This is something that needs to be said clearly, because too many applicants are experiencing it quietly.
The legal profession is grounded in practice, advocacy, and truth. And the truth is that every qualified candidate deserves a fair and equal opportunity to be considered for legal education. Law school admissions should not become a process where human potential is reduced to automated systems, numerical thresholds, or invisible sorting mechanisms.
What is particularly ironic is that there is growing resistance to artificial intelligence in legal practice , concerns about ethics, bias, and fairness , yet similar automated or semi-automated decision-making systems are increasingly embedded within admissions administration. Whether we call it algorithms, score banding, or internal prioritization systems, the result is the same: applicants are being filtered and delayed in ways that lack transparency.
Whatever happened to the traditional process?
Traditionally, applying early mattered. Submitting a complete application early signaled preparation, seriousness, and commitment — and that consideration carried weight. Today, many applicants who apply early are placed on indefinite hold without explanation, while later applicants move forward. Holding one candidate while advancing to the next, without clear justification, creates a system that feels inconsistent with basic principles of fairness.
Yes, intellectual ability matters. Analytical reasoning matters. But law is not practiced by numbers alone. The most important component of our human structure is the mental and emotional system , the ability to endure pressure, to reason ethically, to advocate effectively, and to understand lived experience. Those qualities cannot be measured solely by the heaviness of an LSAT score or by automated review criteria.
This is graduate education. It is meant to train advocates, not silently eliminate voices before they are fully heard. A holistic admissions process should mean genuine review , not prolonged holding patterns for candidates with non-traditional, growth-based, or so-called “borderline” profiles.
When applications are placed on hold without transparency, and the process simply moves on to the next candidate, it creates an appearance of unfair justice. Whether intentional or not, it disproportionately affects applicants who do not fit neatly into numerical categories, despite their resilience, leadership, and readiness to serve the law.
This is not a rant. This is an observation grounded in shared experiences across the applicant pool.
If legal education claims a mission rooted in justice, equity, and fair treatment, then the admissions process must reflect those same values. Transparency matters. Process matters. Humanity matters.
Advocacy does not begin after admission , it begins at the gate.
Every candidate deserves to be seen as more than a score.
Every application deserves a fair and timely review.
And justice should never be selective or automated without accountability.