead, it limits the Council’s inquiry to 1) whether a school has a “lawful” policy and 2) whether another body has already found unlawful disability discrimination. Such a standard—particularly if the ABA does not intend to make any determinations and is largely relying on formal findings of discrimination that are difficult to obtain and force disabled law students to endure continued discrimination—is not meaningful.
I. Accreditation Requirements Must Do More Than Mirror Civil Rights Law: They Must Ensure Equality of Opportunity
In general, law schools are already required to comply with statutes like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and applicable state and local civil rights laws. But ABA standards should set independent expectations for the quality, integrity, accessibility, and administration of legal education. Accreditation standards are meaningless if they simply restate the law.
Despite the fact that more than 28 percent of adult Americans identify as having a disability,[1] only 5 percent of surveyed lawyers, judges, magistrates, and other judicial workers self-identified as having a disability as of 2023.[2] And as of 2025, disabled lawyers only represent about 2.13 percent of partners and 3.06 percent of all lawyers at firms.[3] When considering factors such as race and sex, failure to represent individuals of underrepresented backgrounds and identities in the legal profession becomes even more apparent.[4] While this percentage marks an increase over the last several years, the numbers are still abysmally low and likely underreported. It is clear that meeting “non-discrimination requirements” on its own is not addressing the severe underrepresentation of disabled people in law schools and the legal profession.
The current standards 205 and 207 go beyond mere compliance, ensuring “equality of opportunity.” Replacing “equality of opportunity” with “non-discrimination” is not just a wording change: It narrows the standards and signals a retreat from meaningful access for all students from underrepresented backgrounds. Current Interpretation 207-1 makes it clear that disabled applicants and students must be evaluated individually, and qualification must be assessed with reasonable accommodations in mind. The proposal would delete that guidance, leaving disabled law students vulnerable to continued and exacerbated exclusion.
Legal education includes clinics, externships, journals, advocacy competitions, interviews, clerkship pipelines, networking, pro bono work, bar preparation, and mentorship. Accreditation should ensure disabled students can access those opportunities on equal terms. For example, current Standard 205(d) also recognizes that equal opportunity includes employment and placement services. It requires law schools to tell employers using school placement services that they are expected to follow principles of non-discrimination and equal opportunity. The proposal would delete that protection.
Law schools are gateways to the legal profession, and career services are part of that gateway. Disabled students may face inaccessible interview platforms and employer events, pressure to hide disability, stigma, and assumptions about capacity, productivity, professionalism, attendance, or client interaction. The Council should retain and strengthen the employment and placement language. Law schools should ensure that school-facilitated recruiting, interviews, employer events, and experiential placements are accessible to disabled students. Career services that are not useful or accessible to disabled law students cannot, and should not, meet the requirements under ABA standards.
Equality of opportunity requires more than the absence of discrimination. It requires timely accommodations, accessible technology, effective communication, inclusive teaching and pedagogy, and full and equal participation in legal education. Standards 205 and 207 must be maintained to ensure a similarly-rigorous legal education for students from all underrepresented groups.
II. The Proposal Creates a Lack of Clarity for Law Schools
The Council frames the proposal as a simplification. However, current Standards 205 and 207 include specific guidance on how civil rights and other laws and protections might apply in the law school setting. The supposed “simplification” comes at the expense of clear guidelines for law schools to best understand how to comply with non-discrimination requirements under the ABA standards. The proposal is not truly “simpler” if it leaves law schools with a lack of clarity about how to meet those standards.
For example, current Interpretation 207-1 provides essential clarity to law schools about how disabled applicants must be evaluated to comply with ABA accreditation standards. While much of the guidance mirrors interpretations of existing disability rights laws, it clarifies the ABA’s position and interpretation where there may be multiple and conflicting rulings. It also applies these laws to the legal education setting. The proposal would delete that guidance.
