CLE requirements were created, if I’m not mistaken, because it was believed that lawyers had to be held accountable for staying abreast of new substantive legal developments and that CLE programs were the best way to do that. If the requirements are to change, it should be because *that* has changed (by the way, I think the advent of the internet as we know it today and the availability of information probably means that it has changed in many ways)–not because the economy is bad.

For the unemployed/underemployed, I’m not just saying, “Let them eat cake.” I think we have many other ways to address their short-term problems. Bar associations and other CLE providers have offered an abundance of low cost and free programming this year, including substantive topics, practice management, marketing and more. And if my state, which produced many such programs, is any indication, attorneys took advantage of these programs in droves.

But, with the continuing economic crisis, earning CLE credit is starting to occupy a larger percentage of that value. What I’m hearing more frequently from providers is that attorneys, newly unemployed or under-employed with no firm or corporation to pay for their training and continuing education, almost demanding that courses offer CLE credit – they simply cannot afford otherwise.

For them, attorneys and providers, the restrictive MCLE rules are burdensome, even unfair.

But, with the continuing economic crisis, earning CLE credit is starting to occupy a larger percentage of that value. What I’m hearing more frequently from providers is that attorneys, newly unemployed or under-employed with no firm or corporation to pay for their training and continuing education, almost demanding that courses offer CLE credit – they simply cannot afford otherwise.

For them, attorneys and providers, the restrictive MCLE rules are burdensome, even unfair.