I take it that's the upshot of this.  The contempt for law schools and legal educators in this memo is palpable, given the devastating (and still unanswered) criticisms of the proposal to double experiential credit hours required for graduation.  The two small concessions are:  (1) the Council now recommends that 3 of the 12 required experiential hours can be earned in the first year of law school; and (2) the curricular changes must be implemented no sooner than 2032-33.

The latter gives law schools an opportunity to organize in opposition to these indefensible changes.  Some possibilities:  (1) a collective refusal by dozens of law schools to comply with these requirements that will disrupt their programs of legal education without any evidence of their benefit–let's dare the ABA to start stripping accreditation from elite law schools, state flagships, etc. (2) a collective effort to lobby the Education Department to recognize other accreditors of law schools, and perhaps to strip the ABA of its accreditation role entirely given its repeated bad behavior.

(A word about the CLEAR report, which the Council memo references "in support" but does not discuss.  The CLEAR report addresses what it would take to make lawyers "practice-ready" upon graduation, although it adduces no evidence that its recommendations would achieve that.  I will note that doctors are not practice-ready upon graduation from medical school:  they go through another four years of "clinical" education via internships and residencies.  So perhaps the Council will next propose that lawyers need not three years of post-graduate training but six?  That should do wonders for "access to justice" and the affordability of legal education!)