Mandatory Continuing Legal Education

My colleague, Paul Bekman, and I have sent this letter to Judge Wilner, Chairperson, Standing Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure, and I thought I would share it with my readers...

We, members in good standing of the Maryland Bar, respectfully request that the Standing Committee on Rules once again consider recommending to the Court of Appeals mandatory continuing legal education (MCLE) for members of the Maryland Bar.

The challenges confronting the practice of law and our legal system today are more formidable than ever before. The law grows ever more complex, nourished by new statutes, new rules, new opinions by our distinguished courts, and new threats from forces that strain our traditional understanding of the rule of law and individual rights and liberties.

To meet the challenges of modern law practice, lawyers more so than ever before must be competent. The ABA Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar defines competency as basic skills, knowledge of the law and legal institutions, and the ability and skill to apply oneself to the task accepted with reasonable proficiency.

The development of competency is the central reason for continuing legal education. Few today would argue against the merits of CLE. Our State is one of only six States that has not made CLE mandatory. The time has now come for the Bench and Bar to join the ranks of the forty-four States that correctly recognize the value of MCLE and the competence it fosters throughout the Bar.

In recent times, the Rules Committee has twice considered this matter: once in 1995 and again in 2001. On each occasion, it did not seize the opportunity to mandate CLE. On the other hand, the Rules Committee did recommend that new members of the Bar undertake a mandatory professionalism course and that all Maryland judges undertake mandatory continuing judicial education.

We do appreciate that there are contrary views about MCLE. Busy lawyers do not have time. Solo practitioners may not have the funds to register for the courses. No one can force someone else to learn. There is no proof positive that MCLE actually improves competence. The costs and complexities of implementing rules and enforcing them are also valid concerns.

Answers to these views should be apparent. With modern technology, attorneys can easily access teleconferences, webcasts and podcasts at less cost than more traditional programs. While statistics may not prove that MCLE is effective, common sense and attorneys’ positive reaction to MCLE in other States attest to the fact that it enhances the legal profession, just as continuing education enhances many other professions.

Please consider our request to review this matter and recommend MCLE for the practicing lawyers in Maryland, with appropriate rules and means to establish and maintain the requirement.

Respectfully,

Paul Mark Sandler

Paul D. Bekman