MCLE’s Long-Range Planning Committee is taking steps to be ready—

Mandatory CLE:
What if it happens here?

In past issues of MCLE News!, we have reported on progress regarding MCLE’s long-range planning. The nature of planning for the long view is that initiatives are constantly being completed while new items are being added to the list of organizational objectives. The following reports on a significant addition to MCLE’s long-range planning agenda. Early in 2007, the Long-Range Planning Committee of MCLE’s Board of Trustees considered new objectives to prepare the organization’s infrastructure for the future. At a meeting on January 24, 2007, the Committee addressed several topics integral to MCLE’s future. One major objective was to plan for the possibility of Massachusetts’ adoption of a mandatory CLE rule.

A great majority of states in the U.S. now recognize and implement mandatory continuing legal education requirements. Recent transitions to mandatory CLE in Illinois and Nebraska have brought the total of “mandatory states” to 43. And, most recently, in March, the Connecticut Bar Association voted to recommend that Connecticut also become a mandatory state. Given the steadily growing trend toward mandatory CLE, MCLE’s Board of Trustees thought it prudent for the organization to engage in some preparedness planning, in the event that a mandatory rule is adopted in Massachusetts. In response to the Board’s request, MCLE’s staff researched the mandatory CLE compliance experiences of the various states. Based on this research and remarks on how the rule is being implemented in these jurisdictions, the staff drafted a “Contingency Plan Regarding the Adoption of a Mandatory CLE Rule in Massachusetts.”

Scenario planning begins with premises (or “givens”) and creates a plan based on those assumptions. In the case of Massachusetts’ adopting a mandatory CLE rule, the “givens” are clear:

■ Increase in demand: A greatly expanded universe of lawyers seeking quality CLE training in the Commonwealth—roughly 50,000 Massachusetts lawyers requiring between 12 and 15 hours of training, resulting in a marketplace need of between 600,000 and 750,000 hours of CLE annually—would increase the opportunity to educate lawyers.

■ New “drivers” for CLE: A mandatory CLE rule in Massachusetts would take CLE out of the voluntary realm of lawyers seeking to better their skills and place it in the context of a regulated requirement designed to raise the “collective bar” on Massachusetts lawyers’ skills and competencies. Many lawyers who previously had not felt the need for continuing legal education would become consumers of CLE for the first time.

In the event of mandatory CLE, MCLE would need to adapt to a new and different demand, and the organization would find itself in a changed marketplace.

■ A changing need for CLE: The new marketplace would consist of lawyers at all levels of expertise and experience.

■ An influx of new providers: New CLE providers would proliferate, coming to Massachusetts with business models aimed at acquiring market share within the mandatory marketplace.

MCLE's physical capacity, administrative infrastructure, curriculum development and outreach efforts across the Commonwealth would all be impacted, were mandatory CLE adopted in Massachusetts. MCLE would need to adapt to a new and different demand; and the organization would find itself in a changed marketplace. The “Contingency Plan” therefore was drafted to address both MCLE's educational and business objectives.

Whether or not Massachusetts adopts CLE, there is intrinsic value to an organization in scenario planning for short- or long-term contingencies. MCLE is benefiting already from the self-audit that the scenario planning called for. Despite volume or demand, MCLE will continue to provide the highest quality of continuing legal education at competitive prices to lawyers who wish to prepare themselves to better serve their clients.