| Headline on Supreme Court's MCLE ruling clearly irks reader Why
the big celebratory headlines in the California Bar Journal (October) about the revival of
MCLE?
The bar stubbornly pursued the reimposition of an insulting burden that California's
attorneys have said again and again that we don't want.
Just because the Supreme Court said it was permissible didn't mean that the bar had to
do it.
Once again "our" bar has flicked aside the wishes of its members. Why is this
cause for celebration?
Mark Leinwand
Agoura Hills
 Celebration, like beauty, must be in the eye
of the beholder.
Unabashed support for private pro bono and Elwood Lui for the high court
If the bar spent more time seeking out, encouraging and developing pro bono programs
such as the privately maintained ones described in the October California Bar Journal
(1999 Honors - State Bar cites pro bono service), perhaps more lawyers would be interested
in its efforts to free itself from the reef on which it crashed itself.
It's also my belief that if it weren't for the sensible hand of Judge Elwood Lui, the
bar might not be now, since it was Lui who kept the organization's last vital function on
life support. Members owe him either a great debt of gratitude or a long pondering gaze.
Regardless of this reserved judgment, Lui has proven, once again, that he deserves a
seat on the supreme court. Next crisis, please just hand him the whole thing. He's
parsimonious, incredibly efficient and the only person who kept me on board during the
bar's crisis.
Michael Malak
Northridge |
