Article 7(1) of the draft regulations deals with the composition of the CLPD Committee. Considering now that Government Attorneys are being mandated to undergo this process the composition of the committee does not reflect or represent their interests at all.
While it is true that a case can be made that the Advocates Association and the varying Bar Associations represent all Attorneys-at –Law – in practice they only represent the concerns and interests of the Private Bar.
There needs to be a provision either mandating that members of the Legal Officers Staff Association (LOSA) will sit on the CLPD committee.
Or where LOSA is inactive or defunct the regulations should mandate a certain number of Crown Attorneys to sit on the committee. These attorneys could be drawn from the Attorney General, DPP, Clerks of Court, Chief Parliamentary Counsel, National Land Agency and in house counsel from the varying Ministries of Government.
But as it is in its present form, Crown Attorneys are subject to a committee which does not represent its interests in any shape or form at all.
The current sections cited by the General Legal Council does not give you the power to make the Regulation. You cited the following Sections 12 (7) and 35 of the Legal Profession Act and of every other power hereunto enabling the following Regulations to be made.
Section 12 – Complaints to Committee
Section 12 (7) of the Legal Profession Act states The Council may- (a) prescribe standards of professional etiquette and professional conduct for attorneys and may by rules made for this purpose direct that any specified breach of the rules shall for the purposes of this Part constitute misconduct in a professional respect; (b) prescribe anything which may be or is required to be prescribed for the purposes of this Part.
Section 35 – Regulations in respects of Accounts
35.-(1) The Council may make regulations requiring Regulations in respect attorneys of accounts. (A) to open and keep separate bank accounts of clients’ moneys and containing provisions as to the manner in which such accounts may be operated; and (b) to keep accounts containing particulars and information as to moneys received, held or paid by them, for or on account of their clients, (2) The Council may take such action as may be necessary to ascertain whether or not the regulations are complied with.
Of every other power hereunto enabling the following Regulations to be made
A detail examination of Act proves no power exist to allow GLC to make the regulation.
Amendments to LPA
After realizing you have no power to make the said Law, I checked the Amendments to the Legal Profession Act.The Amendment to the Legal Profession Act which was signed into law on the 13th November 2012 should give you the power by virtue of the new Section 10 (a), since GLC is the Legal Education Authority. You do not have the power until the Minister appoints a date for the coming into effect of the Law. I wonder when he will do this?
I therefore pray that you will delay the implementation of this until 2014. Thanks.
The CLPD Committee anxiously awaits the enactment of the legislation to enable commencement in January 2013. In the meantime the General Legal Council is putting in place, all the requirements for delivery of the programme including the publication and notification of Seminars to be delivered Islandwide. I can assure you that you will not find it onerous or difficult to earn the credits stipulated.
Thank you for your very helpful comments.
Does the CLPD committee has serious concerns about the manner in which Ethics and LOMAT is taught at the Law School? I ask this question in light of the fact that most Attorneys who would be called after October 1, 2012 would have successfully completed those Law School approved courses. The CLPD committee by virtue of Regulation 3 (1) require that they undertake (a) ethics, (b) client welfare and (c) business management and finance. These new attorneys are required to fork out money for these course for their first three calendar years as Attorneys. If this requirement is just, it means the Law School’s course is either inadequate, in need of a revamp or both. Alternative, this requirement could be interpreted as mere dash for cash by a greedy CLPD who only have strength for the little ‘hurry come up’ Attorneys. Please advise.
The CLPD Committee was not mandated to carry out an assessment of the courses offered by the Law Schools. You will observe however, that the Ethics course is a requirement for all Attorneys irrespective of the date of enrollment. It might also interest you to look at how other jurisdictions have structured their mandatory courses. Indeed here in Jamaica , other professions including the Medical profession also have ethics as a mandatory course.
Please be assured that we have the highest regard and respect for all members of the profession and would never use such a disparaging term to refer to any of our colleagues.
Regards.
Will the proposed Regulations be gazetted in time to take effect January 2013? If this is so, I pray that a full list of (a) accredited CLPD Programmes, (b) dates and times of such Programmes, (c) cost of such Programmes, (d) activities to be covered by such Programmes will be published in sufficient time to permit us to plan our schedules and budgets to ensure we meet the 16 credits before the end of December 2013.
