Mandatory CLE for (young?) (less experienced?) (all?) attorneys

Learning how to practice law and learning the law should be a priority for young lawyers.


  1. How is it possible that one of the most demanding professions in this state does not require its members to get some stupid continuing education? The law changes, most lawyers will not stay on top of all the new developments on their own initiative, and clients suffer as a result. Of course, whether clients will ever find out about this detriment is doubtful, which is probably why lawyers here don’t bother to get some stupid continuing education.

  2. Mr. Siri,

    I am in full agreement that CLE plays an important role in the development of young lawyers. Just looking at the MSBA CLE offerings, one can get valuable experience and advice in everything from estate planning to bankruptcy to learning how to start their own firm. In addition, attending CLEs is a fantastic way for a young lawyer to meet other attorneys with similar interest, and to have access to experts in the field of law being taught.

    With that said, compulsory attendance at these courses tends to lead to people showing up just to get their tickets punched. Often, this brings down the overall experience for those who actually are interested in attending the CLE.

    Further, CLEs that can be obtained remotely (webcasts) are even less likely to benefit one who is not engaged.

    As you know, we can make CLEs mandatory, but we cannot force someone to be engaged in learning the material.

    CLE is an important part in the development of rookie and seasoned attorneys alike, but mandating participation in CLE is not the answer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *