Bay State lawyers may face mandatory continuing ed

by Lisa van der Pool
September 07, 2007

Massachusetts is on a short list of states that do not require continuing legal education for lawyers.

But that short list of Massachusetts, Maryland, Nebraska, Michigan, New Jersey, Connecticut and South Dakota may be about to shrink down further as Connecticut and New Jersey mull adding mandatory CLE regulations for their lawyers.

"That will leave Massachusetts as the odd state out" in New England, said Jack Reilly, executive director of Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education, a nonprofit in Boston.

The MCLE has begun setting the preliminary groundwork for such a policy. Ultimately, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts decides whether to institute a mandatory requirement.

"Our own long-range planning committee has drafted a mandatory CLE contingency plan," said Reilly. "The general consensus from our board is that mandatory CLE will come to Massachusetts eventually."

A mandatory CLE requirement stipulates that lawyers must complete a certain number of hours of various legal training classes. State requirements vary in the number of hours and types of classes that lawyers are requirement to read up on.

States began instituting such mandatory policies in the late 1970s, and the requirements vary from state to state. In Alabama, lawyers must complete 12 hours annually of CLE courses. One of those hours has to be an ethics or professionalism refresher. In New York, young attorneys who have recently passed the bar exam and have been practicing for less than two years have to complete 32 hours of "transitional" education. After that period lawyers have to complete 16 hours each year, which include three hours of ethics training, six hours of practical skills and seven hours of practice management and areas of professional practice, according to the American Bar Association.

California requires 25 hours of CLE over a three year period that includes four hours of legal ethics, one hour of substance abuse and one hour of elimination of bias in the profession.

Feelings among Bay State lawyers about the institution of such regimented requirements are mixed.

"My guess is that the organized bar would probably oppose this -- it's just one more non-income generating requirement and I think most lawyers believe that they don't need it, and that's because of the way the practice of law is -- there's an automatic continuing education requirement in virtually every engagement," said Thomas Peisch, a partner at Conn, Kavanaugh, Rosenthal, Peisch & Ford in Boston. Heather Leary, director of membership at the Boston Bar Association, hosts between 40 and 50 continuing legal education classes each year that about 2,500 lawyers attend. The classes are CLE accredited because some local lawyers also practice in other states and need to fulfill their yearly mandatory requirements. The BBA also offers 500 informal programs that usually incorporate a breakfast or lunch.

"I used to practice in a state with mandatory CLE," said Leary. "I was in rural Indiana and had to travel two hours to learn the latest updates. Maybe it was helpful to have that extra push. In Massachusetts it seems to me after having been here for five years that it's very competitive and people (voluntarily) want to be on the cutting edge."

For Donald Frederico, a shareholder attorney at Greenberg Traurig LLP in Boston, the wealth of classes and publications that local lawyers already use to stay up to date serve to make a very informed community of legal professionals who don't necessarily need a mandatory CLE classes.

"The quality of the bar in Massachusetts and Boston is very high and I think most lawyers and judges would agree," said Frederico. "People don't need to be told to stay up to speed on the law. They know it's important."

Lisa van der Pool can be reached at lvanderpool@bizjournals.com.