“It will be too expensive.” “I don’t need a rule making it mandatory; I already do it.” “You can’t force someone to learn; they will attend classes and read the newspaper.” “There is no empirical evidence that it improves lawyer skills, competence, knowledge or behavior.” “I don’t like to be told what to do.”
All the above protestations—and more—were trumpeted loudly and incessantly by opponents of mandatory (or minimum) continuing legal education for the 12 years supporters of the concept fought to end Connecticut’s status as one of only four states without MCLE. And a mighty struggle it was, with one task force failing to convince the Rules Committee to act and another unable to even reach consensus on a recommendation to the Rules Committee. But persistence was finally rewarded when the Superior Court Rules Committee adopted MCLE in June 2016 to be effective Jan. 1, 2017, and its implementation in the intervening year has demonstrated unequivocally that the fear of—and opposition to—MCLE was completely unwarranted.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