Further, the current Standard 205 clarifies that prohibitions on non-discrimination extend to employment. It is extremely important that this requirement is specifically highlighted, as opposed to being brushed over and lumped into a broad non-discrimination requirement. It is important to have representation from diverse backgrounds among law school faculty. Multiple studies have examined the positive impact Black law professors have on negatively racialized law students, for example.[5] Law professors from underrepresented backgrounds serve as potential role models and mentors for students in those communities, showing them it is possible not only to become a lawyer but to navigate the profession, advocate for themselves, and thrive in legal practice. These professors can offer unique mentorship and support, drawing on their own lived experiences to guide students navigating the challenges of legal education and the legal profession. This mentorship is particularly important given that law students from underrepresented backgrounds often lack access to mentors who understand their specific needs.[6]
The current Standard 205 guidance also makes it incredibly clear that denying admission to or failing to hire faculty or staff based on criteria that may seem “objective” but are, indeed, intended to keep out certain underrepresented groups constitutes discrimination prohibited by the ABA. The ABA’s proposal would gut that guidance, leading to a further lack of clarity.
III. Proposed Standards 205 and 207 Serve no Purpose Beyond Rubber Stamping Compliance on Paper
Proposed interpretation 207-1 limits the Council’s review to whether the school has a lawful published policy, follows that policy, and has been found liable for unlawful disability discrimination. Similarly, proposed interpretation 205-1 states a law school may satisfy the standard’s requirements just by virtue of adopting and “adhering to” a policy in compliance with Standard 205. The proposed 205-2 similarly notes that the Council will consider findings of unlawful discrimination. At the same time, both the proposed 207-1 and 205-2 state that the Council will not conduct its own investigations.
That is not enough.
Just because a law school adopts a policy that appears to meet necessary requirements, that does not mean it does not routinely engage in discriminatory conduct. For example, even when a policy appears compliant on paper, a school’s practices can still exclude disabled students. A school might delay decisions on accommodations until deadlines have already passed; require unnecessary, intrusive, or expensive medical testing or documentation; deny interim accommodations while requests are pending; treat certain aspects of legal education as categorically ineligible for accommodation; require students to repeatedly disclose their disability; or design courses, clinics, technology, exams, and extracurricular activities in ways that are not accessible.
These failures may never produce a formal legal finding. But they can still make legal education inaccessible. The Council’s oversight should not depend on whether a court or agency has already found a violation. Litigation is slow, expensive, inaccessible, and often unrealistic for students trying to finish exams, graduate, sit for the bar, find employment, or avoid retaliation. Disabled students can suffer immediate and lasting harm from delayed accommodations, inaccessible clinics, missed exams, forced leaves, delayed graduation, lost scholarships, and exclusion from professional networks. A law school can fail disabled students long before it loses a lawsuit. Accreditation must be able to identify, address, and remedy that failure.
The Council does not need to act as a damages tribunal, adjudicate every complaint, or replace courts and civil rights agencies. But the proposed “no investigation” language goes too far. Site teams already review documents, interview community members, examine practices, and identify patterns. Disability access and other non-discrimination requirements should not be excluded from that review. If a school has repeated accommodation delays, inaccessible technology, denials without individualized analysis, inaccessible clinics or events, or reports that disabled students must negotiate access professor by professor, the Council should be able to consider that evidence. The same goes for other forms of discrimination. The Council can avoid adjudicating individual disputes while still reviewing systemic compliance. Otherwise, accreditation becomes a paper exercise.
Further, proposed Interpretation 205-1 would allow a law school to satisfy Standard 205 by adopting its university’s non-discrimination policy, which is also insufficient. Law schools raise disability-access issues that general university policies often do not address, including timed exams, anonymous grading, clinics, externships, bar-exam accommodations, law review write-ons, advocacy competitions, on-campus interviews (OCI), clerkship processes, attendance policies, cold-calling, and simulations.
A university-wide policy may be useful, but each law school must have its own implementation procedures. Those procedures should explain who makes accommodation decisions, how accommodations apply in classes and experiential programs, how faculty are trained, how confidentiality is protected, how urgent requests and appeals are handled, and how students receive equal access to career services and employer-sponsored opportunities.
