A CLE at the Guthrie???
It all sounds a bit dramatic, but the Guthrie Theater and West LegalEdcenter have teamed up to stage an elimination-of-bias CLE on themes relating to immigration law and religion. The March 25 program will incorporate live performance, lecture and panel discussion.
The ad for the presentation says that "uses one of Shakespeare's greatest plays." Judging by the CLE's title -- "Merchants of Faith: Bias in the Litigation of Religious Belief" -- I am going to guess they are talking about the "Merchant of Venice."
The two-credit program costs $200, which includes a post production wine and cheese program. To sign up, click here.
Showing posts with label cles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cles. Show all posts
Monday, March 17, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Legal lessons learned from Reese Witherspoon
The Ordway is apparently getting into the field of legal education. It just announced its 2008-09 season, and, starting in late April 2009, the theater will host the musical version of the Reese Witherspoon movie "Legally Blonde." For those who missed this legal classic, it features a ditsy Malibu Barbie-type California sorority sister who enrolls in Harvard Law School to win back her old boyfriend. She winds up trying a murder case as 1L and, in a pivotal scene, using her hairdressing knowledge during a cross-examination to discredit a witness and win.
OK, OK, it isn't "To Kill a Mocking Bird," but I must admit the movie gave me a chuckle or two. I have not seen the musical version yet, but, if you recall the character Billy Flynn from the musical "Chicago," you know it isn't the first time a lawyer has been made to sing and dance in a Broadway-style production.
If the Ordway wants to get a lot of lawyers to go to "Legally Blonde," it should apply for CLE credits. If they call it a "Law and Literature" program and agree to provide attendees with free chocolate chip cookies, they may just be able to pull it off ....
OK, OK, it isn't "To Kill a Mocking Bird," but I must admit the movie gave me a chuckle or two. I have not seen the musical version yet, but, if you recall the character Billy Flynn from the musical "Chicago," you know it isn't the first time a lawyer has been made to sing and dance in a Broadway-style production.
If the Ordway wants to get a lot of lawyers to go to "Legally Blonde," it should apply for CLE credits. If they call it a "Law and Literature" program and agree to provide attendees with free chocolate chip cookies, they may just be able to pull it off ....
Monday, February 18, 2008
Prosecutor's CLE troubles have been an education
As the Strib reports today, there has been a lot of talk in the legal community about whether or not Hennepin County prosecutor Gemma Graham got off too lightly for prosecuting cases while her law license was on restricted status. For a period of 20 years -- from 1986 to 2007 -- Graham continued to practice despite being in noncompliance with the state's continuing legal education requirement. (The high court gave her a reprimand and two years of probation.)
On the one hand, there is no necessary correlation between the CLE requirement and whether a lawyer stays current in his or her field. If you are a criminal law practitioner, you could satisfy the CLE requirement by taking courses in family law, real estate law or any other kind of law you want. In fact, you could take no CLEs in any substantive area of practice at all and still satisfy the CLE requirement with professional-development courses. (You must also accrue a limited number of ethics and elimination-of-bias credits each reporting period as well.) In any event, Graham says she attended some CLEs during the period at issue, but didn't properly record them to make sure she was in compliance.
On the other hand, if Minnesota is going to have a CLE requirement, there have to be consequences for not following it that would dissuade those who would play fast and loose with the rules -- and possibly the law. (It is a misdemeanor in Minnesota to practice law without a valid license.) What bothers me most about Graham's case is the length of time involved -- two decades. She would have known during that entire period that she was not meeting the state's license requirement, but chose to ignore it. The fact that she would make that choice time and time again -- despite reporting period after reporting period where she could have followed the rules -- is what I find most disconcerting about the entire episode. I don't blame Hennepin County Public Defender Lenny Castro for being upset about this -- a prosecutor who would make such a questionable series of choices raises some concerns in my mind as well.
On balance, the punishment strikes me as light given the length of time involved. However, the embarrassment Graham now faces with the media coverage of this has added a new element to that original sanction. I suspect any lawyer thinking of practicing without fulfilling his or her CLE requirement would think twice about doing so now.
On the one hand, there is no necessary correlation between the CLE requirement and whether a lawyer stays current in his or her field. If you are a criminal law practitioner, you could satisfy the CLE requirement by taking courses in family law, real estate law or any other kind of law you want. In fact, you could take no CLEs in any substantive area of practice at all and still satisfy the CLE requirement with professional-development courses. (You must also accrue a limited number of ethics and elimination-of-bias credits each reporting period as well.) In any event, Graham says she attended some CLEs during the period at issue, but didn't properly record them to make sure she was in compliance.
On the other hand, if Minnesota is going to have a CLE requirement, there have to be consequences for not following it that would dissuade those who would play fast and loose with the rules -- and possibly the law. (It is a misdemeanor in Minnesota to practice law without a valid license.) What bothers me most about Graham's case is the length of time involved -- two decades. She would have known during that entire period that she was not meeting the state's license requirement, but chose to ignore it. The fact that she would make that choice time and time again -- despite reporting period after reporting period where she could have followed the rules -- is what I find most disconcerting about the entire episode. I don't blame Hennepin County Public Defender Lenny Castro for being upset about this -- a prosecutor who would make such a questionable series of choices raises some concerns in my mind as well.
On balance, the punishment strikes me as light given the length of time involved. However, the embarrassment Graham now faces with the media coverage of this has added a new element to that original sanction. I suspect any lawyer thinking of practicing without fulfilling his or her CLE requirement would think twice about doing so now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
