According to the American Bar Association, 46 states/territories require mandatory CLE. Maryland is not one of them.

Our New Jersey neighbors have just taken the plunge, and mandated continuing legal education for their lawyers. The New Jersey Supreme Court approved Rule 1:42 (Continuing Legal Education), which requires attorneys to take 24 hours of CLE every two years, including a minimum of four hours on ethics and/or professionalism.

The Maryland State Bar Association (MSBA) electronically polled members, and found that responders overwhelmingly (70%) oppose mandatory CLE. 4,312 members responded, out of over 20,000 members. Here’s a sampling of the thinking of responders:

• Professionalism cannot be taught—you either have it or you don’t
• There are too many rules on attorneys, already
• Good lawyers take CLE voluntarily
• Attorneys forced to attend CLE will not pay attention and will just check their Blackberries, distracting others who wish to be there

The Maryland Judicial Commission on Professionalism is considering whether compulsory education is a logical next step—one subcommittee, the MCLE Committee, supports such a requirement, and the full Commission is set to hear the proposal this month.

I have mixed feelings about compulsory legal education. Personally and professionally, I think it’s a great idea. Would I want to go to a doctor who has not attended a medical seminar in 20 years? Of course not. Why should I want an attorney with the same record?

Of course there is a risk that some people will go and not pay attention, but on the whole, anyone who attends a seminar is likely to walk away with something that will improve their practice and their clients’ results (which is the desired endgame).

Furthermore, lawyers are busy people. Deadlines and rules are important to our practice. How many of us file motions or responses near the deadline? Without a deadline, when would those documents get filed? It is clear to me that, without rules like these, many attorneys might put these programs on the back burner, or might choose to not attend at the last minute when something else important comes up.

My biggest concern is: what happens to our existing CLE providers when compulsory CLE comes to Maryland? If compulsory CLE is approved in Maryland, will out-of-state CLE providers come in and really hurt local CLE providers, who know the lay of the land, who are in touch with knowledgeable speakers, and who can put together top-notch programs addressing the needs of the bar? Will this hurt the quality of all CLE in Maryland?

With the economy the way it is, current CLE providers are reporting hard times. MICPEL recently announced a campaign to raise funds to restructure the delivery of their services—they are trying to raise $1 million. I’d like to see what New Jersey’s experiences are in the next couple of years, and how it affects their local CLE scene.

The plaintiffs’ bar, the Maryland Association for Justice (formerly Maryland Trial Lawyers Association) has an incredible CLE program (disclaimer—I am the Chair of the Education and Programs Committee). We are putting on a joint program with TLA-DC, the Workhorse Seminar, on January 22 where we will have ten topics and 12 speakers on a range of topics, including Maryland’s non-economic damages cap, handling Medicare and Medicaid liens, appellate practice, and voir dire strategies. Speakers include Judge John W. Debelius, III, Judge Joseph F. Murphy Jr., Paul M. Sandler and Irwin Weiss (shameless plug—if you want to attend, call the MAJ office at 410.872.0990).

Certainly our state has some great CLE opportunities, which all attorneys should avail themselves of. But, what percentage of Maryland’s attorneys are taking CLE right now?

What do you think?  Is compulsory CLE a good idea?

Powered by Bookmarkify™