exphotels fr

exphotels fr

Phoenix Hotels

Phoenix Hotels

Desktop Clock

Desktop Clock

Very nice blog.

Very nice blog.

Thanks for taking the time to make a helpful comment, nolo.  If we had to prove that any particular educational system, curriculum, course or seminar were effective or useful (not to mention interesting), I’m afraid we’d be closing a lot of law schools and giving pink slips to lots of professors.

Thanks for taking the time to make a helpful comment, nolo.  If we had to prove that any particular educational system, curriculum, course or seminar were effective or useful (not to mention interesting), I’m afraid we’d be closing a lot of law schools and giving pink slips to lots of professors.

Here in Ohio, the standard practice among CLE sponsors is to withhold the critical ID number for the seminar until the close of the seminar, which keeps folks from skipping out before the end. I’ve seen them dock time from people who show up late as well.

CLE requirements can be a bit of a pain sometimes, but a good CLE seminar can be a glorious thing.

Here in Ohio, the standard practice among CLE sponsors is to withhold the critical ID number for the seminar until the close of the seminar, which keeps folks from skipping out before the end. I’ve seen them dock time from people who show up late as well.

CLE requirements can be a bit of a pain sometimes, but a good CLE seminar can be a glorious thing.

Thank you, George, for adding quite a bit of enlightenment to this discussion. (I’m a bit annoyed at times by nannyism, too, but you probably could have guessed that.)
My own growl of disapproval for those lawyers who cheat/lie concerning their attendance at CLE is loud and clear.
We can learn “just one more thing” in many ways at CLE beyond listening to the analysis and data coming from the roster — audience members willing to participate by suggesting nuances, asking pointed questions, disagreeing, etc., can contribute greatly and gain as well. And, I’ve seen some excellent CLE materials to bring back to the office.

Thank you, George, for adding quite a bit of enlightenment to this discussion. (I’m a bit annoyed at times by nannyism, too, but you probably could have guessed that.)
My own growl of disapproval for those lawyers who cheat/lie concerning their attendance at CLE is loud and clear.
We can learn “just one more thing” in many ways at CLE beyond listening to the analysis and data coming from the roster — audience members willing to participate by suggesting nuances, asking pointed questions, disagreeing, etc., can contribute greatly and gain as well. And, I’ve seen some excellent CLE materials to bring back to the office.

David,

I generally agree with you concerning the merits of CLE in substantive fields of practice and in legal ethics, though my personal predilection is to grumble a bit at the “nanny-ism” I perceive in policies such as California’s requirement that we regularly take courses in substance abuse (its prevention, not methods and practices), reduction of stress and “elimination of bias.”

I teach a number of courses to insurance agents and brokers who are required — as are many other licensed professionals such as accountants, real estate brokers and the like — to obtain Continuing Education on an ongoing basis. I regularly point out to my non-attorney students that the attorneys got to “write their own rules” when it came to CLE, and did so in a manner such that the reporting and paperwork requirements are much less onerous for lawyers than they are for other Continually Educated professionals. Here in California, for instance, most other professionals are required to sign in and sign out at seminars, to ensure (in theory) that they were actually present through the entire time for which they claim credit. Attorneys, on the other hand, can sign off on their attendance at any time during the program. While we are required to certify by that signature that we attended the whole session, there is always a significant minority that signs at the outset and is never seen again. (Insert low growl of disapproval here.)

Finally, let me voice the somewhat old-school view that regular education — “life-long learning,” if you will — is a good in itself. It is a rare educational program that contains nothing whatsoever of value, and an attorney emerges as a more enlightened individual even if he or she emerges from the session knowing Just One More Thing than was known beforehand.