Posted: February 7, 2025
Proposed Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Rule Changes – Comment Period Closes March 24, 2025
USB11-602. Definitions. Amend. Delete the term “Comity Certificate;” in Rule 11-602 and add the definitions of “Multi-State Reciprocity” and “Carry-Forward Hours”.
USB11-604. Active status lawyers MCLE, NLTP, admission on motion, multi-state compliance reciprocity, house counsel and UBE requirements; MCLE requirements for Paralegal Practitioners. Amend. Requesting changes to the MCLE rules permitting lawyers to carry CLE hours forward from one year to the next; permitting reciprocal credit for lawyers with primary offices out of state
USB11-611.Board Accreditation of CLE. Amend. Make technical revisions to Rule 11-611 to re-organize the steps required to receive approval for CLE which is not offered to all lawyers and licensed paralegal practitioners.
USB11-612. Presumptively approved CLE providers; presumptive CLE Accreditation. Amend. Change the capitalized word “Accreditation” to “accreditation” in Rule 11-612 and add the word “Rule” where it was inadvertently left out.
USB11-617. Miscellaneous fees and expenses. Amend. Add a filing fee for a lawyer to request “Multi-State Reciprocity” in Rule 11-617.
USB11-619. CLE Credit for Pro Bono Legal Services. Amend. Remove the expiration date from Rule 11-619 permanently allowing CLE credit for qualified pro bono services.
I strongly support the amendments to allow attorneys who have practices and primary offices in other states to comply with CLE requirements in that state in satisfaction of Utah’s CLE requirements.
In fact, the change should go even further, to allow compliance with another state’s CLE requirements to fully satisfy the Utah CLE requirements without the need for additional Utah-specific CLE. Many states (including, for example, Illinois) accept compliance with another state’s CLE requirements as full satisfaction of its own requirements. Utah should consider the same.
I strongly support the changes suggested. Allowing carry-forward MCLE hours would be an immense benefit to young lawyers, who could get some of their credits completed in advance of a big life event, such as a new baby. It would also allow those of us with chronic illnesses the ability to do credits in advance when our health is good, especially if we know we may be coming into a time where our health will be not as strong.
Additionally, this change would bring us in alignment with many of our neighboring states who also allow carry-over credits, such as Nevada and Wyoming.
I also support the change to allow attorneys who have primary offices in other states to comply with CLE requirements in that state in satisfaction of Utah’s CLE requirements. Once you are licensed in another state, it is an immense benefit to keep that licensure, and this rule would help lawyers maintain that license.
I support the carry-forward MCLE hours for the same reasons that Ashley Biehl does. This is a common sense amendment that will benefit many.
Also, as someone who supported the pro bono for CLE amendments when it was first proposed (I might have even drafted it!), I am grateful to see that the expiration date is being removed. Thank you to our justices for continuing to recognize the importance of pro bono service.
I strongly support the carry forward MCLE hours as it allows lawyers to plan ahead for life’s expected disruptions, it also provides cushion if a lawyer has the bandwidth to take more credits than required for the current reporting year and minimizes disruption caused by life’s unexpected disruptions. With the bar’s more recent focus on improving mental health in the legal profession, this adjustment is a small measure towards making our practice more manageable.
The idea of allowing lawyers to carry excess credit forward is a great idea. I have declined pertinent CLE events solely because I already had the credit. Attending was not prudent given the workload. This analysis, however, could have been different had I known it applied to the following year. This allows for improved scheduling and more efficient learning.
I support this change. I would appreciate the flexibility to have carry over credits and agree with those who have already highlighted the importance of this change for making our bar more disability / emergency / parent friendly.
I wouldn’t have met last year’s deadline without getting my CLE credits done earlier in the year, before my new chronic illness set in. Now, navigating my new normal, I’ve admittedly stressed about meeting the requirements for this cycle. Allowing carry-forward credits would not only help those of us in the legal profession with chronic illness or disability, but create a more equitable environment for parents, those struggling with the legal field’s all-too-common burnout or mental illness, and those navigating emergencies. This is a common sense and efficient approach, and the benefits to the legal community and community at large outweigh the potential for abuse (which can be easily addressed through guardrails).