Top ten reasons to oppose mandatory CLE

A few days ago I reported that there is a petition pending before the Illinois Supreme Court asking it to revoke its rules requiring minimum continuing legal education. (See here) Today, in a letter to the editor published in the Chicago Daily Bulletin, the attorney who filed the petition lists the following "top ten" reasons to support the petition:

First, one simply cannot demonstrate that MCLE [madatory continuing legal education] enhances professional performance.

Second, one simply cannot demonstrate that MCLE has resulted in any benefit to the public, although touted to do so.

Third, one simply cannot demonstrate that MCLE is justified in terms of the time and expense required to meet compliance requirements.

Fourth, in purporting to comply with the requirements imposed by the various jurisdictions, participants often cheat or falsify compliance reports.

Fifth, instructors offered by providers are often ill-equipped to truly "educate."

Sixth, the real beneficiaries of MCLE are bar associations and other provider organizations and neither the profession nor the public.

Seventh, MCLE is inherently discriminatory. The little guy gets it once again.

Eighth, the time and expense devoted to MCLE often detracts from one's inclination and ability to contribute pro bono services.

Ninth, the notion that MCLE enhances the ethics of our profession is bogus.

Tenth, while MCLE may offer the responsible courts a "feel good" sensation and enhance "perception," the fact is that MCLE is laden with hypocrisy.