MANDATORY MINIMUM CLE: HAS IT'S TIME COME?
The pros and cons of mandatory CLE; there are still many issues to consider.

The overwhelming surge of growth in our profession has forced us to take a look at future growth and development and at setting higher standards for ourselves. We must all be aware that education, certification, and specialization are the driving factors for continued development in this field. It is now time to consider requiring mandatory minimum continuing legal education for Texas legal assistants.    A few years ago the LAD Membership Committee conducted a limited poll among the LAD membership regarding the issue of mandatory CLE. The response was favorable, but as with any issue involving major change, there are pros and cons which must be evaluated. Some of the comments made at that time were the following:

PROS

1. The legal assistant profession might be regarded more as a "profession" than a "trade."

2. Attorneys might be more willing to pay for CLE for their legal assistants if it was mandatory.

3. Attendance at Division seminars might increase, which would allow the Division to give seminars in more locations and with more affordable rates.

4. The problem of non-legal assistants renewing their LAD membership with just an attorney signature could be eliminated.

5. The knowledge and expertise of our members would increase as the educational requirements of our profession more closely compared with those of similar professions.

CONS

1. A procedure would be required for tracking/verifying CLE. This would necessitate the cooperation of the State Bar as its approval would be needed in order to put the procedures in place. Also, tracking CLE would increase expenses for the LAD and might necessitate hiring additional personnel.

2. The LAD would have to consider the issue of whether LAD membership should be required for legal assistants in order to monitor the CLE requirements.

3. There might not be sufficient and affordable CLE programs for all the fields in which legal assistants are working.

4. CLE programs are often too expensive and time consuming for legal assistants and difficult for some people to attend due to lack of support from their employers.

The Long Range Planning Task Force was formed to look at these issues in more detail and to seek input from more legal assistants. The results of the professionalism survey (see this issue) confirms that a majority of those polled favor mandatory continuing legal education and believe it would enhance our profession. If we were to decide to go forward with implementing a mandatory CLE program for Texas paralegals, we would have to consider the criteria to be established, the number of hours to be required, how to provide more affordable CLE programs and local CLE opportunities, and how the program would be implemented.

Our profession has grown so fast and we have come so far that we are finally being considered true professionals by the attorneys we work for and by the public. For many legal assistants in Texas, continuing legal education in an established program would only enhance what we have all worked so hard to build!

Javan Johnson received her B.B.A. degree from Baylor University in 1979 and has been with the firm of Ross, Hudgens & Associates since 1980. She holds the CLA and CLAS certifications in Civil Litigation through NALA and is a Board Certified Legal Assistant in Civil Trial Law through the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. She is a charter member of the Legal Assistants Division and has served as Chair of the Membership Committee for the past five years. She was recently appointed as the Director from District 14.

Return to start of issue

Return to TPJ Home Page