Continuing Legal Education / CLE

Why Do CLEs Suck So Badly?

How can we make sure the person is engaging with the CLE material and actually learning from it?

By  
on
Jeena Cho

Jeena Cho

I loathe continuing legal education (CLE) classes. Inevitably, you’re sitting in a conference room, passively listening to some lawyer (likely a white male), talking or reading from his notes. Behind him is the screen with PowerPoint presentation slides with way too much text.

Recently, there’s been a lot of discussions about adding additional CLE requirements for lawyers, especially around technology competency. I think this is a good idea. After all, we do live in 2016 and technology impacts just about every aspect of our law practices.

Yet, we’re still using teaching techniques from the industrial revolution age. Sitting in a classroom and passively listening has been shown to be one of the worst ways to teach and learn. Everything we know about adult learning shows that we learn best by engaging with the materials. We learn best when we take the material, apply it, and meaningfully digest it in some way.

The current CLE system discourages interactive learning. In fact, most of the technology workshops that the lawyers will be required to attend to gain technology competency will be taught in the exact same antiquated way — passively sitting in a seat in a classroom, likely with someone talking about the use of technology. Not a hands-on workshop.

The California rules require that in order to obtain one hour of CLE credit, the speaker must talk for 50 minutes. Actually, let me state that more clearly — the speaker will talk at the attendees for 50 minutes. The audience will only engage in the last 10 minutes, which can be used for questions.

According to The Center for Teaching and Learning, “research has shown that after 10 to 20 minutes of continuous lecture, assimilation falls off rapidly.”

Sponsored

Online CLEs are even worse. You’re passively listening to or watching some lawyer talk at you for 60 minutes. (Okay, let’s be honest. You’re checking your email, working on a brief, talking on the phone, and occasionally clicking that annoying pop-up asking you to confirm that you’re still watching the video.)

This is a horrible way to learn! The only thing the CLE measures is whether your butt was in a seat in the room for one hour or you were able to click the “I’m still watching” button every 10 minutes.

Even assuming that the content is useful, there’s also no way to go back and easily find the information you need at a later time.

Dozens of online learning platforms are popping up and they’re addressing this key question: how do we make sure the person is engaging with the material and learning from it? Are the state bar associations actually talking to educators and scientists about the best ways to present materials for learning? Are they rethinking not only the content of CLEs but also how CLEs are delivered? I think it’s time to rethink and reimagine how we continually educate lawyers to maintain competency. Let’s move away from what we know is a very poor way to learn — listening to a talking head — and incorporate what researchers have discovered about how adults learn best.

P.S. You’re invited to our upcoming Shape the Law Unconference in Chicago and New York with zero talking heads. We’ll be reimagining, rethinking, and redesigning the legal workplace. Connect with me hello@jeenacho.com or on Twitter @jeena_cho. 

Sponsored

Jeena Cho is the author of The Anxious Lawyer: An 8-Week Guide to a Joyful and Satisfying Law Practice Through Mindfulness and Meditation (affiliate link). She is a contributor to Forbes and Bloomberg where she covers diversity/inclusion, resilience, work/life integration, and wellness in the workplace. She regularly speaks and offers training on women’s issues, diversity, wellness, stress management, mindfulness, and meditation. You can reach her athello@jeenacho.com or @jeena_cho on Twitter.

Topics

,