Por Renan Filho · 2026-10-18**Lead**
A sweeping overhaul of how Americans become lawyers is taking shape in policy circles aligned with a potential second Trump administration, with proposals that could dramatically reduce both the time and cost required to enter the legal profession. The changes, which include loosening accreditation standards for law schools, creating alternative pathways to the bar exam, and expanding apprenticeship programs, are being framed as a way to increase access to justice and break what supporters call a guild-like monopoly. Critics, however, warn that lowering standards could undermine the quality of legal representation and flood the market with underprepared practitioners.
**Context**
The current path to becoming a lawyer in the United States is among the most expensive and time-consuming in the developed world. Aspiring attorneys typically spend three years in law school, paying an average of more than $50,000 per year in tuition at private institutions, followed by months of bar exam preparation. Total student debt for law graduates often exceeds $150,000, and the American Bar Association’s accreditation requirements have long been a barrier to innovation in legal education.
During his first term, President Donald Trump signed an executive order in 2020 that directed the Department of Education to consider recognizing alternative bar exam pathways and to review the ABA’s monopoly on law school accreditation. That order was largely symbolic, but it laid the groundwork for more aggressive action. Now, with Trump campaigning on a platform of deregulation and “draining the swamp,” legal policy advisors are drafting proposals that would go much further.
Among the most discussed ideas is the creation of a federal bar exam that would preempt state-specific licensing requirements, allowing lawyers to practice across state lines without additional exams. Another proposal would allow graduates of unaccredited law schools or those who complete a two-year accelerated program to sit for the bar. Some advocates are pushing for a return to the “reading law” apprenticeship model, where candidates study under a practicing attorney without attending law school at all, a path that remains legal in a handful of states like California and Vermont.
**Analise**
Proponents argue that the current system is a barrier to social mobility and disproportionately excludes low-income and minority candidates. The high cost of law school, they say, forces graduates into high-paying corporate law jobs to service debt, leaving rural and underserved communities without affordable legal help. By reducing the time and expense of becoming a lawyer, more individuals could enter public interest law, small-town practice, or solo firms. The Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute has published papers calling for the elimination of the ABA’s accrediting role, arguing that it stifles competition and innovation.
Opponents, including the American Bar Association and many state bar associations, contend that the current system exists to protect the public from incompetent lawyers. They point to studies showing that graduates of unaccredited law schools have lower bar passage rates and higher rates of disciplinary action. The National Conference of Bar Examiners has warned that a federal bar exam could create a race to the bottom, as states would lose the ability to set their own standards for local practice. Consumer advocacy groups also worry that faster, cheaper paths could lead to a surge in malpractice and ethical violations.
The political calculus is complex. While Trump’s base includes many who view professional licensing as a form of cronyism, the legal profession itself is heavily represented in both parties. Major law firms and law schools have significant lobbying power, and any attempt to dismantle the current system would face fierce resistance in Congress. However, the executive branch has considerable authority over federal recognition of accrediting agencies and could unilaterally change the rules for federal student aid eligibility, effectively forcing law schools to adapt or lose funding.
**Fontes**
This article is based on publicly available policy proposals from the America First Policy Institute, statements from the American Bar Association, historical records of Executive Order 13891 signed by President Trump in 2020, and reporting from legal education outlets including Law.com and the National Law Journal. No interviews were conducted, and no proprietary data was used.