Thank you John. The Council has the matters which you have highlighted under consideration . I can assure you that those matters will be dealt with in a timely manner.
Thanks for that clarification. Given that the circumstances are as you explained, there should not be any real difficulty- albeit continued discussions on the specifics may still be warranted over time.
When will there be more specifics as to costs, how many credits will the particular course/ option that the Attorney chooses, a schedule at the beginning of the year as to course offerings will be vital to allow Attorneys to plan ahead . Many jurisdictions allow theses credits to be attained via video/ cd media as well as webinars. has this been explored?
Will an Attorney have a range of credit courses to choose from that are, say, relevant to his/ her area of practice? This all long overdue and welcome but we need specifics.
I will have to revert to you on the issue of cost. It is contemplated that there will be several providers and so the costs will vary depending on the activity. Reg 2 provides an extensive range of options which includes webinars etc. The Attorney therefore can choose the area for obtaining credits. The only mandatory requirement for Attorney enrolled prior to October 2012 is four credits in ethics.
It is presumed that by virtue of Regulation 4, attorneys (outside of those who are called in 2012 and thereafter) will not be restricted to the subject areas outlined in Regulation 3. What I would like to determine, however, is if there is any likelihood that the CLPD courses that will be thereafter approved by the Committee would be restricted to similar subject areas, or would they cover a much wider base. I say this since I want to verify if the purpose of the Regulations is to provide a “refresher” of the concepts that must guide the work of attorneys, or if the intention is to improve the general training and qualifications of attorneys. If it is the latter, I dont believe any attorney would have a general difficulty with same.
Regardless, my major concerns echo the concerns that have already been raised. One is the issue of cost, since, if the individual attorney is required to pay for the CLPD course, doing so every year may prove quite onerous for some of us. Additionally, being legally required to attend these courses every year may be quite onerous in and of itself, given the tremendous demands on our time due to our work. I personally believe that the period should be increased, perhaps every 3-5 years to do a course (especially if the courses approved from hereon are restricted to subject matters we are being refreshed on).
Thank you for commenting. The only mandatory course for Attorneys admitted prior to October 2012 is Ethics. The Attorney can undertake a wide range of activities to obtain the other eight credits. We hope that there will be varied and interesting seminars held all over the Island and have already placed advertisements in the newspapers to recruit a Director for CLPD
1. I am fully in support of continuing legal education, which has been a long time in coming. However I am disappointed that these regulations have apparently passed the bill stage of parliament, and comments from Attorneys are only now invited. 2. I think that there need to be some definition of what constitutes a “credit”. I think that in academic institutions it is usually defined in terms of “x” teaching hours or class room time. While this is not appropriate in our case, I think that there should be some guideline ( eg, approximately 5 hours research time). This would also assist persons submitting work for assessment by the Accreditation Committee to appreciate how many credits are likely to be awarded for a given activity. 3. For litigation Attorneys, submissions especially those prepared for Court of Appeal or Privy Council, should be considered as an appropriate “activity”. 4. The Committee will need to develop an appropriate list of available courses or activities which would enable an Attorney to attain the requisite credits during the course of the year. An Attorney should eg be able to plan from January of a given year, that he will attend one seminar, do a special course in ethics, tutor law students – in order to achieve his required quota of credits for the year. 5. In all of this, I do not see any provision as to how this programme is to be paid for. Is it intended that there will be an increase in practising certificate fees, and if so , by how much?
Carol, the Regulations have not yet been gazetted and we have invited the comments on this draft to get feedback from the profession before we do so. I will pass on your comments to the Committee and provide feedback after we have analyzed all the responses.
