As stated in the headline, The State Bar of California Board Committee on Member Oversight seeks to amend the definition of what qualifies for proper MCLE credit in the state of California. Apparently, some confusion has arisen regarding whether CLE programs may only contain substantive law versus whether they may encompass other ares of law practice and/or law practice management. Here's the issue in Calbar's language:
"The proposed rule amendment clarifies and eliminates ambiguity as to what constitutes permissible and credit-worthy MCLE. Additionally, the change also expands the scope of acceptable MCLE to programs and activities that relate directly to the management and operation of a member’s law office and to mediation training."
Concurrently, CalBar's Task Force on Admissions is in the process of evaluating the implementation of a pre-admission practical skills training program.
Folks, these issues are near & dear to my heart. Obviously, as the incoming Chair of CalBar's LPMT Section, I have a few opinions on this subject. Considering that most law schools don't spend much time focusing on what successful candidates should do once they arrive in the real world of law practice, I feel that limiting continuing legal education offerings to substantive law-only would be a huge detriment to newbie attorneys as well as veterans. At least, that's what we see from the attendance at our CLE programs.
Therefore, I ask that you examine the proposed amendment, then make your voices heard. Public comment remains open through September 8th, 2012.
