My response to the email was typically skeptical. A company that was doing continuing education for physicians wanted to break into the legal market, and asked if I was willing to speak with them. It went on to push a bit too far, suggesting that it was in my interest to become involved with them as they were going to be the best CLE provider ever and would do wonders for my prestige.
So I responded by asking if they were a for-profit enterprise, and whether they were asking if I was so desperate to be hooked to such a prestigious enterprise that I would happily give up my time and reputation to make them money. A lot of lawyers do that, you know. It’s a marketing thing, where lawyers beg to be on television or speak at conferences, for free and on their own dime, so people think they’re important lawyers while the business putting on the show makes money off them.
But I received a reply that surprised me. Yes, they were a for-profit business, but what they really wanted was to ask me whether I thought it was possible to do quality CLEs online, and whether lawyers gave a damn about quality CLEs or just getting enough credits to make it past the guardians of the bar. So I bit.
My view was old school, that CLEs had become a joke, particularly given that lawyers now get credit for such critical skills as “how to market” and “how to get the most out of your iPad.” How many clients get all warm and fuzzy knowing that this is the sort of advanced training their lawyers deem critical? The business model was to run counter to this slide into the gutter, to provide what they believed to be top quality education. Would lawyers be willing to pay for it?
If the choice is crap versus quality, and the price point was essentially the same, my hope is that lawyers would flock to good quality CLEs rather than crap. But there was a secondary question as well: The CLEs would be delivered over the internet, not in person. Would this change things?
As it happens, I stumbled across a post by lawyer-turned-marketer/coach Roy Ginsburg at the Puddle who wrote a post about this very issue. While my normal modus operandi is to point out the superficiality and general worthlessness of the death of letters there, this was different. The same reader who would avoid anything remotely resembling depth of thought because it makes his head hurt would be the very lawyer to whom these CLEs were directed. After all, how would I know whether they want quality CLEs? How would I know if they care whether the CLEs are live or memorex? Plus, the title of this post comes straight out of Roy’s subheading.
This is what makes me nuts about the Puddle, the utter absence of reasoning behind any assertion combined with the blind leap to whatever outcomes can be called 2.0. Roy just assumes that everything is going online because, well, just because. I concede, unfortunately, that he’s probably right, though I have actual reasons for my position.Can Live Survive?
Plenty of older lawyers still prefer being in the same room with a qualified expert. Some younger lawyers, too, will prefer that format. But it won’t be long until the boomers retire and most CLE is provided online. If your bar association is now offering 40 live programs per year, that number will decrease every year going forward.
Online CLEs offer economies of scale that allow for a viable business model. Far less expensive to create, particularly if you have to pay a well-regarded lawyer capable of providing high quality legal education, since there is no room to rent or food to purchase. One of the suggestions I gave was that the sort of lawyer who would do a CLE for the prestigious marketing opportunity was not the sort of lawyer who would be perceived as capable of providing a top quality presentation. There was no shortage of lawyers willing to do anything for free, but nobody would pay to hear them. If they wanted someone who people actually wanted to hear, they would have to pay for it.
Online CLEs also cost the participating lawyer much less time, allowing them avoid the time lost to travel to a live location, which reduced the cost to the lawyer. It allowed the CLE provider to include as many lawyers as were willing to sign up, rather than the limits of geography or seating would allow. It allowed the provider to use a presentation again and again, even if the interactive nature of a webinar done once might be lost in future showings.
And digital natives have gotten used to everything being delivered to them online, so they never have to actually use any muscle that doesn’t move a mouse.
But this doesn’t address whether this is a good thing. No matter how useful the internet has become as means of obtaining information on any subject under the sun, there is a dynamic to a live presentation that can’t be replicated online. We’ve strayed from quality to convenience, where people interacted face to face, with real life being lost in the process.
Have you ever tried talking to a camera when there is no one else around? It’s not fun. It’s really a pretty weird feeling, like talking to yourself and wondering whether there is anyone out there to listen. Even in a live webinar, the stilted nature of questions or interactions bears little resemblance to actual conversation. Without seeing the faces of an audience, or the hands going up, or the gal who looks like she’s about to burst because of something you just said, there is no sense of reality. The laughs, the groans, the sighs, are all part of human interaction.
Having done webinars and podcasts, as well as live CLEs, there is no question in my mind that much is lost when we aren’t in the same room. But then, I’m the boomer, stuck in my old ways. Do new lawyers, the audience for the future of CLEs, share my concerns? Do they care whether we’re all in the same room, or the lawyer is just a disembodied face on their computer screen?
I know my answer, but I don’t know what young lawyers think.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’ve been a lawyer for 2 1/2 years, though I came at it later than most (I’m 36 now). For my money, live is far better than online for CLEs. Aside from the “are you paying attention” problems with online CLEs, the opportunity actually to interact with a speaker and other attorneys is invaluable. So, too, is the importance of recognizing that different individuals learn in different ways, and some (many) of those even in the younger generation don’t learn best on a computer. CLE will be the poorer for the disappearance of a live format.
