An important battle is unfolding in Washington.
The U.S. Department of Education has moved to end federal recognition of the American Bar Association Council as a law-school accreditor, raising questions about accreditation standards and the degree of independence between the accrediting body and the legal profession it serves. The ABA disputes the Department’s conclusions, and the process is not yet final.
But the controversy raises a larger question that reaches far beyond law schools:
How much concentrated power should organizations representing the legal profession have over the rules and public policies governing that same profession?
That question matters enormously in guardianship and probate.
Families seeking reform often enter state capitols as ordinary citizens.
Across the table are highly organized legal interests with attorneys, specialty sections, lobbyists, institutional knowledge and long-standing relationships with policymakers. Their expertise deserves to be heard. But expertise should inform legislation — not become a veto over it.
Florida provides a revealing example. In 2024, SB 48 and HB 887 proposed significant changes to guardianship law, including protections involving family visitation, reevaluation of guardianships and greater scrutiny of whether a guardianship should continue.
The Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section of The Florida Bar publicly opposed major provisions, including proposed jury involvement in certain proceedings. Both bills later died in committee without receiving the full legislative debate reform advocates had hoped for.
It would be wrong to claim the Bar alone killed the bills — legislation dies for many reasons — but it is entirely fair to ask how much weight organized legal interests carry when lawmakers consider reforms affecting the legal system itself.
This is not an anti-lawyer argument. The ABA and bar groups have supported meaningful reforms in other areas, and lawyers possess expertise lawmakers need. The concern is institutional power and incentives. Probate and guardianship proceedings generate legal fees, guardian fees, fiduciary fees and litigation.
When professionals who work inside a system are also among the most influential voices shaping the rules governing that system, lawmakers should recognize the possibility of institutional self-interest and make certain families and citizens receive equal consideration.
Guardianship can determine where someone lives, whom they may see, who controls their money, whether they can enter contracts, and who makes medical and property decisions.
Probate proceedings can determine the fate of family businesses, homes, inheritances and generational wealth.
With stakes this high, reform should be judged by simple questions: Does it strengthen due process? Protect families from unnecessary isolation? Safeguard assets from needless depletion? Provide meaningful oversight? Make restoration of rights possible when a guardianship is no longer justified?
No professional organization should have a de facto veto over reforms intended to protect the constitutional rights, property and liberty of the people.
Lawyers deserve a seat at the table. They should not own the table.
COMING NEXT: We will publish a follow-up article tracing exactly what happened to Florida’s SB 48/HB 887 — where the bills went, who weighed in, what provisions drew opposition, and where the legislation ultimately died.
STAY TUNED. STAY INFORMED.
Please share this article with your contacts and your state legislators. The more citizens understand how guardianship and probate legislation moves — or fails to move — through our state capitols, the harder it becomes for important reforms to disappear quietly.