Thank you
This is an extremely welcome and long overdue move. There only two things a lawyer sells…his time and his knowledge. Thus, if he does no more since leaving law school say, for the last 5, 10, 15 years then, frankly, he is selling ‘stale goods’, i.e., the 15 year old acquired knowledge. That said, however, there is no need to re-invent the wheel. CPD/CLE/CLPD (whatever it is called) has long been a feature of the legal profession landscape in Europe, The UK, and North America. I am incredulously horrified at the the resistance that this has met with from the legal profession since it was advanced approximately 10 years ago. What needs to be done, is to take a flexible approach as the aim in the increase in intellectual/practical knowledge. Thus, for example, if a lawyer is say, dual qualified, any requirements met with in his other jurisdiction could go towards credits (for example how this is done in New York). Equally, for persons who teach, given the preparation and delivery time, that could also account for credit (which is similarly done in the UK). Some extremely good points have already been made.
One of the activities identified is teaching legal course. The activity has to be approved or accredited by the Accreditation Committee. Itnis also contemplated that credits can be earned from activities outside the jurisdiction
Thank you for your support
1- Credits should be awarded in such a way that one (1) hour spent in any “activity” is equal to no less than one (1) credit. Therefore, to fulfil the 12 CLPD credit requirement, it should take no more than 12 hours of activity.
The goal of CLPD must be to build on a solid foundation, not to build the foundation itself. If more than 12 hours per year is needed then it moves into building the foundation, which is the task of the Norman Manley Law School.
Additionally, our profession is very demanding of our time, and we already have precious little to spend with our families. You’d probably build better attorneys if we trained to have a better work/life balance.
2- Activities must be scheduled in such a way to allow Sabbath keepers (those who worship on Saturday) to have adequate options to choose from to fulfil the requirements. It is too often taken for granted that Saturday is an acceptable day for extra work, for many of us – it is not.
3- The cost of these activities (including transport costs) should not be prohibitive to those new to the profession. There are those fresh out law school being started on salaries as little as $90,000p/m, and the vast majority of new attorneys will not take home more than 130,000p/m in their first year or two of practice.
Of course they would be expected to save towards attending, however, with student loan repayments, and the other necessary costs to survive, activities must be priced at $2000 or less per credit for them. Staggered pricing should be implemented, or, make it free for those at the bar less than three (3) years.
I am new to the profession and your comment that the course should charge $2,000 or less per credit is alarming. I can not afford to pay $96,000 for CLE’s 16 credits. This would be more than my salary. Plus I may be expected to find money to pay for accomodations, transportation, etc. It is most alarmingly since I borrowed money to study LOMAT and Ethics at Law School only to be told that my year group is being singled out to re-do ethics and LOMAT for the next three years. Why did the CLPD not force all young attorneys under three years to do this course. Attorneys who graduate in 2011 did not learn more ethics and LOMAT than my batch. The requirement for 4 extra credits (4 more hours) is discriminatory and should be abandoned. We urge that the committee re-think the requirement or provide exemptions to people who wont be practicing on their own or who are in the Government’s employ.
The Committee has a duty to provide CLPD programmes “at reasonable times and places”. What is the criteria for determining the “reasonable times and places”? Will attorneys as stakeholders be given a voice in determining the “reasonable times and places”?
Location of the venue, type of venue, day of worship etc. are important factors to take into consideration in the determination of the “times and places”.
The proposed Regulations do not appear to address the duty to give timely and effective notification of the CLPD programme.
What about the cost of these programmes? How will that be determined so the the cost of obtaining the required credits is fair and reasonable and does not become a strain in terms of travel costs, participation fee, meals, accommodation as the case may be?
Will there be a duty to repeat the CLPD programmes at a different time and place to capture optimum attendance?
It is hoped that these issues will be addressed adequately by the Regulations or administratively by the Committee duly empowered to do so and ofcourse in consultation with attorneys as stakeholders.
We are taking steps to ensure that activities are organized and arranged to allow island wide access and the administrative framework will be in place to ensure this. We intend to give notice of a full programme of activities which will satisfy the mandatory requirements.
If this is going to be strictly applied there should be an annual publication of the programmes and dates. This will allow persons to make the necessary arrangements to be present. The alternative will result in inconvenience to individuals as well as persons may be unable to attend because of inadequate notice.
Please consider exempting attorneys resident abroad or accepting CLEs that they must complete relevant to the jurisdiction or county in which they reside.Some kind of formula to accomodate attorneys members of the Jamaican Bar resident and practicing in other countries who are dually licensed would ease the burden of satisfying the requirements to comply with the regulations.
