Jim Miron

Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for Connecticut Attorneys

A recent article in the Connecticut Law Tribune indicates that a recent informal survey of attorneys in favor of mandatory continuing legal education (CLE) were opposed 11-1. Amazingly this informal survey was at a CLE course!

Connecticut is one of five states in the entire country that does not have mandatory CLE. 

The last time the subject was even formally reviewed by the judges that must approve these types of matters was almost twenty years ago. However, the proposal was rejected because the judges were concerned about the effect on small firms and solo practitioners pressed for both time and money.

Give me a break. The argument that we attorneys are all too busy or broke for CLE falls flat. Are Connecticut lawyers busier or more financially pressed than their brethren in 45 other states? Of course not.

There should be no attorney in this state that should be opposed to a well thought out and meaningful mandatory CLE program. Mandatory subjects should include an ethics as well as a drug and alcohol component.

Issues such as ensuring the CLE matches the experience level/need of an attorney and provides financial aid to those in need are considerations easily dealt with.

If the bar wants to improve its image this is the logical and easiest start. Count me in.