Pennsylvania (PA) Professionalism CLE Course Catalog

Civility is often viewed as something "nice but not necessary" in the practice of law; in fact, many attorneys will argue that it is counter to zealous representation of their clients. Others will see it as something required in order to properly focus on the legal merits of a case.

Mark Wooster presents a humorous take on what lawyers should not do in the service of their clients. Using clips from a highly-popular television show and recent feature film, Mark will illustrate the ethics rules that apply to lawyers who can’t seem to behave themselves

Stuart Teicher (the CLE Performer) travels all across the country giving CLE programs, and he runs into a ton of celebrities on the road. In this program, Stuart will be showing photos of all the selfies he took with celebrities, and connecting those encounters to lessons of professionalism and civility in the practice of law.

In this third compilation program, Mark Wooster revisits some of his favorite segments from our popular series where legal ethics collides head on with stand-up comedy and bursts into flames of laughter.

In this second compilation program, Mark Wooster revisits some of his favorite segments from our popular series where legal ethics collides head on with stand-up comedy and bursts into flames of laughter.

In this compilation program, Mark Wooster revisits some of his favorite segments from our popular series where legal ethics collides head on with stand-up comedy and bursts into flames of laughter.

Everyone knows that Taylor Swift is a music genius. But she’s made some pretty smart moves in the courtroom too. Join the CLE Performer, Stuart Teicher, Esq., as he talks about how the ethics rules are invoked in some of Taylor Swift’s run ins with the legal system. You don’t have to be a Swiftie to watch the program…but you might end up one when you’re done!

In Part II of this popular program, Andrew Struve uses wild legal opinions as a basis for reviewing the canons of legal ethics that apply to judges, and to discuss whether these“unique” opinions are consistent with the high ethical standards to which members of the judiciary are held.

Andrew Struve uses these wild legal opinions as a basis for reviewing the canons of legal ethics that apply to judges and to discuss whether these “unique” opinions are consistent with the high ethical standards to which members of the judiciary are held.