ABA Set to Loosen Restrictions on Online Law Classes
A proposal under consideration by the American Bar Association's law school accreditation arm would double the number of classes J.D. students may take online, and allow such courses during the crucial first year of law school.
February 13, 2018 at 02:27 PM
6 minute read
Legal education has been slow to embrace online learning, largely due to tight restrictions from the American Bar Association on how many classes students can take through distance education.
But the ABA appears poised to loosen the reins on online classes. The ABA's Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar is considering a proposal that would double the number of credit hours J.D. students can take online—from 15 to as many as 30. It would also lift the existing ban on students taking online classes during their crucial first year.
“It's absolutely a step in the right direction,” said Jack Graves, director of digital learning at Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, which is launching a so-called hybrid J.D. program next year. “The biggie, of course, is allowing students to do part of it in the first year. That's a big change, and I think it's an important one. It recognizes the fact that online education, done right, is not necessarily inferior.”
The council voted on Feb. 9 to send the proposed change out for public notice and comment, and will hold a hearing on the matter April 12 in Washington. Should the council sign off on the proposal when it meets in May and the ABA's House of Delegates give its approval, the new rules could go into effect as early as August—in time for the upcoming academic year.
The ABA has been warming up to distance education in recent years. In 2013 it bumped up the number of credit hours allowed via online classes from 12 to 15, but retained the rule prohibiting online classes in the first year. (LL.M. programs and masters in law programs are not subject to the ABA's distance education limits, and online versions have proliferated over the past decade.)
The proposal now under consideration would allow as much as one-third of a student's coursework to be delivered fully online. Most law schools require between 86 and 90 credit hours to graduate, meaning students could take between 28 and 30 credit hours online. Additionally, all other classes may be as much as one-third online without counting toward the online credit hour limit. For example, they could feature online quizzes or videos in modest amounts without triggering the distance learning rule.
“There's an understanding among the council that even if a lot of schools aren't poised to jump into the distance learning waters today, there's more interest in using distance learning than there was a few years ago, and that our standards need to move along and continue to make space for schools to do a little bit more,” said Barry Currier, the ABA's managing director of accreditation and legal education.
But the council also wants to make clear that classes delivered online still must meet all the ABA rules, in terms of rigor and the level of interaction between students and the faculty and classmates, Currier added.
“There is substantial evidence outside of legal education—and growing evidence inside legal education—that distance learning, properly done, can be as effective or more effective in some cases than the more traditional classroom experience,” Currier said. “There is good distance learning and poor distance learning, just as there is good classroom teaching and poor classroom teaching.”
The most effective classes combine in-person and online elements in what is known as the hybrid model, Graves said.
But he acknowledged that not everyone in the legal academy is a believer in the quality of online education, and that some faculty will likely oppose raising the online credit hour limit.
“The people who won't like it are the ones who don't believe it works,” Graves said. “And the ones who don't believe it works are almost exclusively people who have never explored it.”
A handful of law schools have received variances from the ABA to exceed the existing online credit hour limits. Mitchell Hamline School of Law launched the first hybrid J.D. program in 2015, where students take most of their classes online then come to campus for several weeks for in-person coursework.
Loyola University Chicago School of Law and Seton Hall University School of Law both have part-time J.D. programs that incorporate online and weekend classes, and Southwestern Law School last August was awarded a variance to exceed the distance learning limit.
The council also granted a variance this month to Syracuse University College of Law, which announced plans in 2016 to launch an online J.D. program. The ABA denied the school's initial request for a variance, but the new approval means Syracuse can move forward with a planned launch in January 2019.
The program will combine live online lectures with self-paced online classes, several weeklong campus sessions and a legal externship, said Nina Kohn, associate dean for research at Syracuse. Students can complete their law degree over the course of 10 semesters.
“It's very exciting to have the opportunity to translate what we do as law professors into the online space,” Kohn said. “It's exciting to think about how we can make the residential program, which has been our hallmark and our strength, accessible to students who can't get to our campus.”
The University of Dayton School of Law also has a pending request for a variance to exceed the online class limit. ABA records show that the council has denied similar variance requests from the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law and Rutgers Law School in the past year.
“This really gives us a chance to do more with online and more with hybrids,” Graves said of the pending ABA proposal to allow for more online coursework. “It gives us more room to accommodate and provide access than the existing program.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom 'Confusing Labyrinth' to Speeding 'Roller Coaster': Uncertainty Reigns in Title IX as Litigators Await Second Trump Admin
6 minute readFederal Judge Weighs In on School's Discipline for 'Explicitly Copying AI-Generated Text' on Project
Trump’s DOE Pick Could Spell Trouble for Title IX Enforcement, Higher Ed Funding
4 minute read'What Is Certain Is Uncertainty': Patchwork Title IX Rules Face Expected Changes in Second Trump Administration
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250