|
|
| Bar
Bulletin Focus |
What's New In Legal
Education
|
CLE in Maryland and the Future of MICPEL
~Where are we going? Where have we been?~
By Brent Burry
When you "Google" the term "continuing legal education" today you get about
9,750,000 results within 0.09 seconds. The sheer number of Google search results
and the top ten Google
"CLE hits" on January 19, 2007, illustrate the opportunities and challenges
that face MICPEL and its founding partners – the MSBA, the University
of Baltimore School of Law and the University of Maryland School of Law – as
MICPEL strives to continue its 30-year tradition of "producing the highest
quality CLE resources for practicing lawyers in Maryland through publications,
programs and other delivery systems that utilize available technologies, in
a fiscally responsible manner."
In February 2007, CLE takes many forms in Maryland and around the country,
from very low-tech to cutting-edge high-tech, including traditional, in-person
seminars of two- to six-hour duration; shorter quasi-educational social/networking
events; section and committee meetings with some educational content; teleconferences;
live seminars presented via satellite or closed-circuit television; online
Webinars or distance learning courses utilizing "synchronous" (live, interactive)
formats or "asynchronous" (non-interactive, previously produced/packaged) formats;
e-mail listserves; threaded discussion groups; online legal research services
that provide free or low-cost access to primary case law and statutory law;
mentoring programs; professionalism courses for new admittees; even blogs and
podcasts. And don't forget the proliferation of paper and electronic versions
of legal treatises, manuals; handbooks, written course materials, practice
forms and document assembly software for lawyers; CDs, DVDs; videocassettes
and audiocassettes.
CLE resources have never been more accessible to lawyers. There is intense
competition among CLE providers, especially national and regional for-profit
providers, to sell their content everywhere and anywhere lawyers work and live.
A continuing emphasis by bar associations and their not-for-profit affiliated
CLE entities to provide high-quality, economical CLE resources to their constituents
has kept CLE prices at a very affordable level. Yet CLE in Maryland seems to
remain curiously – and stubbornly – outside the mainstream of the
collective consciousness of Maryland's legal community and "un-embraced" as
a vehicle for improving the profession and instilling a higher level of public
trust and confidence in Maryland's legal system.
The main reason that CLE is relegated to a position of lesser importance
in the minds (and busy professional lives) of Maryland lawyers is that Maryland
remains out of step with the majority of states which have institutionalized
CLE as a required component of a lawyer's continuing obligation to maintain
her/his competency and professionalism. Maryland is in a shrinking minority
of states without an annual MCLE requirement for its lawyers.
As a result, MICPEL has lagged behind many of its bar-affiliated counterparts
in other states and most of its commercial CLE competitors in making its CLE
products and services available online. Happily, MSBA President Ed Gilliss
has made it a priority during his term to bring MICPEL and the MSBA up-to-speed
online in big way. A Gilliss-appointed Technology Task Force, chaired by former
MICPEL President and Towson IT lawyer Mike Oliver, has been appointed to identify
the best technology solutions and to help find the financial resources to implement
them, so that MICPEL and MSBA resources can be much more accessible to lawyers
all over the state. The Technology Task Force will report to the MSBA's Board
of Governors this month and will recommend what e-learning and interactive
communication solutions should be pursued by MICPEL and the MSBA's Sections
and Committees.
The national movement to MCLE took root in 1975, when Minnesota became the
first state to institute MCLE. By 1985, 17 more states had adopted MCLE. In
1990, a total of 35 states required MCLE (Michigan adopted MCLE in 1990, but
rescinded it in 1994). Among the eight additional states that have implemented
MCLE since 1990 are the two states with the largest number of lawyers: California,
with 140,000 lawyers as of July 2006 (which adopted MCLE in 1992) and New York,
with 144,599 lawyers as of July 2006 (which adopted MCLE in 1998). The most
recent addition to the list of MCLE states is Illinois, whose 80,000 lawyers
came under an MCLE requirement beginning in July 2006.
Forty-three states now require active practitioners to obtain a minimum number
of hours of CLE instruction annually. The seven non-MCLE states are Connecticut,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey and South Dakota. Note
that Maryland is counted as a non-MCLE state despite the fact that, since 1992,
all new admittees to the Maryland Bar have been required to attend the MSBA's
half-day "Professionalism Course". Paradoxically, Hawaii has been counted as
an MCLE state since July 2001, even though attendance at its Professionalism
Course is the only mandated requirement, while New Jersey is counted as a non-MCLE
state although it requires all of its new admittees to complete a 46-hour skills
and methods course during their first three years of practice.
Interestingly, Alaska, which is listed among the MCLE states, adopted a self-described
VCLE requirement in September 1999 under which attorneys who voluntarily obtain
at least 12 hours of CLE credit each year (including one hour of ethics) are
entitled to a $20 discount on their annual bar dues for the mandatory bar,
inclusion in a published list of compliant attorneys and participation in the
bar association's lawyer referral service. The Alaska Bar Association and the
Alaska Supreme Court issued a proposed MCLE rule in June 2006 that would change
the existing voluntary system to a mandatory one. Comments on the proposal
new rule were invited from bar members through mid-August 2006. Action on the
proposed rule is pending.
According to the Alaska Bar Association, in 2005, 42 percent of the state's
2,346 active attorneys participated in the voluntary system of CLE. In comparison,
during FY 2005/2006 (July 1, 2005 – June 30, 2006) MICPEL's program registration
records show that approximately 3,500 lawyers attended MICPEL's 73 live seminars.
Another 650 lawyers, judges, law professors and related professionals participated
in a MICPEL program or publication as volunteer teachers, authors, editors
or planners. What percentage of Maryland lawyers does this group constitute?
Approximately 16 percent of the 22,000 active, in-state attorneys who paid
their annual assessment to the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland.
(Of course a statistically significant margin of error should be considered
in evaluating this estimate. A number of county, local and specialty bar associations
in Maryland have CLE programs and regularly conduct CLE activities that are
supported by their members. Several commercial, out-of-state, for-profit CLE
providers sponsor CLE programs in Maryland which attract some Maryland lawyers.
MICPEL's quoted registration figures include an undetermined number of individual
registrants who attended multiple programs.)
In 1995, the Court of Appeals of Maryland and its Rules Committee shelved
an MSBA proposal to establish a mandatory requirement that Maryland attorneys
obtain a minimum number of hours of regular CLE every year. In 2001, the Court
again declined to adopt a proposal to mandate CLE participation by Maryland
attorneys, this time in the form of the adaptation and expansion of the MSBA's
Professionalism Course for New Admittees to a similar course of experienced
lawyers. However, in 2001, the Court extended – for an additional 10
years – the CLE requirement imposed on new Maryland lawyers to attend
the Professionalism Course. That same year, the Court also required Maryland
judges to attend two days of JCLE courses every year. The composition of the
Court has changed since 1995 and it will change again in the near future. Would
the Court reach a different result if it were presented with a new proposal
for VCLE, MCLE or the expansion of the Professionalism Course to cover all
Maryland lawyers?
Brent Burry is Executive Director of the Maryland Instituted
for Continuing Professional Education of Lawyers (MICPEL).
|