It became apparent to the courts some years ago that as lawyers aged, their knowledge of the law sometimes fell behind.  And so, they mandated Continuing Legal Education (CLE) for all.  In New York,  the requirement is 24 Credits every 3 years, including 4 credits in ethics.

It really made sense to do this, as we were all aware that many attorney just didn’t keep up on the law and it sometimes resulted in an embarrassing show in court, not to mention less than perfect representation of clients.  While the clients may not have known, it was evident to the rest of us.  And what was the big deal anyway?

Well, as Norm Pattis explains here, the big deal is that the promise of CLE was not always met by the performance.  Of course, the requirement applied to all attorneys, since there was no way for officialdom to distinguish those attorneys who kept up on developments in the law on a daily basis from those who never opened a law book or read a legal newspaper.  It was all or none, but that was part of the price of the meal ticket.  So even a lawyer with the knowledge and experience of Norm had to do his time.

As CLEs were mandated, an industry immediately grew around them to benefit from the fees that thousand of lawyers would have to pay to somebody.  Initially, private groups tried to put together fascinating speakers and lecturers to staff the series of CLEs and rise to the top of the industry.  These were rather expensive agendas.

Our bar associations came to the rescue in due course, putting together their own CLEs, which were usually less expensive and the funds would benefit our own associations rather than profit driven enterprises.  They too, at least initially, put together some of the best and brightest of the bar to lecture, and it was really quite fascinating.

But time takes its toll.  Eventually, the fascinating speakers become less fascinating, especially after their 37th time doing the same lecture.  There just isn’t that much to say after a while.  You see, 24 credits is a lot of CLE, and the law moves forward with glacier-like speed.  After giving the “Cross to Kill” CLE for 7 year running, there isn’t a criminal defense lawyer in New York who hasn’t either heard it or taught it.  It just runs out of steam.

For those who get to do the teaching, it became tedious.  We get our CLE credits for our lectures, but coming up with fresh and exciting information in the law was sometimes a stretch.  And so new people came in to lecture, and they weren’t always up to the task.  Too often, the newer teachers were old-timers who think that their war stories are enough to enthrall a room full of lawyers.  They aren’t.  Worse yet, some of these old-timers were the very people for whom CLE was intended.  There’s nothing worse than a CLE lecturer who demonstrated to a groups of lawyers that he was a clueless buffoon.

Then there were the young bucks who desperately wanted to be on the circuit.  They would have highly detailed, well-prepared multi–media presentations.  The problem was that they lacked the experience of the audience.  They were rookies and their presentations simplistic.  It was often painful to watch.

Then there were the new programs.  It all started with great concepts like “Weapons for the Firefight,” but eventually wound its way down to “Reading the Penal Law for Rookies.”  Needless to say, no one signed up for that one. 

So Norm posts about how he signed up for a CLE about counseling clients, a subject he thought would be interesting and helpful.  It turned out, however, to be about the consequences of having sex with a client.  Somehow, I see that subject being a very brief CLE, at least as far as it would apply to me.  It’s one step below the CLE about why we shouldn’t raid the escrow account.  I sincerely hope that Norm didn’t have to sit through a multi-media presentation.  The very notion of naked lawyers is just awful.

When I get the call about doing a CLE, I try to encourage the CLE committee to come up with a fully blown concept, both to bring something worthwhile to the audience and to provide a discrete guide to lecturers.  The last time I taught, we had a decent concept (Expert Testimony in the Eyewitness ID Case), but the CLE fizzled. 

The first speaker, someone who had long sought to become a speaker and was of the view that he was quite knowledgeable about the law (a view not shared by all) got up and gave a sophomoric yet pedantic lecture that touched on a hundred points of interest and made none of them.  This was a paint by the numbers sort of guy, who had the ability to drone on forever without ever imparting any wisdom whatsoever. 

The following speakers tried to salvage the CLE, clearing up the misimpressions and half-baked statements of the lead speaker, but most of the audience was fast asleep by then.  While there is a rule that you have to get to the CLE on time to get credit, there’s no rule that you have to stay awake. 

In all fairness, the people charged with putting on the CLEs have a lot of work to do to try to keep it fresh and interesting, especially to the audiences that may have lawyers with experience that spans 40 years.  And one never knows how good, or bad, a speaker will be until she’s given a chance.  But the promise of CLE to keep lawyers on top of their game has largely turned out to be more of a pointless burden than boon.  It’s not that the need for CLE has changed, but that it’s largely run out of steam.

If anybody has any fresh ideas for criminal law CLEs, I would be honored to pass them along.  But please, no “sex with clients” stuff, especially with multi-media presentations.