Every state requires lawyers to complete continuing legal education. The typical requirement: watch a specified number of hours of approved programming each year. The assumption is that watching creates learning, and learning creates competence.

In Advanced Online Continuing Legal Education, published in the Journal of Legal Education, I argue that this assumption is wrong – and that the social value of mandatory CLE is likely negative.

The input/output problem

MCLE compliance measures inputs (hours spent watching videos) rather than outputs (knowledge gained or skills improved). A lawyer who watches twelve hours of CLE programming while checking email on a second screen has met the requirement. A lawyer who reads a treatise, discusses it with colleagues, and applies it to a client matter has not.

This is not a minor design flaw. It is the core structural problem. By measuring seat time rather than learning, the system encourages passive consumption over active engagement – the opposite of what learning science tells us works.

OCLE’s social value is likely negative because MCLE compliance measures inputs – hours watching videos – rather than outputs – learning achieved.

What learning science says

I bring cognitive science research to bear on a problem that the legal profession has largely treated as administrative. The evidence is clear: people learn by doing, not by watching. Active recall, spaced repetition, problem-solving, and peer discussion produce durable learning. Passive video consumption does not.

I propose two specific techniques from instructional design: backward design (starting with the desired learning outcome and designing the experience to achieve it) and chunking (breaking content into short, focused segments with built-in retrieval practice). Both are well-established in education research and poorly adopted in CLE.

The regulatory fix

The article calls on state bar associations to change what they require. Rather than mandating hours of approved programming, bars should require or incentivize CLE providers to adopt evidence-based instructional practices. The standard should shift from “did the lawyer watch?” to “did the lawyer learn?”

This does not require abolishing MCLE. It requires measuring the right thing.

Read the full article: Advanced Online Continuing Legal Education: How to Leverage Technology-Mediated Education for Lawyers’ Lifelong Learning, 72 Journal of Legal Education (2024).