MCLEs in Connecticut: Better Late Than Never
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.
March 30, 2018 at 01:02 PM
4 minute read
“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.
The Connecticut Rule is similar to most other state rules in its requirement for 12 hours of CLE per year, two hours of which must be in professionalism or ethics, but alignment with other jurisdictions largely ends there. Connecticut has taken a self-regulatory approach. For example, there are no certified providers of CLE and no pre-approved courses; the individual lawyer decides whether the course she wants to take satisfies the content requirements of “significant intellectual or practical content designed to increase or maintain the attorney's professional competence and skills as a lawyer.” Moreover, attorneys are permitted to satisfy some or all of the required hours of CLE by self-study if desired, and credits may also be earned by teaching legal seminars and courses or by publishing articles in legal publications. While failure to comply with the rule will constitute misconduct under the Rules of Professional Conduct, a non-compliant lawyer will be given 60 days to comply before being subject to discipline. “MCLE Lite,” some have called it. But by all accounts it is working—and working well.
The Commission on Minimum Continuing Legal Education, which was created to implement the rule, consists of four judges of the Superior Court and four lawyers and enjoys the invaluable assistance of the Counsel to the Statewide Grievance Committee and his staff. Initially it was flooded with questions and petitions for exemptions, as might be expected, but as issues were resolved and lawyers become familiar with the new regime, the commission found it had time—and now the experience—to make improvements to the MCLE Rule, which were presented to the Rules Committee in January.
Because the commission members serve without compensation, and because so much free CLE has become available to lawyers—from bar associations and online—Connecticut's MCLE Rule has resulted in no cost to the Judicial Branch and only minimal expense to the bar. And, either out of conversion or resignation, the protesters have gone silent.
As indicated, self-regulation is the hallmark of Connecticut MCLE, and that is evident also in the requirement that each lawyer certify on his or her annual registration form whether he or she has complied with the MCLE Rule during the preceding year and, if not, whether an exemption can be claimed (e.g., serving in active duty in the armed forces or earning less than $1,000 from legal services). Early data available from the ongoing 2018 registrations reveal that the vast majority of the 39,000 lawyers in the state are certifying compliance.
There may never be a way to quantify the benefit of MCLE to the profession, but can it be reasonably argued that the bar is not the better for finally formalizing the obligation it has to the courts and the public it serves to maintain and enhance the skills, competence and ethics of its members? Better late than never.
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
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Stormy Daniels 'Hush Money' Trial: Donald Trump Should Be Very Worried
7 minute readShining a Light on Opposing Hate: The Palestinian Protesters Who Defended New Haven's Menorah
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250