Nevada Judiciary

In a move to bolster the professionalism and accountability for Nevada attorneys, the Nevada Supreme Court has begun the process of establishing stringent new rules to ensure that lawyers obtain their annually required legal education.

Chief Justice James W. Hardesty said that stricter requirements will make sure that lawyers are prepared to meet the challenges of new issues as they arise, such as our current home foreclosure crisis and the legislatively-mandated Foreclosure Mediation Program.

In a petition filed July 2, the Supreme Court noted that an “unacceptable” trend of non-compliance with educational requirements has emerged.  Not only do about 15 percent of lawyers annually fail to meet requirements for Continuing Legal Education (CLE), but the culprits tend to be the same lawyers year after year.

In the petition, Chief Justice Hardesty recommended that the Board of Continuing Legal Education update its rules and streamline its operations to address the “delinquent and habitually delinquent attorneys.”

“Our goal at the Supreme Court is simply to ensure that Nevada attorneys are educated about the latest legal issues and able to best serve those who go to them for legal assistance,” said Chief Justice Hardesty.

In an order filed July 7, the Supreme Court ordered the Board of Continuing Legal Education to conduct a comprehensive review of Board and Supreme Court rules about CLE and issue a report with recommendations within 90 days.  The Court will schedule public hearings in Carson City and Las Vegas within 30 days of filing the report.  The Supreme Court will then accept, reject or amend the Board’s recommendations.

The petition suggests steep increases in fines for non-compliance and automatic suspension of the licenses to practice law for lawyers who do not fulfill their CLE obligations after receiving a single notice of delinquency.

Currently, relatively small fines are assessed on an escalating scale for lawyers who do not comply with CLE requirements, but the fines have not prompted compliance for many attorneys.

“The legal profession is continually evolving,” Chief Justice Hardesty said. “Lawyers must be aware of issues that arise in the Nevada Supreme Court and the federal appellate courts’ opinions.  Additionally, attorneys must learn about new laws passed by the Legislature and new rules adopted by the Supreme Court.”

“Failing to comply with CLE requirements is a breach of a professional responsibility that cannot be tolerated,” the Chief Justice said.

CLE requirements include completion of a minimum of 12 hours of accredited educational activity, including two hours of education in ethics and professional conduct.

The Supreme Court petition noted that of the 7,076 State Bar of Nevada members who had to meet CLE requirements by March 1, 2009, a total of 1,118 failed to do so.  Those 16 percent of the bar were assessed a $30 late fee.

Approximately 330 bar members, or five percent, were served a second notice of non-compliance and fined $60.

During 2008, similar percentages of attorneys failed to meet their CLE requirements.  That year, 109 lawyers, or two percent of the bar, faced suspensions of their licenses for non-compliance.  Reinstatement from CLE-related suspension is a $250 fee.

Since 1993, when computerized records began being kept, 542 lawyers have failed to meet their CLE requirements during four or more years.  Of those, 86 failed to comply during 10 of those 15 years.

“There is no penalty for being repeatedly CLE non-compliant,” Chief Justice Hardesty stated in the petition.  “This is simply unacceptable.”

The Chief Justice noted that the fines collected from lawyers did not cover the expenses of the Board of Continuing Legal Education to pursue the delinquent attorneys.

The Board of Continuing Legal Education is composed of five members, all of which are Nevada attorneys.  Four members are appointed by the State Bar of Nevada and one is a judge appointed by the Supreme Court.  The Board was created by the Supreme Court to oversee CLE compliance and is independent of the State Bar of Nevada, but operates in cooperation with the Bar.