IV. Accreditation Standards and Non-Discrimination Protections Required by the ABA Should Not Depend on Geography
The proposal would replace specific protected categories with a reference to “applicable federal, state, and local law.” That would make ABA accreditation protections vary by jurisdiction. The Council accredits law schools nationally. Of course, the proposed changes will make it far more difficult for the ABA to enforce its standards due to the inconsistencies. It would also lead to the potential for differential treatment of law schools across the country due to their applicable laws, essentially punishing law schools in jurisdictions with more protective and expansive non-discrimination requirements. But beyond the logistical challenges, disabled and other underrepresented applicants and students should not receive different education qualities because of where their law school is located. A national accreditor should set national expectations, not simply settle for the lowest common denominator.
Just as an example, the current Standard 205 clarifies that discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation are prohibited. While several states do prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation, there is currently a lack of clarity about whether discrimination based on these characteristics is prohibited under federal law, particularly under the Trump Administration. The current standard ensures that law schools do not engage in such discrimination—regardless of the state in which they are located. ABA accreditation is intended to ensure that all law students receive an education that meets a minimum set of standards. These standards ensure that law student education is sufficiently rigorous. It is up to the ABA as an accreditor to ensure that all law students receive a quality education. That must include members of the LGBTQIA2S+ community as well, even if it goes beyond what might be required under the law. The current standard reiterates the potential exemption under federal law from this and other requirements for religious institutions, addressing any possible concerns in that regard.
Federal civil rights law is a floor, not a ceiling. State and local law may provide additional protections, but they should not define the limits of accreditation. The Council should keep an enumerated list of protected categories, including disability, while also requiring compliance with any applicable law that provides greater protection. The Council cannot, and should not, replace national accreditation values with shifting legal baselines if it truly intends to ensure a consistent, quality legal education.
V. Maintaining the ABA’s Current Standards is in the ABA’s and Legal Profession’s Interests, and it is Not a Breach of Fiduciary Duty
While other countries strengthen their protections for disabled lawyers and law students,[7] the ABA is poised to regress. The Council has been less than transparent about its concerns and reasoning for some of its more recent proposals. Crip the Law suspects that many of these proposed changes are due to continued attacks by the Trump Administration and the Texas Supreme Court’s decision holding that Texas bar applicants are no longer required to attend an ABA-accredited law school.
At its May 15, 2026 meeting, several individuals on the Council alluded to the rescission of Standard 206 as a requirement of their “fiduciary duty” to the ABA. Even then, these references have been vague with little explanation. Crip the Law suspects that this duty is related to the ABA’s financial interest in collecting the extensive fees it receives from ABA accredited law schools. Council members also referred vaguely to their “duties” to law students. However, as nonprofit leaders with years of governance experience, the Council should know that fiduciary duties are not solely related to money or power. For example, the duty of obedience requires nonprofit leaders to operate in a manner that is consistent with the organization’s mission and charitable purpose. This mission is as follows pursuant to the ABA’s constitution:
The purposes of the Association are to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and maintain representative government; to advance the science of jurisprudence; to promote throughout the nation the administration of justice and the uniformity of legislation and of judicial decisions; to uphold the honor of the profession of law; to apply the knowledge and experience of the profession to the promotion of the public good; to encourage cordial intercourse among the members of the American bar; and to correlate and promote the activities of the bar organizations in the nation within these purposes and in the interests of the profession and of the public.
The ABA finds itself at a cross-roads: Should it uphold its core mission and values? Or should it abandon that mission due to the mere possibility that revenue streams might decrease, despite the lack of incentive for law schools to operate in this manner if they plan to attract applicants with any interest in portability?
And the Council is right: The ABA does owe a duty to law students. But law students in Texas and beyond will actually be worse off if the ABA lowers its standards for a quality law school education for all such as through this proposal. We cannot, and should not, give into unfounded and illegal intimidation by the United States government at the expense of the integrity of the legal profession.
