In defense of MCLE

Despite all the hyperventilation and rhetoric by a few, most lawyers understand that MCLE is worthwhile and consistent with their professional responsibility. Conscientious lawyers already participate in MCLE courses. A great majority of the states had MCLE before California. It is recognized nationally as a professional responsibility.

Moreover, law as a profession does not differ materially from other disciplines such as medicine and accounting, which routinely require continuing education to maintain licensure.

As one intimately involved in the inauguration of the program in California, I believe I possess some information which will put MCLE into a more accurate perspective.

The exemptions complained of by Lew Warden and relied on by the court of appeal to invalidate the current program originated in the legislature, not the State Bar. Many of us involved in drafting the rules recognized the illogic of these exemptions. Nevertheless, the bar included the mandated exemptions in the proposed rules, and they were adopted by the state Supreme Court.

The argument that the primary defenders of the MCLE program benefit financially from it is simply wrong. The bulk of the defenders are persons like myself who believe that an MCLE program is indeed a "minimum" that active lawyers should meet in order to insure retention of current professional proficiency. MCLE providers run the gamut from pro bono organizations, bar associations, individual firms and commercial enterprises.

Any enterprising lawyer can find courses to satisfy his or her needs at modest cost. Critics and the media make fun of approved MCLE courses which appear unsubstantial or frivolous and point to abuses by lawyers who allegedly claim full credit for courses not actually attended. As to the latter, all one can say is that if a lawyer intentionally certifies under penalty of perjury to a lie, he or she has no business being a lawyer.

As to the former, one can only hope that those who administer the MCLE program have the resources to develop meaningful, substantial guidelines and effectively monitor them. The profession and the public have a right to expect that the MCLE program is administered effectively and that approved offerings have real benefit to participants.

Finally, as to the bias and substance abuse requirements, I am amused by the common assertion of opponents of MCLE that this requirement as to them is wholly unnecessary and gratuitous since they suffer neither from prejudice nor chemical dependence. The greatest impediment to rooting out bias and chemical dependence is societal insensitivity to the nature of the problem -- insensitivity often demonstrated by those who deny any personal benefit from the courses.

The requirements are founded on the sound principle that lawyers, as such, must understand the nature and manifestations of prejudice and chemical dependence in others, as well as in themselves, and learn how to cope with them effectively so as to bring about positive change.