Professional graduate programs occupy a niche space in the ongoing national debates over student speech and the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has not spoken on the level of speech protections afforded to professional students. When a professional student brings a free-speech claim, lower courts are therefore tasked with developing tests and standards. As a result, there is no unified jurisprudence guiding courts on how to evaluate First Amendment claims at the professional or graduate-school level. This Article first explores the various doctrines employed by courts to analyze claims brought by professional students, including those developed from Supreme Court cases on student speech and public employee speech. These approaches, while helpful, are incomplete to address the unique interests and concerns raised by professional schools and their students. In developing a potential solution, this Article identifies key themes and similarities in approaches taken by three courts in professional speech cases: Tatro, Oyama, and Keefe. This Article then draws from fellow commentators’ approaches and the commonalities among professional student-speech cases to suggest a consistent framework for courts analyzing these claims. First, the court evaluates the proximity of the speech to the school environment to identify whether there is a professional nexus between the speech and documented professional standards of the relevant industry. Next, both the school’s conduct code and disciplinary actions must be narrowly tailored and directly related to legitimate, documented industry professionalism standards. Finally, the court must verify that the school exercised reasonable professional judgment in its discipline of the student. Ultimately, this Article both acknowledges the challenges and harmonizes the common themes among cases where professional schools, students, and courts confront First Amendment free-speech claims.