Posted: September 3, 2025
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Rule Changes – Comment Period Closed October 20, 2025
USB011-613. CLE Accreditation for qualified audio and video presentations, webcasts, computer interactive programs, writing, lecturing, teaching, public service, and verified attendance. AMEND. The proposed change to the MCLE Rule 11-613 would allow lawyers and Licensed Paralegal Practitioners to receive one hour of elective CLE credit for every 1,000 words up to a maximum of three elective CLE credit hours per compliance cycle.
I believe the current maximum of six elective CLE credits for writing, per compliance cycle, is a better approach. I am not in favor of reducing it to maximum of three credits. Personally, I am regularly engaged in publishing law journal articles of 10,000 words or more, and those are a significant amount of work and also provide me with the most valuable continuing legal education that I can find. The research and writing process is much more intense than sitting in a CLE class so I get more out of writing than I would get out of a regular class.
If I am correct in understanding this, this would then require that 9/12 credits would be required as in-person attendance (not live credits at an online webinar). I am opposed to such a rule, as this becomes unduly burdensome. If I am understanding incorrectly, please explain further.
I am not in favor of reducing the maximum from six credits to three credits. In my experience, teaching is a substantial amount of work and involves significant continuing education.
I concur with Mr. Knox. If the amended rule is suggesting 9/12 hours must be in-person, that is a problem. Not all topics are available as in-person events. Some niche areas of law or specific topics in common areas of law can only be found in remote places. Having these available is invaluable in broadening a lawyer’s ability to offer diverse and more specific areas of proficient representation.
I support this change. It does not appear to reduce or change the basic requirements under 11-604, as suggested. I support the proposed 11-613 rule change because I believe it may encourage more lawyers and others to publish shorter articles (at least 1,000 words, instead of the prior minimum of 3,000 words) aimed at legal service providers in publications like the Utah State Bar Journal. I do not read the rule as other seem to have, as discouraging longer articles. The change is to article length only (1 CLE per 1,000 words, instead of 3 CLE per 3,000 words), and so practitioners can still earn up to 3.0 CLE’s per cycle for longer articles.
I appreciate your comment. But as I read it, it’s not an issue of shorter vs. longer articles. I have no problem with shorter articles. But the proposed rule seems to reduce the total number of available self-study credits from 6 to 3 in each compliance cycle. If it stays at 6, then people could write more short articles (for CLE credit) than if the proposed change is approved.
If I am misunderstanding the proposal, I apologize and would like to be corrected. The proposal is poorly written and explained, unfortunately, so it’s not readily understandable.
This amendment would not change the number of “Live” Verified CLE credits required for the annual cycle, but it limits the number of credits allowed for writing to three credits per year.