The National Disabled Legal Professionals Association (NDLPA) d/b/a Crip the Law is a national association of disabled lawyers, judges, policy experts, legislators, academics, and other 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. Crip the Law has a vested interest in prioritizing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) efforts in the legal profession. Our work specifically focuses on making the profession more inclusive and accessible for disabled people, including multiply-marginalized disabled people.

Crip the Law opposes the repeal of the DEI standard, which ensures American Bar Association (ABA) accredited law schools make a commitment to recruiting, accepting, and hiring law students, faculty, and staff from underrepresented groups. Instead, Crip the Law believes the standard should be strengthened and expanded to include more specific goals and include disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity, among other underrepresented groups.

I. DEI Standards are Critical to Ensure Necessary Representation in the Legal Profession.

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.⁵

Research shows positive outcomes when lawyers and clients share similar cultural or lived experiences.⁶ Clients are more likely to receive culturally competent and responsive legal representation when disabled people, people of color, LGBTQIA2S+ individuals, and others from historically underrepresented communities are able to attend law school and enter the legal profession. Disabled and other underrepresented lawyers also bring different perspectives based on their lived experience, leading to more creative solutions.

It is similarly important to have disabled representation among law school faculty. Disabled law professors serve as potential role models and mentors for disabled students, showing them it is possible not only to become a lawyer but to navigate the profession, advocate for themselves, and thrive in legal practice. Disabled law 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 disabled law students often lack access to mentors who understand their specific needs.⁷ Although few studies have looked at the impact disabled law professors have on disabled law students, multiple studies have examined the positive impact Black law professors have on negatively racialized law students.⁸

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. Ensuring that there are law students, faculty, and staff from underrepresented backgrounds contributes to that goal in a significant way. These standards ensure a more thorough education that expands competency, including cultural competency, and exposes students to other perspectives that might challenge them and help them devise more creative solutions. The ABA has a vested interest in ensuring this level of rigor in law schools across the country. The ABA should therefore retain this standard.

II. Standard 206 is Permissible under the Law.

Currently, the DEI standard states the following:

• 1. Consistent with sound legal education policy and the Standards, a law school shall demonstrate by concrete action a commitment to diversity and inclusion by providing full opportunities for the study of law and entry into the profession by members of underrepresented groups, particularly racial and ethnic minorities, and a commitment to having a student body that is diverse with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity.
  2. Consistent with sound educational policy and the Standards, a law school shall demonstrate by concrete action a commitment to diversity and inclusion by having a faculty and staff that are diverse with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity.

This does nothing more than establish an affirmative obligation to strive toward prioritizing DEIA to fulfill equal opportunity objectives. There are no specific requirements whatsoever, and frankly, the standard lacks any concrete obligations to truly enforce. It is more of a statement of values in this manner. Even the rule’s official interpretation in 206-2 states, “The forms of concrete action required by a law school to satisfy the obligations of this Standard are not specified. “

Even if this standard established clear support or requirements for adopting affirmative action, this standard goes no further than existing anti-discrimination law. Affirmative action is still lawful, assuming it is narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling interest⁹ of ensuring it provides “the educational benefits that flow from diversity”¹⁰ and does not apply quotas.¹¹ The Supreme Court has even acknowledged the legitimate interest in adopting affirmative action policies, stating that enrolling a diverse student body “promotes cross-racial understanding, helps to break down racial stereotypes, and enables students to better understand persons of different races.”¹² This applies similarly in the higher education admission and employment context.

In the Council’s proposal to repeal Standard 206, it writes, “[E]nacted and proposed

laws at the state level have made it impossible for the Council to have a meaningful

Standard 206 that can apply to every accredited school across the country.” The official interpretation under 206-1, however, already establishes a carve-out that allows for commitments in other ways if there are statutes or constitutional provisions contrary to the Standard. Additionally, the ABA, an organization established by and for lawyers, is in a prime position to legally challenge these laws and unlawful interpretations of anti-discrimination laws.

If we can’t even stand by the ineffectual, bare minimum requirements under anti-discrimination law, how do we expect to protect the integrity of our profession? Caving in to the legally unfounded threats and demands of an administration with no regard for the Constitution or decades of established anti-discrimination case law is not how we restore public trust in the legal profession.

III. Standard 206 as Currently Established is Deficient, and ABA Standards Aimed at Equal Opportunity Should be Expanded.

Given the vague and noncommittal language of the current Standard 206, we would recommend a strengthened standard, across the board, with specific requirements that contribute to advancing DEIA. Below are some examples of specific requirements the ABA could establish to achieve the ultimate goals of DEIA:

1. It should be mandatory to collect data on faculty pay and faculty demographics under Standard 509. It should also be mandatory to collect data on self-disclosed disability status, gender identity, and sexual orientation—not just race and ethnicity. Achieving true inclusion and equity starts with understanding the extent of the problem, and that requires extensive and accurate data.
2. The ABA could require law schools to offer alternative methods of admission besides the Law School Admission Test (LSAT). The LSAT continues to disadvantage prospective law students from underrepresented backgrounds, particularly students with disabilities who may struggle to obtain accommodations or participate in high-stakes testing.
3. The ABA could establish a standard aimed at expanding the application of universal design principles and more accessible teaching pedagogies. Universal design does not just benefit students from historically underrepresented backgrounds: it benefits all students who may excel using different modes of learning.

The current Standard 206 also fails to include disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation. As discussed in this comment, people with disabilities have been excluded from the legal profession despite the clear value and talent that we bring. When we think of DEI, many fail to think about disability and accessibility. However, true DEI is impossible without including disability.

IV. Conclusion

Crip the Law strongly opposes the current proposal at hand, which would repeal Standard 206 in its entirety. 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. 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.

Crip the Law encourages the ABA to move toward establishing specific and actionable goals that result in a more diverse, equitable, inclusive, and accessible profession.

Additionally, Crip the Law encourages the ABA to recognize all underrepresented groups, including people with disabilities, in its definition of DEI.

We appreciate your consideration of our comment and look forward to a response. Sincerely,

Marissa Ditkowsky, Esq. Executive Director, 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 at https://www.nalp.org/uploads/2025NALPReportonDiversity.pdf. ↑
4. Ditkowsky, NDLPA First-of-its-kind Data Analysis. ↑
5. See id. at 16.↑
6. Ella Maiden, Centering Disability in the Law School Pedagogy: A Way to Include Disabled Law Students, 52:2 J.L. & EDUC. 176 (2023). ↑
7. 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). ↑
8. 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). ↑
9. Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. 297, 298 (2013) ↑
10. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 330 (2003). ↑
11. Id. at 334-36. ↑
12. Id. at 330. ↑