Barry Currier has endured the wrath of many an unhappy legal educator during his nearly eight-year tenure heading up the arm of the American Bar Association that oversees law schools.

There was the years-long debate over raising the bar pass threshold that schools must meet in order to remain accredited. And the protracted discussions over how the ABA should respond to schools allowing applicants to submit GRE scores in lieu of the required LSAT. Then there was the time the ABA dared to inquire whether its tenure requirement for faculty was really necessary. (That one really didn’t go over well with law professors.)

Barry Currier.

But soon it will be someone else’s job to come under fire from rankled professors and deans. Currier has announced plans to step down as the ABA’s managing director for accreditation and legal education in the summer of 2020, and the ABA has launched a search for his replacement. He will be leaving a markedly different operation behind, having spearheaded a major reorganization of the ABA’s Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar that significantly reduced the number of committees and cut section costs. There are now fewer section meetings during the year, and law schools are subject to site visits every 10 years instead of every seven.

Law.com caught up with Currier to talk about the challenges and bonuses of the gig, and what’s next for him. His answers have been edited for length.

What’s the hardest part of this job? Until we made these changes in our governance, it was the pace of work. We had the council, the standards review committee, the accreditation committee and the data policy committee. It required a serious and substantial meeting more than once a month. Last year, we noticed a significant difference in our ability to get our work done at a quality level that satisfied us and also have time to think a bit more about things we’d like to do beyond the day-to-day.

The other thing is that sometimes we made a certain set of schools pleased with what we were doing, and other schools were less happy. It’s sort of the nature of the job. We have 203 law schools that span quite a range of missions and resources and so forth. People are more willing to speak out when they have concerns than they are when they think you’re doing a good job. I suppose it would have been a little nice if the folks who thought what we were proposing was a good idea were more willing to say so publicly.

What’s the best part of the job? Our process and the fact that we’re located at the ABA means that these issues around legal education and how it fits with the profession are worked out with a group of people that includes academics, lawyers, judges and public members. The context is as broad as it needs to be for the work we do. They are first-rate people who care about these issues. And then there is the opportunity to work with other legal education organizations, with the Conference of Chief Justices, with the National Conference of Bar Examiners, that gives you the breadth of perspective that’s difficult to get if you aren’t in a position like this.

The legal education section has been operating in its consolidated form for about a year now. How has it been going? I think it has been very successful. We were able to get the work done, and at a high level of quality. Having the council members see all the schools that were being reviewed instead of just the ones with a need for a special approval or that are having some difficulty has given the council members a lot more perspective.

I know there is a little concern out there that by eliminating the standards review committee and the data policy committee—in particular—that some people who follow what we do may feel like they don’t have as much opportunity to have input. I don’t personally see that. We took a bit of a break this year on doing anything particularly controversial or substantial in the standards because we wanted to adjust to this new work schedule. There will be plenty of opportunities for people to comment.

How is the section different today than it was in 2011 when you took over, aside from the new format? The transparency has been improved. Our relationship with the Department of Education seems to be on track. As the recession ran its course and had its impact on legal education, I think we’ve done a good job of focusing our attention on the schools that needed our attention, and finding ways to make sure we’re assuring other schools are operating under the standards.

We’ve made sure we’re spending more time on the schools that maybe are in more of a challenging position. We’ve had a number of schools close over time—some with our impetus and some without. That process is ongoing. The basic framework that has been in place for some time is still there, but I think we’ve sharpened our focus. And we’ve taken on some significant issues: dealing with the admissions test; dealing with the bar pass standard; dealing with learning outcomes; dealing with diversity and inclusion—many of these are ongoing.

Any advice for your successor? One could see in 2011 and 2012 that legal education was going to be going through a significant period of change and adjustment. Both higher education and legal profession are two of the last major sectors that start adjusting to change. It was clearly going to happen in legal education. Having an opportunity to have a seat at the table as those issues were worked through—you have to love legal education. You have to understand and appreciate that it’s the first step in producing people who are significantly responsible for the fabric of our society, which is the rule of law. You really have to be committed to that. You have to be open. You certainly have to have a thick skin. Enjoy the hard work that goes with the job.

I know you are sticking around for another year or so, but what’s next for you? Nothing specific. I enjoy my job. I love legal education. I really still have a lot of energy for what I do. I’m not looking for anything specific, but I’m not looking forward to not being involved in some way. We have a house in California, and we’ll move there. That’s part of the motivation.