The Law Society’s new mandatory CPD requirements, which kicked in January 1, have become one of the hot topics in the 2011 bencher election.
We asked candidates in their first 15 years of practice what they think of the new requirements — particularly the stipulation that lawyers in their first two years must take 12 hours of accredited ethics/professionalism courses.
Read the candiates’ responses below.
Q:
a) What’s your take on the new mandatory CPD requirements? Are they accomplishing their goals, thus far?
b) What’s your opinion about the specific requirements for lawyers in their first two years of practice?
Basil Alexander:
I am skeptical as to whether mandatory CPD will ultimately have the desired effect, but it is frankly too early to fairly evaluate the new mandatory CPD requirements. After all, they only came into effect in January, and more time is needed to examine how effective they are. While the reality may be that mandatory CPD will be here to stay for the foreseeable future, we still need to evaluate it on an ongoing basis to determine whether it is meeting its intended goals and what changes may be necessary. As well, we should always be looking at ways to improve mandatory CPD (including by making it more accessible, relevant and effective), especially since every new program experiences growing pains during its initial phase.
The practical reality is that there is a big transition and adjustment from being a student to being a lawyer. So, I think we need to have in place effective and practical requirements that assist people with that transition. After all, there are many things that they do not teach people in law school that one now only experiences in practice. Changes to the former bar admissions course (now the licensing process) over the last few years also removed a key resource and opportunity to provide some of that knowledge and access to practicing lawyers. The requirements should thus be tailored to help lawyers get a large part of that knowledge and experience, which will set the foundation for the rest of one’s legal career.
Monica Goyal:
The new mandatory CPD requirements seem like a good idea, but I need to see how it works in practice before forming an opinion on its effectiveness.
In general, I think continuous learning is a good idea. I do a lot of self-study, and enjoy the freedom of determining my own study plans. Certainly the Law Society should continue to ensure competency through self-study. The new CPD requirements, however, go beyond self-study: they include course-based initiatives on ethics and practice management for lawyers in their first two years. I am concerned that the CPDs will increase the financial burden young lawyers already face. Many young lawyers are barely getting by after law school debt, Law Society fees, membership fees, and practice management costs. I would like to see more CPDs offered at no cost, as some all ready are.
Dan Guttman:
The new CPD requirements are a huge source of frustration to many young lawyers. While we all support continuing legal education, I query whether it is necessary for the Law Society to monitor our compliance with educational requirements. There does seem to be agreement however that 12 hours is not to arduous (the complaints are more with respect to the 3 professional and ethics hours).
On the other hand, the requirement to complete 24 hours for Ontario’s youngest lawyers is very demanding — especially given all the extra time they are already putting in to learn their profession. The CPD requirements are ensuring that lawyers engage in CLE; however, there have been many complaints about the cost and content of some of the programs offered (some people are signing up just to get their hours completed). Join my discussion on Linked-in to share your ideas.
Nabeel Haque:
Self improvement through CPD is necessary and beneficial. However, CPD can and should be made more affordable to new calls by increasing the income threshold to qualify for the bursury and by offering more innovative means of delivering of teaching materials such as online and with podcasts, thereby increasing accessibility.
The focus of CPD relating to professional responsibility and practice management is a sensible approach. These are elemental areas that a lawyer should be mindful of throughout a legal career in order to provide competent service to the public.
Katherine I. Henshell:
I enjoyed the CPD courses that I have taken this year. Moreover, I probably wouldn’t have taken these courses if I wasn’t trying to complete my mandatory CPD requirements. While I have attended these CPD courses, I have been informed by the bar that CPD courses are good to take but difficult to schedule when you are running a busy practice.
Education is the key to success. Young lawyers need to transition from legal education to practising as a lawyer. Practical hands-on courses dealing with “How to Practise Law” needs to be encouraged and offered to young lawyers.
Wennie Lee:
CPD is necessary to help us consciously improve our professional knowledge and competence, and I support the Law Society’s requirement. I understand that England, Scotland and Australia have CPD requirements as well. However, I would be vigilant to ensure that it stays affordable for sole practitioners and small firms. For young lawyers, the CPD requirements may be seen as onerous but we should approach it as a tool to enhance our professional careers, and collaterally, as an opportunity to network with other lawyers and learn best practices or pitfalls that exists in this profession.
In the first two years of practice, lawyers need to concentrate first and foremost on acquiring the tools to help them succeed professionally. Unfortunately, law schools do not prepare you for practice and articling is not enough; your professional development truly starts after law school and continues throughout your career, your first 2 to 5 years in particular.
Robert Levan:
I feel that the CPD requirements are necessary to our profession. If we are to maintain our status as a self-governing profession we must ensure that education continues throughout the arc of our careers. That said I think that the program has not been as well received as it could have been if it had been rolled out differently. Specifically I have heard a good deal of negative feedback on the mandatory three hours of “accredited” programing on professionalism.
I feel that the CPD requirements for new calls are not optimal. While I agree that practice management, ethics and professionalism are important topics they are not the be all and end all. I would propose that of the 12 hours total CPD required of all calls, new calls should only have 6 hours devoted to practice management, ethics and professionalism, with the remaining 6 hours to be spent at their discretion on education which will best serve them in their particular area of practice.
Dorette Pollard:
Continuing education is imperative. Any good lawyer, young or old, recognizes the need to keep abreast of the evolution of the law — jurisprudence, doctrine and legislation. What is to be avoided however is creating a bureaucratic mandatory process that saps the joy out of learning, which defeats the purpose.
With the recent abolition of the Bar Admissions Course, there is a need to ensure that young lawyers receive adequate instruction in ethics and professional responsibility. Today’s young lawyers are tomorrow’s leaders. Without that solid foundation, it is the future of the legal profession and society that will suffer. Surely, it cannot be a coincidence that mandatory CPD requirements have been introduced at this time. In my opinion, the mandatory CPD requirements are a poor substitute for the Bar Admission Course, which could have been converted to an eProgram rather than abolished altogether in order to find cost efficiencies.
A. Michael Rothe:
I have always been a big supporter and even greater participant in CPD programming. Consequently, while I am not opposed to the mandatory requirements, I believe it is too early to tell whether or not they are accomplishing their goals.
Further, while professional responsibility, ethics and practice management are important to recent calls to the bar, I do not think making same the sole focus of their first two years in practice to the exclusion of more substantive CPD is the best direction for the LSUC to have taken.
Robert Shawyer:
I believe that the CPD requirements are the right first step in ensuring that lawyers, like other licensed professionals in Ontario, are providing the best most up to date legal advice to our clients. Our reputation as a profession depends on this. However, the LSUC needs to do more than just make continuing CPD mandatory. The LSUC needs to make mentorship in the first couple of years mandatory to ensure that all lawyers, especially those who open up their own practices, are competent to provide legal advice to the client, are able to provide the services they are promising the client to undertake and are capable of properly advocating for their clients, whether with another lawyer, before an administrative tribunal or a court of law. If the LSUC were to make mentorship mandatory or set up some other type of similar program, then young lawyers may end up avoiding being brought before the disciplinary committee of the LSUC.
I do not believe that they go far enough in ensuring competence by those most recently called to the bar.
Osgoode Hall photo by Oliver Mallich