COMMENT: (received June 19, 2009) |
| COMMENT: (received June 19, 2009) Some people are signing into the seminars and then leaving without listening to the speakers. Attendance should be monitored to assure people are staying (even if they are not paying attention). Ethics credit should not be in 3 year reporting periods. Maybe one credit per year? |
| COMMENT: (received June 19, 2009) 1. Requiring ethics every year is burdensome to those who are not living full time in Missouri. 2. Two hours per year, every year, will not improve ethics of attorneys as two hours will not be concentrated enough. 3. Suggest that if you want to increase, require 3 hours every two years instead of 3 years. This eliminates requirement of having to take every year. 4. Not sure how "carryover" system would work if you have more than required amount of ethics, but not more than your 15 hours per year. thanks for your consideration. |
COMMENT: (received June 19, 2009) |
| COMMENT: (received June 19, 2009) As you consider this change, please know that it is extremely difficult to find quality CLE programs that qualify for ethics hours. The vast majority of programs with ethics hours are general law overviews - end of the reporting year, desperation programs that are largely a waste of time. I am in-house counsel, and these general law overviews are not relevant at all to my practice. The programs that are relevant almost never include ethics hours. I know from conversations with colleagues in all areas of practice that that I am not unique in this regard. Regardless of whether you make this change, I ask that you consider how the Missouri Bar can facilitate the provision of quality ethics programs. One option would be for the Missouri Bar to provide on-line ethics training, with a test at the end, that would satisfy this requirement. Then I could spend my time fulfilling the requirement instead of searching for quality programs that qualify without wasting a whole day. |
COMMENT: (received June 19, 2009) |
COMMENT: (received June 19, 2009) |
| COMMENT: (received June 19, 2009) This new rule would double the current ehtics CLE requirement over any three year span of time. What is the justification? Many non-MCLE seminars offer a one hour ethics segment which makes it relatively easy to accumulate the three hours of credit in three years. Absent some objective evidence that the current requirement has been a failure, this new requirement seems like nothing more than an attempt by MoBar to steer lawyers to its over-priced CLE courses... in other words, an unjustified MoBar money grab. |
| COMMENT: (received June 19, 2009) My reading of the changes shows that 15.05(e) will still require three hours of ethics CLE in the lawyer's first year of admission. Then, under 15.05(f), it will be two hours every year thereafter. Is this what you intended? It is okay with me, but perhaps for consistency and ease of recordkeeping it should be two years each year, whether it is one's "rookie" year or not. |
COMMENT: (received June 19, 2009) |
COMMENT: (received June 20, 2009) |
COMMENT: (received June 20, 2009) |
| COMMENT: (received June 22, 2009) What is the reasoning behind the change other than to increase the hours? Not all programs include ethics hours. It would seem the change of now requiring an annual two hours, yet imposes an additional burden in meeting the annual CLE requirement. It will also require seminar planners to alter their program which may not have included ethics hours because the subject matter doesn't lend itself to that particular area of instruction. |
COMMENT: (received June 23, 2009) |
COMMENT: (received June 23, 2009) |
| COMMENT: (received June 25, 2009) Has there been any statistical increase in ethics violations by Missouri attorneys that would support increasing Ethics CLE? What is the problem the Board is trying to solve by increasing CLE hours? |
| COMMENT: (received June 26, 2009) As a recent addition to the Missouri Bar, I can honestly say getting rid of the 3 year rule regarding ethics is a good idea. It's just stupidly confusing to try & figure out if you are compliant despite the initial inclination to assume all one need do is add 3 years from the date of your ethics class and think you're okay. For example, I took an ethics class (3 credits) in the summer of 2007, after I was barred. I didn't start working until 2009, for family planning purposes & had nothing from that point to carry over to this year. This year I am reporting my CLE credits, which amount to 18.5, 2.2 of which are ethics. I had to call the MO Bar to make certain I wasn't .8 credits deficient for ethics since according to the website my past ethics class from 2007 was only good from the 2006-2007 reporting period. To me, this means that class covers the 2006-2009 reporting period and I wasn't sure if it carried over to this reporting period. My main confusion stemmed from not being barred until 2007, not 2006! Doing things within one calendar year is logical and easy to keep track of. Another thing I noticed was that telephone conferences and online classes cover every topic imaginable EXCEPT ethics. Why is this? Trust me, no one learns to be more ethical just because the venue is a Sheraton or Crown Plaza. You can imagine my frustration in realizing that if I was .8 credits deficient in ethics, I wouldn't be able to fulfill this obligation b/c no live seminars (that I could attend) would be available but if I was .8 credits deficient in any other kind of CLE credit, I could go online & pick the topic of my choice. The newly preposed rule is better & I'm guessing, will be a welcome change. |