Live would make more sense, for the reasons you specify above, for top-quality presentations. But for mere CLE credit, I’d go w/ online. For the would-be new provider of CLE you reference at the beginning of your post, they should find a way to provide online while also occasionally doing great live CLEs. The online could feed the live.
So you’re in favor of the perpetuation of garbage CLEs for “mere CEL credit” and as an online feeder for top quality presentations? And the dude abides?
No, I am in favor of higher-quality online CLEs—recognizing them for what they’re worth, given what you’ve said about the lack of human interaction—as a feeder for great live CLEs. Beyond the fact that there will always be garbage anyway.
Uh huh.
I think both have a purpose. Nothing beats being there – with the ability to ask questions, talk to colleagues about their thoughts, and to just be open to the serendipity that happens live.
But there’s an opportunity cost in time – and if you want to do some learnin’ between times you can go somewhere for a day or two, that’s where the DVDs or online CLEs can help. I never got the scheduled webinar for that reason – it has all the inconvenience of the live CLE without the positive interaction.
I love you, too, static.
Sorry if my somewhat incredulous response made you butthurt. That can happen to young lawyer/markters when their opinions aren’t held in the highest regard. I’m sure somebody at the Puddle will rub your tummy and make you feel better. Or if you prefer, you can fill out the form.
Do you find the DVDs or Online CLEs useful, or just credit fodder?
The New York Times recently did an editorial (“The Trouble with Online Education”) that challenged the quality of online education in higher ed. I think the concerns are the same (and perhaps greater) in CLE. In higher ed, at least there’s some kind of assessment at the end of the course. In some jurisdictions that allow online CLE, you get credit just for buying the product. This is contrary to the purpose of CLE, which is really about clients and the society lawyers serve. Many lawyers take it seriously. Too many don’t. There are ways to use online tools to make education better (hybrid programs, re-envisioning textbooks, etc.), but live doesn’t die. And even good CLE providers are still trying to figure out what the right balance is.
Just because something is more convenient or cheaper doesn’t mean it’s better. This reminds me of the whole Yahoo/work-at-home debate. Sometimes things seem great when they burst on the scene. Like working at home. Or online education. But sometimes they create mediocrity. And then the pendulum swings back a bit and we find the place we’re supposed to be. We hope.
I bought the NACDL DVDs on Cross-Exam and on an old defense strategies conference, and I think so far they are pretty good. I haven’t actually needed the credits, just hoping for something to help me be more competent.
With others, I haven’t fared so well, but it was never about the cle credit. I attend enough things to be well ahead on that score.
Or even adequate.
You raise a collateral issue, the difference between the nature of CLEs done by a non-profit or, as is the case with the NACDL, a dedicated bar association. They have some great people doing some great stuff. And unlike with for-profit CLE providers, this is where lawyers are usually happy to give of their time and effort.
Butthurt? Not particularly. Well, OK. Maybe a little.
But I did check off the last box on the form.
If you were nicer about it (and took the question with a little bit more finesse), I would have rubbed your tummy myself. Or you could have just taken a look at what you wrote and pondered whether it was an accurate reflection of what you meant to say.
That happens sometimes too. And it’s okay to realize something didn’t come out the way you intended and correct it. It shows maturity.
Uh huh.
See how far you’ve come today? Now I’m happy.
Live is much better for another reason. I don’t know about the guys who attend the CLEs you go to, but we have some really creative lawyers in our state defense bar and they show up to just about every defense CLE we have. Going out to have a smoke and listen to the latest war stories from some of those guys has given me as many ideas, if not more, as the rest of the speakers have. And, of course, that’s where you pick up good intel about prosecutors, judges, and cops.
It’s hard to swap stories and ideas with a webinar or DVD.
Another thought I heard was about the networking opportunity of being among real live people. Whether that works, I dunno, but it’s always a good thing to actually talk amongst yourselves, tell stories, get to know one another and just hang out together. That’s one of the ways real friends are made.
Of course, people on the internet don’t need real friends, just twitter followers.
I’ve always preferred live for all the reasons mentioned (plus I’m an old fart). I also ordered the DVD after attending a couple where the comments and questions were more informative than the handout. Now, for the first time ever, I’ll probably have to go on-line. My reporting cycle ends in four weeks and I still need one more hour. I’m looking for a 1-credit course in arithmetic for lawyers because I really don’t want to take the local bar’s seminar on social media.
Don’t get me started again on the fact that they give CLE credit for the how-to market or blog crap. It’s outrageous. And to make matters worse, most of the time, I’ve never heard of the presenters at these courses about how to blog. It’s bad enough they call it CLE, but then it’s utter nonsense to boot? It’s just nuts.