Whilst I am totally in favour of continuing legal education the draft rules appear far too stringent in terms of the number of credits which will be required per year, the requirement for the Attorney to keep a record of credits earned “for presentation on request”, the classification of failure to fulfill the credit requirements or any breach of these regulations as “misconduct in a professional respect”.
The draft regulations beg the question of what is the ultimate objective of this programme? If it is intended to enable us to serve our clients more efficiently and effectively, i do not believe this will be accomplished by the requirements as currently stated. Time constraints on us as professionals particularly those practicing in the several Courts of this land as well as the very nature of our job which requires that we keep abreast of changes in law and practice, must be borne in mind when contemplating a framework for mandatory continuing legal education.
Why is this really necessary? The GLC already has extensive oversight for ensuring that the breach of the already numerous laws and regulations are averted and addressed. I’m also curious as to whether these “courses” will attract a cost because it is an unnecessary expense and one for such some will not be able to afford. I also hope that these courses will be held on days where they will be accessible to all Attorneys, because Saturdays and Sundays are out of the question for many.
How long are these courses and activities? Most Attorneys have time constraints and if these activities are long and repeated, they will impinge on normal practice.
Are Attorneys who work for the government included? and if not, why not?
A suggestion would be to revamp th current CLEs which tend to be generally underwhelming and focused towards esoteric topics that don’t have much practical applicability for the general practitioner. In my opinion this is because of the sluggish rate at which legislation is passed in Jamaica and the law actually changes. It is also due to the poor law reporting of judgments in Jamaica.
There should also be explicit provisions for government attorneys to be involved in the proposed Committee as they would have a heads up in the policy direction and drafting instructions and are likely to be able to give a deeper practical perspective on proposed legislative changes.
The regulations should also incentivize the preparation of papers and active participation in then organizing of the CLEs. The means of verification of attendance at the CLEs must also be improved in the regulations to ensure that dishonest persons do not sign for other persons when the seminars are held.
I would suggest that you remove the exemption provision or it be amended to put in place an explicit timeline for a written response from the Committee as otherwise an attorney may have his response dragged out due to the delay of the committee responding within a reasonable time.
Comments are closed.
Article 7(1) of the draft regulations deals with the composition of the CLPD Committee. Considering now that Government Attorneys are being mandated to undergo this process the composition of the committee does not reflect or represent their interests at all.
While it is true that a case can be made that the Advocates Association and the varying Bar Associations represent all Attorneys-at –Law – in practice they only represent the concerns and interests of the Private Bar.
There needs to be a provision either mandating that members of the Legal Officers Staff Association (LOSA) will sit on the CLPD committee.
Or where LOSA is inactive or defunct the regulations should mandate a certain number of Crown Attorneys to sit on the committee. These attorneys could be drawn from the Attorney General, DPP, Clerks of Court, Chief Parliamentary Counsel, National Land Agency and in house counsel from the varying Ministries of Government.
But as it is in its present form, Crown Attorneys are subject to a committee which does not represent its interests in any shape or form at all.
The current sections cited by the General Legal Council does not give you the power to make the Regulation. You cited the following Sections 12 (7) and 35 of the Legal Profession Act and of every other power hereunto enabling the following Regulations to be made.
Section 12 – Complaints to Committee
Section 12 (7) of the Legal Profession Act states The Council may- (a) prescribe standards of professional etiquette and professional conduct for attorneys and may by rules made for this purpose direct that any specified breach of the rules shall for the purposes of this Part constitute misconduct in a professional respect; (b) prescribe anything which may be or is required to be prescribed for the purposes of this Part.
Section 35 – Regulations in respects of Accounts
35.-(1) The Council may make regulations requiring Regulations in respect attorneys of accounts. (A) to open and keep separate bank accounts of clients’ moneys and containing provisions as to the manner in which such accounts may be operated; and (b) to keep accounts containing particulars and information as to moneys received, held or paid by them, for or on account of their clients, (2) The Council may take such action as may be necessary to ascertain whether or not the regulations are complied with.
