"Students working real cases sounds good, in the abstract," Biggs wrote, acknowledging the surface-level appeal of clinical education. However, he contended that it is "the most expensive way to teach anything." He provided a stark comparison of efficiency: "A professor teaching Property reaches hundreds of students. A clinical professor works with about eight." By forcing schools to invest heavily in these low-ratio clinical settings, Biggs argues, the ABA ensures that the cost of a law degree remains out of reach for many, or leaves graduates with such high debt loads that they are forced into high-paying corporate law jobs rather than public interest work.
"Someone called to serve ordinary Americans and work in public-interest law shouldn’t have to abandon that calling because only a large-firm salary can service the loans," Biggs noted, framing the university’s rebellion against the ABA as a populist move intended to democratize access to the legal profession.
Beyond the financial arguments, Biggs leveled a heavy ideological charge against the current state of legal academia. He blamed what he called the "ABA-enforced pipeline" for creating a culture where both faculty and student bodies lean overwhelmingly to the left. He argued that legal clinics, in particular, have become vehicles for supporting left-leaning causes under the guise of education. This, he claimed, has fostered a "grievance-based study of the law" that "undermines the pursuit of truth and instills the belief that the Constitution and our republic are obstacles to be torn down."
To counter this perceived bias, UATX has announced a strategic partnership with the Federalist Society, a powerful and influential conservative and libertarian legal organization. The university plans to integrate Federalist Society resources and personnel into its undergraduate legal education. This curriculum will reportedly focus on "the Constitution’s text, history, and tradition," and will be taught by a roster of practicing lawyers, scholars, and judges who subscribe to originalist or traditionalist interpretations of the law.
The University of Austin’s decision to forgo ABA accreditation is a gamble, particularly given its own nascent status. As of late 2025, the university itself does not yet have full institutional accreditation, although it recently reached a milestone by being granted "candidate status" by its regional accreditor. Without institutional accreditation, a school cannot offer degrees that are widely recognized for graduate school admission or federal employment, and its students are ineligible for federal financial aid. By doubling down on a non-traditional path for its legal studies, UATX is betting that the legal and educational markets are ready for a clean break from the 20th-century consensus.
The American Bar Association has responded to these developments with a defense of its standards and a reminder of the value of the traditional system. Melissa Hart, the chair of the ABA Council, issued a statement emphasizing that the council accredits law schools with a "wide range of missions and perspectives." She defended the ABA’s role in "setting minimum standards that lead to strong outcomes" for students and the public.
