Winter 2003 Survey of CLE Support and Tracking
Executive Summary
I. Survey Respondents
Fifty-two law offices responded to our January 2003 survey: 2 state government agencies and 49 law firms (one firm provided two responses from different offices). The respondents can be further characterized as follows:
Location: Forty-nine respondents are based in the United States, two in the United Kingdom, and one in Canada. The two state agencies and nine of the law firms have a state or regional practice; the forty remaining firms are national or international.
Number of Lawyers Resident in MCLE Jurisdictions: Twenty-four respondents (46.2%) say that all or nearly all of their lawyers are resident in jurisdictions with mandatory CLE; ten (19.2%) say that half or more of their lawyers are so resident. The remaining eighteen respondents were divided equally between having "A significant fraction, but less than half" (nine, 17.3%) and "Few or none" (nine, 17.3%) of their lawyers resident in MCLE jurisdictions.
Organization size ranges from under 100 lawyers to over 1,500. Average size is 500 lawyers.
II. Survey Findings
This survey is a follow-up to our November 2002 survey of professional development budgets, which showed that the average large law office spends half its professional development budget on outside CLE. The results reveal that the nature and extent of CLE activity and the size of the CLE expenditure vary greatly from office to office.
Highlights of the major sections of the report are as follows. Those sections contain additional details and comments from the respondents about their approaches, results, and preferred vendors.
Policies on MCLE Support and Compliance:
The respondents' policies on supporting, tracking, and verifying their lawyers' CLE participation and compliance cluster into 4 broad categories, listed below in ascending order of the firm's level of involvement, along with the percentage of respondents who have adopted each policy approach
Laissez-faire (no MCLE support or tracking): 9.6%
Support for CLE credit only: 32.7%
Support for and tracking of CLE participation: 7.7%
Full coverage (support, tracking, and verification): 50%
In general, the more lawyers a firm has practicing in MCLE jurisdictions, the more involved the firm and the professional development function are likely to be in supporting and verifying the lawyers' MCLE compliance. And conversely, the fewer lawyers, the less involved.
Top Five Support and Tracking Mechanisms:
Of nine support and tracking mechanisms used by the respondents, the top five are:
Paying for outside CLE courses (98.1%)
Obtaining CLE credit for in-house courses (80.8%)
Using a CLE-tracking and reporting database (61.5%)
Entering into "package deals" with CLE providers (59.6%)
Creating or subscribing to a calendar of outside CLE courses (48%)
Most Effective Strategies for MCLE Compliance:
Respondents' top two (of six) strategies for ensuring their lawyers' compliance with MCLE requirements are:
CLE-accredited in-house courses (46%)
Tracking and reminders (42.3%)
Top Strategies for Controlling CLE Costs:
Of twelve cost-control strategies, respondents' top two are:
Maximizing availability and use of accredited in-house courses (34.6%)
Expensive policies/approval procedures for outside courses (34.6%)
Top Areas for Improvement:
Asked what they would most like to change about their organizations' CLE policies or approaches, respondents targeted eight areas for improvement. The top two are:
Tracking system (17.3%)
In-house courses (15.4%)