Tennessee Supreme Court Rejects ABA Accreditation, Nonlawyer Ownership Relief
The Tennessee Supreme Court declined to authorize rule reforms on nonlawyer ownership of law firms and loosened the ABA accreditation requirement for entities providing legal services.
On October 2, 2026, the Tennessee Supreme Court decided In re: Regulatory Reforms to Increase Access to Quality Legal Representation (No. ADM2025-01403), declining to authorize the proposed reforms, leaving restrictions on nonlawyer ownership of law firms in place, and loosening the accreditation requirement — reportedly so entities need not hold American Bar Association accreditation. Because the cluster holds only one short, truncated item, the precise scope granted, any transition mechanics, and effective dates are not established here; the opinion should be read before relying on this.
Counsel should care for three reasons. First, a state high court stepping away from ABA accreditation reliance suggests that approval process may carry less weight in at least one state regime — a data point in debates over alternative legal services providers and the corporate legal officer movement. Second, states remain the primary regulators of the unauthorized practice of law and firm ownership, so divergence keeps fragmenting the market for multi-state providers. Third, adjacent questions such as fee splitting and multidisciplinary practice were not adopted, preserving the status quo.
The action: obtain the opinion and amended rule text, then assess whether client arrangements depend on the accreditation rule that changed. Watch for other state courts and bar regulators moving the same way, and for any petition for rehearing.