ABA Division for Bar Services: Bar Leader Magazine

This page uses JavaScript. To take advantage of this feature, please download Internet Explorer or Navigator 4.x.
Bar Leader Home|Subscriptions|Current Issue|Older Issues

Alaska Supreme Court approves
voluntary CLE with incentives

By Anna Marie Kukec

The Alaska Supreme Court approved a pioneering Voluntary Continuing Legal Education rule with various incentives to encourage compliance by 2,636 active Alaska Bar Association members.

Lawyers who participate in VCLE are eligible for the following: A 10 percent ($45) reduction of the $450 annual bar dues; inclusion in a list published in the bar’s publication, Alaska Bar Rag (like an honor roll); and participation in the bar’s Lawyer Referral Service (only VCLE participants may join the LRS). Also, noncompliance in VCLE may be considered in disciplinary matters involving competency. The court will allow the bar to determine the amount of dues reduction each year and develop other incentives.

"We’re excited and interested to see how this innovative approach will work for our membership," says Executive Director Deborah O’Regan of Anchorage.

Effective Sept. 2, 1999, the rule recommends at least 12 hours of approved courses (including one hour of ethics) annually. Besides taking courses, credit can be earned by preparing and teaching an approved CLE course; studying audio or video tapes or technology-delivered CLE courses; writing articles published in law reviews or journals; attending section meetings; and participating as a faculty member in Youth Court.

The rule was adopted as a three-year pilot project. Afterward, the court will assess the results, including recommendations provided by the bar to determine whether a sanction-based mandatory CLE program is necessary, according to court documents.

The bar also will collect statistics regarding VCLE program attendance and compare it to previous years without incentives. This data will be given to the court when it reviews the progress of VCLE.

While MCLE was the original intention of the unified bar, the justices felt that suspending a lawyer’s license or other disciplinary measures for noncompliance were extreme.

"The Supreme Court is not convinced that a mandatory rule is necessary and believes that a CLE program can become successful by using incentives to encourage voluntary participation in CLE rather than sanctions to penalize non-compliance with a mandatory rule," the justices say in the court order.

The justices devised the VCLE proposal after talking with the Alaska bar’s Board of Governors, which voted 7-to-4 in August 1998 to recommend MCLE. (Also see "Alaska bar awaits MCLE decision," Bar Leader, Winter 1999, p.4.) VCLE is expected to be less expensive and less bureaucratic than MCLE. If MCLE had been approved, an extra full-time staff person would have been hired to track compliance, notes O’Regan.

"We think VCLE will be more palatable to our members," she adds.

Officials of the American Bar Association praised Alaska’s new voluntary rule. "CLE is generally made mandatory, so the incentive is to be able to maintain your license to practice law. The Alaska plan seems to be a pioneering one," notes Kathy Morris of Chicago, director of the ABA’s Center for CLE.

The ABA will watch the progress of the three-year pilot program, especially the use of technology-driven courses. "We applaud the Supreme Court of Alaska for incorporating not only the study of audio and videotapes, but also technology-delivered CLE in its definition of accreditable CLE. The new delivery formats help make widespread access to information more accessible and affordable for all attorneys," adds Morris.

The author is the reporter for Bar Leader