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?

Sponsored by
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?