COMMENT: (received June 26, 2009) |
| COMMENT: (received June 26, 2009) The current ethics reporting requirement is confusing. I think having an ethics reporting requirement every year, regardless if it is one or two hours every year, would be an easier requirement to follow or comply with then the current rule. |
| COMMENT: (received June 26, 2009) Professionalism/ethics/malpractice prevention legal education requirements are a response to the ethical shortcomings of many lawyers involved in the Watergate scandal---which occurred well over 30 years ago. Doubling the requirements will simply lessen the time spent in subject-matter courses, AND increase the revenues for providers of these off-subject and oft repetitive ethics courses. Where is the real benefit to anyone involved with the law---lawyer of client/public??? |
| COMMENT: (received June 26, 2009) Many CLE's are formatted so that they only contain 1 or 1.5 hours of ethics. This would make it difficult to obtain 2 hrs per year. As it is now, if I take one big CLE per year with 1 to 1.5 hrs of ethics, within 3 years I will have at least 3 hours of ethics. |
| COMMENT: (received June 26, 2009) I am curious as to the motivation for the change in the rule. What is it that the proposed requirement is attempting to address? Has there been an increase in ethical problems with the bar? Has a correlation between the attendance of ethical CLE hours and an increase in ethical behavior been established? Is the Bar Plan lobbying for this so more people sign up for their miserable courses? Bottom line: Isn't our most important ethical requirement competence in the practice of law? With respect, I think that should be the focus of our CLE requirements. Thank you. |
| COMMENT: (received June 26, 2009) I am against the increase in the requirement for ethics CLE hours. There has not been a showing that increased requirements will meet any needs of the profession, its clients, or its regulatory body. No one has shown what wrong we are trying to prevent by this doubling of the ethics requirement. Except the BAR PLAN may want more revenue, or the potential of less claims for the same overly expensive premium. In addition, This change to annual reporting adds a huge overhead to our practice....... It will be much harder and the change in requirement will require much more time away from efforts to adequately represent our clients and earn a decent living in this time of economic turmoil. Some of us must travel 60 or 100 miles, to reach locations where acceptable CLE classes are held. If we have to travel to, attending the class, and travel from, a one hour class on ethics each year, rather than traveling once to, attending the class, and traveling from, a 3 hour ethics class, the result would be three hours of travel for 1 year, EVERY YEAR, versis three hours of travel for 3 hours of credit EVERY THREE YEARS. ALL, BE CAREFUL OF CHANGES THAT SOUND GOOD ON THIS SURFACE! THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS.(a quote I think from someone besides me) |
| COMMENT: (received June 26, 2009) No amount of additional hours will keep people honest. If the rules have become so complex as to require additional education the fault lies with the additional rule makers and the additional rules. Keep it simple. Do not require more hours. Additional hour requirements is purely posturing for the public and as long as there is no assurance of making a difference other than "we think it will help" statements or attitudes. |
| COMMENT: (received June 29, 2009) I fail to understand any reason for the change in the ethics hour requirement. Is there a belief that there are more problems than can be covered in the current requirement? Is the thinking that it will make lawyers act more ethically? Is it to cause the public to be impressed that the Bar is working to improve the ethics of the profession? I sit through these ethic presentations (many lawyers simply leave) and usually find them the most boring and poorly presented part of any seminar. Once in a while there is an interesting predicament presented. When that happens, the speaker usually has no clear answer, only contradictory resolutions. A lawyer who is going to act unethically will not be reformed or deterred by what is said in these sessions. Many years ago when I was to be admitted to the bar, it was required to meet with a lawyer who would speak with you about ethics with the apparent hope that someone who was unethical could be weeded out. This too was a futile effort. In my opinion the Bar has always been too lax in enforcing its rules. The job is a thankless task, but I seriously doubt that ethics lectures will change things. Sorry to be so negative. I may be out of touch or maybe I got up on the wrong side of bed. |
