November 12, 2009

SCR 31.02(2) also unconstitutional

SCR 31.02(1) A lawyer shall attend a minimum of 30 hours of approved [continuing legal education] during each reporting period.

SCR 31.02(2) A lawyer shall attend a minimum of 3 of the 30 hours required under sub. (1) on the subject of legal ethics and professional responsibility in every reporting period.

Would you believe that rule is enforced by Michael Gableman.
Time shall unfold what plighted cunning hides;
Who covers faults, at last shame them derides.
Well may you prosper!
King Lear (I.i.284-86) (h/t Ralph Adam Fine).

4 comments:

John Foust said...

Like water off a duck. You have to attend, but it's not required to sink in.

PaulNoonan said...

The ethics CLE requirement is asinine, and there is no irony here. An ethics class can have only two effects:

1. If you already possess a strong sense of ethics, it will be a boring waste of time.

2. If you do not, it will aid you in avoiding detection.

Both outcomes are undesirable.

Every lawyer who had a hand in instituting mandatory CLE should be disbarred, since they are basically thieves.

illusory tenant said...

There is no irony here.

Then it's even grimmer than I thought.

John Foust said...

Nah, Paul, I think it stems from the tendency of lawyers to believe that most other lawyers are not as smart as they are, and therefore are in need of remedial education.

Your #1 is redundant, as many lawyers firmly believe they are already correct on a wide range of issues. Your #2 presumes malevolent intent, when I think simple ignorance is easier to assume. After all, the most common element in the universe is hydrogen. The second is stupidity.

What's more common, evil self-serving lawyers or ones who need a little knock with a clue stick on certain issues?