One way to enrich continuing legal education (CLE) for lawyers might be to follow the lead of executive business education.

Legal CLE programs tend to have a few things in common:

  • CLE requirements are just that: requirements. They're compulsory, imposed, required.
  • Participants enroll in CLE programs to satisfy the CLE requirement, usually expressed in a number of hours, sometimes broken down by subject.
  • Satisfying the requirement usually means showing up and signing in. Temptation runs high to duck out at a coffee break, or to discover that a crisis has flared at the office that requires immediate, personal attention. Some CLE programs now require actual, physical presence for the duration of the event in order to receive credit.
  • As a rule (subject to exceptions) the participants are anonymous and passive. At most, someone asked their name (or at least had them sign in); no one asked why they were attending (because the answer is: I have a CLE requirement to satisfy). During the session, participants generally listen to oneor more speakers; at most, they'll ask a question.
  • Evaluation mechnisms, if any, usually are of the "have you been listening?" variety. Multiple choice questions are popular.
  • There's no serious expectation that the lawyer's practice will change because of the CLE program. Maybe participants will learn something, and maybe they can apply what they've learned; but no one will follow up and check in with them to find out whether this is the case.

Taking a lead from the best-in-class executive education programs at business schools, a better CLE program would:

  • Offer sufficient value so that participants want to attend.
  • Focus on building skills, especially new skills, and downplay accumulation of book knowledge (of the "a new law on …" or "leading cases of 2008" variety).
  • Require an application and admit only selected applicants. The selection could be either done by the organizer or self-selection (which is often under-estimated).
  • Insist upon pre-testing and pre-session reading.
  • Be personal. Participants would explain what they expected to get out of the program, and also how they expected to contribute. Participants would know one another by name. This means that the program would be small –a dozen, two dozen, maybe three dozen participants– not a mass event.
  • Be participative. Participants would do things during the program. Avoid at all costs passive note-taking exercises.
  • Feature meaningful evaluation. If the evaluator doesn't offer guidance on further progress, the subject matter might not merit evaluation.
  • Lead to action. Only if participants return to their activity and make some change will the program be deemed worthwhile. Participants will be given measurement tools to track change. The organizers will anticipate some sort of follow-up.