Of every other power hereunto enabling the following Regulations to be made
A detail examination of Act proves no power exist to allow GLC to make the regulation.
Amendments to LPA
After realizing you have no power to make the said Law, I checked the Amendments to the Legal Profession Act.The Amendment to the Legal Profession Act which was signed into law on the 13th November 2012 should give you the power by virtue of the new Section 10 (a), since GLC is the Legal Education Authority. You do not have the power until the Minister appoints a date for the coming into effect of the Law. I wonder when he will do this?
I therefore pray that you will delay the implementation of this until 2014. Thanks.
The CLPD Committee anxiously awaits the enactment of the legislation to enable commencement in January 2013. In the meantime the General Legal Council is putting in place, all the requirements for delivery of the programme including the publication and notification of Seminars to be delivered Islandwide. I can assure you that you will not find it onerous or difficult to earn the credits stipulated.
Thank you for your very helpful comments.
Does the CLPD committee has serious concerns about the manner in which Ethics and LOMAT is taught at the Law School? I ask this question in light of the fact that most Attorneys who would be called after October 1, 2012 would have successfully completed those Law School approved courses. The CLPD committee by virtue of Regulation 3 (1) require that they undertake (a) ethics, (b) client welfare and (c) business management and finance. These new attorneys are required to fork out money for these course for their first three calendar years as Attorneys. If this requirement is just, it means the Law School’s course is either inadequate, in need of a revamp or both. Alternative, this requirement could be interpreted as mere dash for cash by a greedy CLPD who only have strength for the little ‘hurry come up’ Attorneys. Please advise.
The CLPD Committee was not mandated to carry out an assessment of the courses offered by the Law Schools. You will observe however, that the Ethics course is a requirement for all Attorneys irrespective of the date of enrollment. It might also interest you to look at how other jurisdictions have structured their mandatory courses. Indeed here in Jamaica , other professions including the Medical profession also have ethics as a mandatory course.
Please be assured that we have the highest regard and respect for all members of the profession and would never use such a disparaging term to refer to any of our colleagues.
Regards.
Will the proposed Regulations be gazetted in time to take effect January 2013? If this is so, I pray that a full list of (a) accredited CLPD Programmes, (b) dates and times of such Programmes, (c) cost of such Programmes, (d) activities to be covered by such Programmes will be published in sufficient time to permit us to plan our schedules and budgets to ensure we meet the 16 credits before the end of December 2013.
Thank you John. The Council has the matters which you have highlighted under consideration . I can assure you that those matters will be dealt with in a timely manner.
Thanks for that clarification. Given that the circumstances are as you explained, there should not be any real difficulty- albeit continued discussions on the specifics may still be warranted over time.
When will there be more specifics as to costs, how many credits will the particular course/ option that the Attorney chooses, a schedule at the beginning of the year as to course offerings will be vital to allow Attorneys to plan ahead . Many jurisdictions allow theses credits to be attained via video/ cd media as well as webinars. has this been explored?
Will an Attorney have a range of credit courses to choose from that are, say, relevant to his/ her area of practice? This all long overdue and welcome but we need specifics.
I will have to revert to you on the issue of cost. It is contemplated that there will be several providers and so the costs will vary depending on the activity. Reg 2 provides an extensive range of options which includes webinars etc. The Attorney therefore can choose the area for obtaining credits. The only mandatory requirement for Attorney enrolled prior to October 2012 is four credits in ethics.
Thanks very much for your response and I await developments as they arise.
It is presumed that by virtue of Regulation 4, attorneys (outside of those who are called in 2012 and thereafter) will not be restricted to the subject areas outlined in Regulation 3. What I would like to determine, however, is if there is any likelihood that the CLPD courses that will be thereafter approved by the Committee would be restricted to similar subject areas, or would they cover a much wider base. I say this since I want to verify if the purpose of the Regulations is to provide a “refresher” of the concepts that must guide the work of attorneys, or if the intention is to improve the general training and qualifications of attorneys. If it is the latter, I dont believe any attorney would have a general difficulty with same.