| COMMENT: (received June 29, 2009) I oppose the change. Attorneys who have malpractice coverage with the Bar Plan already have to get at least one hour of ethics each year in order to receive preferred rates and getting even that hour can be inconvenient and expensive under the present rule. I get over half of my CLE hours each year, including my one ethics hour, from a single out-of-town seminar that deals exclusively with my practice area. At that seminar, the ethics presentation generally is at least tangentially related to my practice, which I cannot say about most local ethics presentations. I obtain the remainder of my CLE hours each year from writing and speaking on topics in my practice area, which avoids additional costs. This is necessary because my firm has a limited CLE budget. Attending an additional ethics presentation to fulfill the proposed requirement would require sitting through an ethics presentation and/or additional seminar that does not relate to my practice area and that requires additional payment and time out of my office. Indeed, it is almost impossible to find a provider that presents a single hour of ethics and the few seminars out there that have this as an option require travel time to and from a venue, resulting in two or more hours spent to obtain a fifty-minute hour of CLE. An additional hour a year of ethics education will not result in more ethical or professional attorneys, but rather additional revenue for CLE providers, many of which already make a nice sum from donated research, speaking and materials from presenters. In an already difficult economic environment, imposing additional compliance costs on attorneys should be eschewed. On a procedural note, a change of this kind should not be proposed and circulated for review and comment after the start of the reporting year and during a holiday season. Many people are out of town at this time of year due to the upcoming Fourth of July or are attending Missouri Bar or other seminars to deal with end of year CLE compliance. If this change is indeed going to be imposed, then it should not be effective unless it can be reviewed fully by a large proportion of the Bar and enacted and in place prior to the start of a CLE reporting year. |
| COMMENT: (received June 30, 2009) Please do not require more ethics CLE. If you do increase the requirements, please consider requiring the ethics CLE every other year. This gives members of the BAR some flexibility in obtaining the hours. I agree with those who have complained about the lack of quality ethic programs relevant to my practice. Improve the quality of the programs before changing the requirements. |
COMMENT: (received July 2, 2009) |
| COMMENT: (received July 3, 2009) I am opposed to the change which would require 2 CLE ethics hours each year. Some of the reasons that I am opposed include: (1) the ethics program offerings, ones that offer ethics alone and not imbedded within another longer CLE are few; (2) those few that are offered are repetitiive information to a large extent and this may be felt to a greater extent with more attendance required at these; (3) the ethics that are imbedded within other programs of CLE are also too few - and if the ethics are not in the area of law that I practice and want to attend a CLE on, it is cumbersome for me to attend those 2 or 3 ethics hours within a program which is of little or no help to me in my particular practice. If there is a desire to increase the ethics requirement, perhaps just increasing from 3, to 4 or 5 or 6 over a three-year period as it is currently reported may be best - gives a lawyer more time over that three year period to find an ethics CLE program(s) that fits their practice area/schedule/current knowledge/general interest etc. |
| COMMENT: (received July 6, 2009) The current ethics requirement is fine. I do not support increased requirements in this area. Attorneys, like all people, are either honest and ethical or they are not. We should support and encourage ethical behavior but more required training on the subject will not change people. |
| COMMENT: (received July 10, 2009) I see no need to change the 3 hour requirement to 6 hours over 3 years. Rather, it would be helpful to require 1 hour every year. It is silly at the end of the reporting period when people just sit in any seminar to get the 3 hours credit. |
| COMMENT: (received July 10, 2009) I oppose changing the Ethics CLE requirement from 3 hours over 3 years to two hours every year. I am lucky to find one or two CLEs a year that are related to what I am doing now. I think the 3 hours/3 years requirement is flexible and accomadating. If the CLE that I really want to attend doesn't happen to have an ethics component I know that I will find one that will sometime during a three year period. I don't want to attend a CLE that is unrelated to my practice just to get in 2 hour of ethics that may not be applicable to the the ethical issues that I deal with in my practice. I don't think that doubling the hours will make much of a difference either, but if that happens I think that the same flexible approach should be taken, ie, keeping the 3 year option to get in all of the ethical hours required. |
| COMMENT: (received July 10, 2009) Many of the comments objectively stated my thoughts regarding the proposed ethic hour changes, particularly the first comment dated June 29, 2009. Furthermore, if there will be an increase in ethic hours then there should be an increase in quality ethic hour presentations as part of various CLE seminars such as family law, etc. The writer’s comment brought to mind that, prior to being admitted to the Bar, I was required to meet with an attorney, an older member of the Board of Governors who spoke to me about ethics. His comments still leave a bitter taste when he said that considering I was a naturalized citizen, I should have shown more respect for the law and not received two speeding violations as a teen-ager. Frankly, what it really showed was that I was either too naïve or without funds to use an attorney and therefore plead guilty and received my points and paid the fine. |
