ILNews

Orzeske: How to stay in good standing with your CLE requirements

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

By Julia Orzeske, John D. Ulmer and Shontrai Irving

Indiana’s attorneys are subject to a mandatory continuing legal education requirement. Each attorney, in order to stay active and in good standing on the Indiana Roll of Attorneys, must complete a minimum of six hours of CLE per calendar year and a minimum of 36 hours by Dec. 31 of the third year of repeating three-year education periods. Newly admitted attorneys must complete six hours of an Applied Professionalism Course that counts toward both their annual and three-year requirement. These newly admitted attorneys who successfully complete a three-year education period are then considered veteran attorneys: the applied professionalism requirement is replaced by a three-hour ethics requirement which must be completed at any time in repeating three-year education periods.

Every year, before Sept. 1, attorneys are sent a transcript showing their continuing legal education activities for the current year and three-year education period. Once this is received, the attorneys are responsible for correcting any errors and completing any unfulfilled requirements before Dec. 31 of the current year.

The transcript is sent to the attorneys at the address designated by the attorney on the Roll of Attorneys’ portal. It is wise to check information early in the summer (now) because the annual attorney registration fee process will soon begin. If an attorney’s contact information is not kept current, there is a possibility the registration fee information will be sent to the wrong email address for the attorney and that the CLE transcript will be sent to the wrong home or work address. It is important to note that it is solely the attorney’s responsibility to enter, verify and monitor this contact information, and “a failure to do so is a waiver of notice involving licenses as attorneys and/or disciplinary matters.” Admission and Discipline Rule 2, Sec. (a). Please take the time now to review your contact information on the Roll of Attorneys portal at https://courtapps.in.gov/rollofattorneys.

The Commission for Continuing Legal Education has a searchable database on www.in.gov/judiciary/cle/ to help attorneys choose courses that have already been approved by the commission. If there is a course an attorney is interested in attending that is not listed, the attorney should complete an application for accreditation to the commission to receive an approval decision before spending substantial time and resources on the course. The commission currently has about a 30-day turn around on course applications.

There are also FAQs on the website. The commission deals with questions that arise in its areas of responsibility addressed by Admission and Discipline Rule 28 (Continuing Judicial Education), Admission and Discipline Rule 29 (Continuing Legal Education), Admission and Discipline Rule 30 (Attorney Specialization) and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (Mediation training and registry). Please contact the commission with any questions at 317-232-1943 or cle@courts.in.gov.•

__________

Julia Orzeske has been executive director of the Commission for Continuing Legal Education since 1994. John D. Ulmer is chair of the commission and of counsel with Yoder Ainlay Ulmer & Buckingham LLP in Goshen. Shontrai Irving is a commission member and an attorney with State Farm. The opinions expressed are those of the authors.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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?

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT