Earlier this month at Above the Law, my fellow columnist and friend Jeena Cho posed the question, Why Do CLEs Suck So Badly? Jeena’s post – which apparently generated some controversy – argues that “the current CLE system discourages interactive learning,” in part by focusing on the hours accumulated passively listening to a speaker rather than determining whether participating lawyers actually gained any real learning. (Not surprisingly, that sounds a lot like the problem with the billable hour, which uses time spent rather than value provided to the client as a metric for fees.)
Needless to say, I wholeheartedly agree with Jeena’s position. But beyond the issues that Jeena identifies, there are additional problems with CLE unique to solo lawyers – and that’s the topic of this post.
For starters, CLE requirements disproportionately hurt solo lawyers who often lack the money for the pricier CLEs. Moreover, some CLE programs are priced in such a way that there’s effectively a “solo tax,” since the costs can’t be spread across multiple participants. Finally, for a true solo, time spent at CLE displaces hours available for billing, so on top of the price tag for the program, solo attendance at CLE also has an opportunity cost.
To some extent, solos can defray the time and cost of CLE by opting for online programs or free CLE sponsored by vendors or other law firms (technically, bar-sponsored programs aren’t free because a lawyer has to be a member to attend or qualify for CLE credit). Yet, these programs rarely deliver enough value to make them worthwhile even though they’re free. As Jeena’s post noted, online CLE participants are often multi-tasking while viewing a webinar. And many of the sponsored programs fall short because they’re intended as a loss leader to attract customers or for the speakers to sell books (since they’re not otherwise paid), rather than a real opportunity for substantive learning.
Many solos also criticize CLEs because programs on marketing or technology often don’t qualify for credit, presumably because they don’t involve substantive legal developments. And while I don’t necessarily have a problem with bar associations mandating that a portion of CLE credit come from substantive legal topics, it’s hypocritical to deny solos credit for a course on blogging or use of social media, which will at least involve a discussion of ethics that will benefit the lawyer’s practice, while at the same time allowing a probate lawyer credit for snoozing through an online course on environmental remediation statutes that he took only because it was free.
Of course, the other unspoken reason that CLE sucks is because the presenters are rarely paid, and are lured instead by the promise of “exposure” or additional clients. The problem is that the most competent presenters already have exposure and don’t need more, and lawyers who aren’t paid to participate have no incentive to share all of their secrets, knowing that most participants are there to gain information serve their own clients, not to refer them out. By not paying CLE participants, bar organizations and CLE providers effectively ensure that they will attract less-qualified speakers eager for “exposure,” or speakers who will sell their firm or their product instead of imparting real value in order to squeeze out some revenue from the engagement. Again, the non-payment policy disproportionately impacts solos since many would be willing to put together a robust CLE if they could be paid. Otherwise, why teach your competitors for free?
From my perspective, there are two things that would make CLE more appealing to solos. First, as I just mentioned, paying CLE speakers (or at least giving them a chunk of the revenue generated) would give knowledgeable solos incentive to present.
Plugging The Profit Leaks: How Your Firm Can Stop Burning Money
Join the webinar on September 25th and learn some quick wins you can implement right away.
Second, CLE should move away from hourly trainings to longer bootcamp formats that give lawyers all of the tools they need to take up a new practice area that could generate more revenue. As things stand, if I want to learn how to develop an app or design a website or learn how to create a logo or become a product manager, there are dozens of places that I can choose from to master these skills – from online programs like Coursera to onsite classes like General Assembly. In a matter of a weekend, or a three-month stretch, I could actually become a web designer or develop a simple app for my practice. And that’s true even though I have no technical background.
By contrast, if I decide that I want to take on immigration cases or probate matters or copyright law starting in January 2017, I have few options besides hitting the books and learning these areas myself, or bribing a colleague to teach me. The point is there aren’t any comparable trainings on law practice areas comparable to those in tech that are offered with regularity and would give me all of the tools that I need to jump into a new area – albeit at a beginner level. To be sure, there are a couple of bootcamps for more exotic practice areas – like The Student Loan Law Workshop and Fashion Law Bootcamp – as well as a bootcamp Bankruptcy Law and a few state-specific programs for family law. But it’s tough to find a bootcamp for appellate practice or trademark law or even legal ethics defense.
Granted, these bootcamp programs are expensive (both for tech and presumably for law), starting at around $1,000 for more limited online versions and around $2500 for in-person. The costs are readily offset if lawyers can expand into the new practice area or meet ALL their CLE requirements in one fell swoop – which often isn’t the case.
Of course, the best way to improve CLE for solos is to abolish mandatory requirements entirely. Sure, bars and CLE providers might lose money if lawyers are no longer compelled to attend mediocre programs just for credit—but it would also force them to develop programs that actually provide so much value that lawyers attend because they want to (imagine that?!). Isn’t that the point of CLE anyway?
Earlier: Why Do CLEs Suck So Badly?
Carolyn Elefant has been blogging about solo and small firm practice at MyShingle.comsince 2002 and operated her firm, the Law Offices of Carolyn Elefant PLLC, even longer than that. She’s also authored a bunch of books on topics like starting a law practice, social media, and 21st century lawyer representation agreements (affiliate links). If you’re really that interested in learning more about Carolyn, just Google her. The Internet never lies, right? You can contact Carolyn by email at [email protected]or follow her on Twitter at @carolynelefant.