| COMMENT: (received July 10, 2009) The Missouri Bar has not done a good job at explaining why there is a need to increase the ethics requirements per year and why the Bar feels it is necessary to change the current three year rule to a one year rule. Without good reasons for doing this, my opinion is that the rule should not be changed. I do not believe that the new rule would be particularly onerous but I also do not see the necessity for it. I do feel that there should be a requirement that every 10 years lawyers are required to undertake an ethics test. It strikes me that lawyers should continue to be examined on the ethics rules throughout their careers - I do not think that the ethics requirements in CLEs are particularly helpful to lawyers behaving ethically. |
| COMMENT: (received July 10, 2009) I am an attorney with only a mediation practice that I run from my home. I want to maintain my Bar membership, but increasing the CLE requirements makes it more difficult for me to do so. I am very concerned about anything that increases the cost for me to maintain my Bar membership, since my income from mediation is minimal. I try to meet my CLE requirements in large part through self-study, webinars and other programs that permit me to avoid travel and other costs. I believe CLE providers will add ethics components to their seminars, if that becomes a MO Bar requirement, so I am not concerned about the quantity of offerings. However, I do concur with the previous comments about the relevancy and quality of the ethics offerings over the past many years, as well as the increased cost of having to attend more CLE hours in person. Why not permit ethics CLE to be done via self-study (at least a portion of the hours, or every other year, or some such compromise)? Why is the MO Bar more concerned about members' attendance at ethics programs than at substantive programs? To verify what was done, a specific listing of articles read could be required. The alternative of an on-line program also makes sense. Please do not make it more difficult for those of us desiring part-time or home-based practices to work in Missouri. Let's open up the practice of law more broadly in our state, not restrict it. |
| COMMENT: (received July 10, 2009) Keep the rule as is. |
| COMMENT: (received July 11, 2009) A general ethics course is of little or no value to those attorneys who do not desire to aspire to ethical practices. If an issue arises in a substantive area of law as to the ethical course of conduct, that issue could and should be made a part of any CLE in that particular area of law. If for some reason this rule does pass, then I believe an on-line ethics program with a "test" or quesion and answer provision at the end should be made available each reporting year to meet the increased ethics CLE requirement. |
| COMMENT: (received July 11, 2009) I am opposed to the proposed rule change because there is no evidence that increasing the number of CLE credits on Ethics will increase attorney Ethics. As mentioned by one individual there seems to be a correlation between individuals with addiction issues having ethical problems that would seem more appropriately addressed through addressing those problems directly rather than increasing everyone's CLE obligations. This proposal smacks of keeping the whole class after school because one kid failed to follow a rule. As for keeping track of the 3 hours of ethics as long as you keep the log on the electronic system the Bar makes it very easy. Another easy tracking system is just take one CLE of Ethics every year and you can't miss! |
| COMMENT: (received July 11, 2009) I respectfully suggest that the Special Committee explain to the full membership the reasons for doubling the requirements, especially if the added hours cannot be satisfied via self-study. Many attorneys have become skeptical about the "profit motive" associated with CLE and its providers. Whether this skepticism is justified or not, I submit that it does not serve our profession or the aims of ethics and professionalism to increase required seminar hours, and thus line the pockets of seminar providers, without a full explanation of the necessity for such changes. Moreover, the added costs to members of the Bar will ultimately increase the costs of justice at a time when our economy is in shambles. I urge the Special Committee to abandon the proposed changes. Alternatively, the Special Committee should further amend the rules to allow the requirements to be satisfied via self-study hours. |
| COMMENT: (received July 13, 2009) I see no reason to expand the ethics and professionalism requirements. There is a lack of good programs aimed at different areas of practice as it is. I am a government attorney and therefore, trust accounts are not relevant to my practice. I support changing the requirement to a yearly requirement of 1 hour with carryover of professionalism hours the same as other credit. |
| COMMENT: (received July 14, 2009) As others have noted, this proposed change in the CLE rules appears to be a solution looking for a problem. In recent weeks, many of us have discussed the waste of time and money involved in attending CLE. Those of us who have been practicing for several years work in one or more limited areas. We do a significant amount of reading and research to maintain our skills and knowledge in those areas. The rule regarding ethics hours, and the other CLE rules, appear to be designed to help the providers of the courses. I do not know anyone who believes requiring attendance at these seminars has improved the quality of our services to our clients. I therefore believe you could reduce the requirement to five hours per year for attorneys who have been practicing more than five years, or you could eliminate all CLE requirements entirely, and you would see absolutely no change in the practice of law in Missouri. |