CLE On Demand

Listen to this article

On-demand Continuing Legal Education (CLE) programs will soon be in demand as the Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted amendments to Supreme Court Rules
31.01 and 31.05 pertaining to the expansion of CLE programming online.

Overwhelming support from the State Bar, Board of Bar Examiners (BBE) and Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Committee prompted minimal discussion by the Supreme Court on Dec. 11.

Initially developed by former Board of Bar Examiners Director Gene R. Rankin in 2005, the petition supported development of “repeated on-demand” programs to satisfy up to 10 credits of CLE.

The Wisconsin State Bar formally endorsed the petition at the September Board of Governors meeting, but revisions were made prior to the Supreme Court review.

Board of Bar Examiners Director, John E. Kosobucki, outlined the adopted changes to the amendment which included a 12-month viewing period regardless of when a course is approved.

“Originally, if a course was approved in November, there would only have been a one-month window of opportunity for viewing,” said Kosobucki. “This allows for a longer shelf life and ample time for practitioners to access the courses.”

Eliminated from the original draft was the requirement of an attendance verification form for attorneys. Online course will be monitored with a roster of who is logged in and paying for the session.

“Live and video courses do not require attendance verification and the form cannot currently be attached to the online CLE Form 1,” said Kosobucki.

Credit for Committees?

Minor modifications related to SCR 31.05(6), which, as proposed, were vague to the extent credits could be earned for service on legal committees.

Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and N. Patrick Crooks expressed concern about limitations for which substantive organizations providing legal education should be included and how many legal ethics credits could be earned.

“My concern is that this could be a stepping point for other organizations to claim themselves as providers of substantive legal education and that could be problematic in the future,” said Bradley.

Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson countered by saying there are likely other legal organizations in which attorneys who serve on the committee are deserving of CLE credit consideration. Abrahamson specifically acknowledged attorney Thomas J. Basting, who as vice-chairman of the Ethics 2000 Committee, had poured countless hours into the rule revisions.

“In some cases attorneys commit an enormous amount of time and effort, plus learn a great deal in the process,” said Abrahamson. “Is this something we want to open the door to at this time?”

The Supreme Court decided to keep the door slightly ajar, but for now elected to limit CLE credits to three per reporting cycle and only for those serving on the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) District Committee or as a Special Investigator.

Logistics

Although resistance to the program’s purpose to expand CLE availability has been virtually nonexistent, questions involving the logistics have arisen.

The issue of whether the person who paid for the course is the one watching it is a concern as well as multiple viewers’ ability to earn credit, despite not personally paying for the course.

“Can someone say, ‘I paid for the course, but others sat in, so how do they get credit too?’ That’s something we’ll look at and we certainly don’t want to take money away from the program sponsors,” said Kosobucki.

Kosobucki also noted that the on-demand system is a move toward self-study for CLE, but he does not expect a full transition anytime soon.

“We certainly aren’t ready for total self-study, but we’re working towards it,” said Kosobucki. “It’s a crawl, walk, run situation right now.”