How hard is it to do CLE?

May 18, 2010
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

IL reporter Rebecca Berfanger contributed today’s blog post.

Do you recognize anyone you know on this list?

It’s the annual order of suspension of attorneys who haven’t paid their registration fees on time and/or they haven’t completed the required number of CLE hours.

The full list of 256 suspended attorneys licensed to practice in Indiana was issued May 14 and posted online today.

While looking at the list as a staff, we noticed attorneys who’ve been in the news recently for good and bad reasons, at least one judge, and 112 attorneys with out of state addresses.

As for the 144 attorneys listed with Indiana addresses: 105 lawyers were behind on registration fees, and 67 didn’t meet CLE requirements. Mixed in with those two groups were 28 lawyers who didn’t do either.

These numbers do not include the attorneys who have asked for and have been granted extensions to fulfill these requirements, according to the order.

Every year I wonder how so many attorneys slip by without meeting these seemingly simple requirements.

Even as a non-attorney I often see notices about CLE courses: I hear about pro bono districts that provide free CLE in exchange for taking on a case or participating in a Talk to a Lawyer Today program; county bar association newsletters include prominently placed CLE calendars; the law school events calendars I check for story ideas often offer CLE credits for specialized topics; and of course ICLEF’s website has links to CLE events.

And just in case you missed it, IL daily has a link to our CLE calendar at the bottom of every e-mail we send.

I also often hear from sources that CLE is expensive and not always easy to fit into one’s schedule of trials and client meetings, but I’ve yet to hear a source tell me there’s any reason they do not do it.

If your name is on here – what’s your excuse?
 

ADVERTISEMENT
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT