The Electric Commentary

Thursday, September 29, 2005


OK, I'm swamped right now, and I'll comment more on this later, but I have to at least mention it. The Conglomerate just informed me in this slight decrease in my quality of life. From Christine Hurt:

A faculty member here at Illinois just sent out an informative email alerting us that the Illinois Bar Association enacted rules today making CLE mandatory and creating a mandatory "bridge the gap" type CLE program for new attorneys. Sigh.

Who argued for mandatory CLE with a straight face? In my experience (with Texas), mandatory CLE requirements simply create an industry for CLE providers. Attorneys can choose to spend a lot on out-of-town CLE programs at nice hotels, perhaps in Cancun, Aspen, or elsewhere, or spend a minimal amount on an online CLE that streams audio and/or video through your computer while you pay rapt attention. Like any education, one can get either a lot or a little out of CLE depending on how much attention you spend choosing and attending the CLE, but most people I would assume get little out of it.

I would argue that mandatory CLE raises the cost of being in the legal profession without a commensurate benefit to either the profession or the public. I can understand how it could be hard to eliminate mandatory CLE once it is enacted, but I would like to know who in Illinois thought that after all these years, mandatory CLE would be a good thing. Are grievances lower in states with mandatory CLE than in states without it?

CLE can be useful. Mandatory CLE is a gigantic waste of time. This is awful.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Amazon Logo