Yesterday, a  comment to an old post of mine on Continuing Legal Education caught my eye.  The commenter used the name “Online CLE” which made me immediately suspect that somebody was out there trolling for free advertising.  Since there’s no free lunch here, I was going to delete the comment.  But upon rereading it, I was unclear where it was heading.

I agree with your evaluation of the state of CLE’s. Lawline.com, my company is trying to put an end to the same old talking head lectures many of us are used to. We are constantly looking for fresh lectures given in alternative formats to try to provide attorneys with an interesting and valuable CLE experience. Please check us out, we would love to hear from anyone.

Obviously it was a come-on of sorts, but was it for lawyers who go there to buy their CLE programs, or lawyers to go there to provide new ideas for CLEs, or lawyers to be the next generation of talking heads.  So, I naturally dove in without looking.

I initially checked out the website  to get a feel for what they did and how they did it.  The faculty is made up of some heavy hitters, a number of whom are friends of mine or at least people I know.  Some, I know very well.  While I can’t vouch for all the lawyers involved, the ones I know certainly know their business, are interesting speakers and would be the guys I would go see if I had to.

So I began a dialogue with the lawline representative, who explained to me that the CLE business grew out of TV show, also called Lawline.  If memory serves, this was put on by a successful PI lawyer name Alan Schnurman as a showcase for him.  Not that he needed it, as he made a killing in Hamptons real estate and has almost as much money as a young investment banker.

While the rep, who never actually gave me his or her name, explained the sale pitch, it was primarily geared to good business:  They are doing this to make money off the CLE requirement, and need to produce high quality and interesting programs if they are going to be able to sell them.  As far as I’m concerned, there’s no better motivation for the provision of high quality services than financial.

But what’s in it for the lawyers who provide the content?  I assume that the guys I know who were listed as faculty on their website are in similar positions as me, having more than enough opportunity to fulfill our CLE requirements by doing bar association CLEs, and so we don’t need to look for more chances to get a few credits.  So, I asked what was in it for the lawyers.

The response was that they get the CLE credit and “some good promotion.”  “Am I wrong to assume that you are a for-profit entity?” I asked.  Indeed they are, but why pay for lawyers when you don’t have to, the rep replied.

So then it was time to check this out with my friends who are on the “faculty”, and indeed, that was the case.  Aside from the potential that Alan Schnurman might toss them a case or two, which apparently never panned out as hoped, it’s viewed as a pretty good opportunity to promote oneself as a big name in their respective field of law, big enough to be worthy of being a faculty member in these pay-to-play CLE courses, and that’s a good enough reason.

I had also asked the rep whether his comment was intended as a means of selling Lawline’s services or to seek new blood for its faculty.  I was told both, that they are in business to provide CLEs to lawyers and are constantly seeking new blood, new ideas and better, more interesting programs and formats.

So it ends up that the comment was, at least to some extent, a grab at free advertising here for the services they sell to lawyers.  But rather than delete the comment, I feel constrained to applaud their efforts at trying to provide a better CLE than the tired, pointless stuff that has been coming out lately.  As for their business model of using top quality lawyers who are willing to work for nothing, how can I fault them for a business model that works?  There appears to be a good reason why Alan Schnurman has become such a big success, and you can’t argue with success.