The Trump administration will continue to target the legal profession as long as we continue to exist and use the legal system to challenge unconstitutional and impermissible behavior. Giving in here will set a dangerous precedent that could destroy the very core of the legal profession; it is not how we restore public trust in the legal profession. Like lawyers across the country already have, it is time for the ABA to stand up to the Trump Administration and say enough is enough: we will see you in court.
VI. The Council Must Strengthen Non-Discrimination and Equal Opportunity Accreditation Requirements
Even though Crip the Law opposes the gutting of standards 205 and 207 as they currently exist, the current standards fail to go far enough to truly ensure full access and inclusion for disabled law students. The current standards can also be tightened to avoid repetition. Accordingly, Crip the Law not only opposes the current proposals but would recommend the below language for Standards 205 and 207 to fully support and provide a similarly rigorous legal education to all underrepresented and disabled law students.
STANDARD 205. NON-DISCRIMINATION AND EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY
(a) A law school shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, age, disability, military or veteran status, or any other characteristic protected by applicable federal, state, or local law.
(b) A law school shall adopt, publish, implement, and adhere to policies and procedures that prohibit discrimination and retaliation, and ensure equality of opportunity in all aspects of operation. The policy shall establish a reasonable, accessible, impartial, confidential, and timely process for filing, investigating, and resolving complaints about conduct that violates the policy.
(c) A law school shall inform employers, internship placement organizations, or externship placement organizations receiving school assistance, facilities, interview access, recruiting access, job postings, or placement support of the school’s firm expectation that they follow principles of non-discrimination and equality of opportunity in hiring, promotion, retention, compensation, workplace access, conditions, and all other aspects of the program or employment opportunity.
(d) This Standard does not prevent a law school from having a religious affiliation or purpose and adopting and applying policies of admission of students and employment of faculty and staff that directly relate to this affiliation or purpose so long as (1) notice of these policies has been given to applicants, students, faculty, and staff before their affiliation with the law school, and (2) the religious affiliation, purpose, or policies do not contravene any other Standard, including Standard 405(b) concerning academic freedom. These policies may provide a preference for persons adhering to the religious affiliation or purpose of the law school but may not be applied to use admission policies or take other action to preclude admission of applicants or retention of students on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, age, disability, or military status.
(e) This Standard establishes minimum national accreditation requirements and does not limit any greater protections required by federal, state, or local law.
Interpretation 205-1
A law school may not require applicants, students, faculty, or employees to disclose their ace, color, ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, age, disability, military or veteran status, or any other characteristic protected by applicable federal, state, or local law, although they may provide opportunities for them to do so voluntarily
Interpretation 205-2
Law schools should provide, at a minimum, annual training on non-discrimination policies and requirements for all staff, faculty, and administrators to ensure implementation. Law schools should also provide training on non-discrimination policies and requirements for all newly-hired staff, faculty, and administrators.
Interpretation 205-3
Non-discrimination and equality of opportunity requirements and policies must apply to all law school programs, services, activities, and operations, including, but not limited to, recruitment, admissions, academics, clinics, externships, internships, journals, advocacy programs, career services, placement services, and employer-sponsored opportunities.
Interpretation 205-4
Non-discrimination and equality of opportunity requirements and policies must apply to law school employment, including in, but not limited to, recruitment, hiring, promotion, retention, tenure-track advancement, and discharge. Non-discrimination and equality of opportunity employment policies shall apply to faculty, staff, independent contractors, interns, and externs.
Interpretation 205-5
The denial by a law school of admission or employment to a qualified applicant is treated as made upon the basis of race, color, ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, age, disability, or military status if the basis of denial relied upon is an admission qualification of the school that is intended to prevent the admission of applicants on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, age, disability, or military status though not purporting to do so.
STANDARD 207. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION AND EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
(a) A law school shall not discriminate on the basis of disability and shall provide equality of opportunity to qualified applicants, students, faculty, staff, employees, independent contractors, interns, or externs with disabilities.
(b) A law school shall adopt, publish, adhere to clear, accessible, reasonable, timely, and confidential policies and procedures for requesting, evaluating, granting, and implementing reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities. The policy shall establish a reasonable, accessible, impartial, confidential, and timely process for filing, investigating, and resolving complaints about conduct that violates the policy.
(c) A law school shall provide reasonable accommodations unless the school demonstrates, after individualized assessment, that the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter the nature of the program, eliminate an essential requirement, lower essential standards, or impose an undue financial or administrative burden. Law schools shall engage in good faith in a collaborative, interactive process when an accommodation as requested cannot be granted.
(e) Disability access, accommodations, and non-discrimination policies shall extend to all aspects of legal education, including, but not limited to, recruitment, admissions, classes, examinations, clinics, internships, externships, journals, advocacy programs, career services, employer-sponsored opportunities, bar preparation, technology, communications, and school-sponsored events.
(f) Accessibility should be considered in all policies and design. Law schools shall strive toward adopting universal design in all areas of operation, including pedagogy and assessment.
Interpretation 207-1
Providing reasonable accommodations includes ensuring implementation. Law schools are responsible for ensuring that granted accommodations are fully implemented in the classroom,
Interpretation 207-2
Law schools should provide, at a minimum, annual training on disability and disability accommodation policies and requirements for all staff, faculty, and administrators to ensure implementation. Law schools should also provide training on disability and disability accommodation policies and requirements for all newly-hired staff, faculty, and administrators.
Interpretation 207-3
Law schools shall prioritize granting all reasonable accommodation requests to the extent feasible.
Interpretation 207-4
Remote learning and instruction shall not be inherently considered a fundamental alteration. Remote accommodations for learning and instruction shall not impact non-distance education requirements, consistent with Standard 306(c).
VII. Conclusion
Crip the Law urges the Council to withdraw the proposed revisions to Standards 205 and 207, as well as to adopt Crip the Law’s alternative proposal. The Council should not replace meaningful accreditation expectations with paper compliance, shifting legal baselines, or after-the-fact findings by other bodies—all at the expense of a rigorous and quality legal education for all.
Disabled applicants, students, faculty, and staff need clear, enforceable accreditation standards that require equal opportunity in practice. The ABA must strengthen those protections, not weaken them.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment and welcome any comments or questions. Questions and comments can be directed to info@cripthelaw.org.
Sincerely,
Crip the Law
[1] U.S. Ctrs. for Disease Control and Prevention, Disability Impacts All of Us Infographic, https://www.cdc.gov/disability-and-health/articles-documents/disability-impacts-all-of-us-infographic.html (last updated July 15, 2024).
[2] Marissa Ditkowsky, NDLPA First-of-its-kind Data Analysis Reveals Only 5 Percent of Lawyers Identify as Disabled (Feb. 25, 2025), https://cripthelaw.org/data-reveal-only-5-percent-of-lawyers-identify-as-disabled/.
[3] Nat’l Ass’n of Law Placement, 2025 Report on Diversity in U.S. Law Firms 11, 16, 54 (Mar. 2026), available athttps://www.nalp.org/uploads/2025NALPReportonDiversity.pdf.
[4] Ditkowsky, NDLPA First-of-its-kind Data Analysis.
[5] Nicholas A. Bowman, Nicholas R. Stroup, & Solomon Fenton- Miller, Promoting Graduation Outcomes for Racially Minoritized Law School Students: Examining the Role of Finances, Racial Representation, and Prestige, 1(4) J. Postsecondary Student Success 54 (2022).
[6] Tayler Nichols, There’s No [One] Face to Disability: An Examination of Faculty with Disabilities, Their Approach to Teaching, and Support of Students with Disabilities in Higher Education, Doctorate in Education Dissertation, San Diego St. Univ. (2022).
[7] See, e.g., Alphonsus, Agborh, NBA Lawyers Forum Hails Disability Inclusion Policy, Nigerian Tribune, June 26, 2026, at https://tribuneonlineng.com/nba-lawyers-forum-hails-disability-inclusion-policy/amp/.