Regardless, my major concerns echo the concerns that have already been raised. One is the issue of cost, since, if the individual attorney is required to pay for the CLPD course, doing so every year may prove quite onerous for some of us. Additionally, being legally required to attend these courses every year may be quite onerous in and of itself, given the tremendous demands on our time due to our work. I personally believe that the period should be increased, perhaps every 3-5 years to do a course (especially if the courses approved from hereon are restricted to subject matters we are being refreshed on).
Thank you for commenting. The only mandatory course for Attorneys admitted prior to October 2012 is Ethics. The Attorney can undertake a wide range of activities to obtain the other eight credits. We hope that there will be varied and interesting seminars held all over the Island and have already placed advertisements in the newspapers to recruit a Director for CLPD
1. I am fully in support of continuing legal education, which has been a long time in coming. However I am disappointed that these regulations have apparently passed the bill stage of parliament, and comments from Attorneys are only now invited. 2. I think that there need to be some definition of what constitutes a “credit”. I think that in academic institutions it is usually defined in terms of “x” teaching hours or class room time. While this is not appropriate in our case, I think that there should be some guideline ( eg, approximately 5 hours research time). This would also assist persons submitting work for assessment by the Accreditation Committee to appreciate how many credits are likely to be awarded for a given activity. 3. For litigation Attorneys, submissions especially those prepared for Court of Appeal or Privy Council, should be considered as an appropriate “activity”. 4. The Committee will need to develop an appropriate list of available courses or activities which would enable an Attorney to attain the requisite credits during the course of the year. An Attorney should eg be able to plan from January of a given year, that he will attend one seminar, do a special course in ethics, tutor law students – in order to achieve his required quota of credits for the year. 5. In all of this, I do not see any provision as to how this programme is to be paid for. Is it intended that there will be an increase in practising certificate fees, and if so , by how much?
Carol, the Regulations have not yet been gazetted and we have invited the comments on this draft to get feedback from the profession before we do so. I will pass on your comments to the Committee and provide feedback after we have analyzed all the responses.
Thank you
This is an extremely welcome and long overdue move. There only two things a lawyer sells…his time and his knowledge. Thus, if he does no more since leaving law school say, for the last 5, 10, 15 years then, frankly, he is selling ‘stale goods’, i.e., the 15 year old acquired knowledge. That said, however, there is no need to re-invent the wheel. CPD/CLE/CLPD (whatever it is called) has long been a feature of the legal profession landscape in Europe, The UK, and North America. I am incredulously horrified at the the resistance that this has met with from the legal profession since it was advanced approximately 10 years ago. What needs to be done, is to take a flexible approach as the aim in the increase in intellectual/practical knowledge. Thus, for example, if a lawyer is say, dual qualified, any requirements met with in his other jurisdiction could go towards credits (for example how this is done in New York). Equally, for persons who teach, given the preparation and delivery time, that could also account for credit (which is similarly done in the UK). Some extremely good points have already been made.
One of the activities identified is teaching legal course. The activity has to be approved or accredited by the Accreditation Committee. Itnis also contemplated that credits can be earned from activities outside the jurisdiction
Thank you for your support
1- Credits should be awarded in such a way that one (1) hour spent in any “activity” is equal to no less than one (1) credit. Therefore, to fulfil the 12 CLPD credit requirement, it should take no more than 12 hours of activity.
The goal of CLPD must be to build on a solid foundation, not to build the foundation itself. If more than 12 hours per year is needed then it moves into building the foundation, which is the task of the Norman Manley Law School.
Additionally, our profession is very demanding of our time, and we already have precious little to spend with our families. You’d probably build better attorneys if we trained to have a better work/life balance.
2- Activities must be scheduled in such a way to allow Sabbath keepers (those who worship on Saturday) to have adequate options to choose from to fulfil the requirements. It is too often taken for granted that Saturday is an acceptable day for extra work, for many of us – it is not.
3- The cost of these activities (including transport costs) should not be prohibitive to those new to the profession. There are those fresh out law school being started on salaries as little as $90,000p/m, and the vast majority of new attorneys will not take home more than 130,000p/m in their first year or two of practice.
Of course they would be expected to save towards attending, however, with student loan repayments, and the other necessary costs to survive, activities must be priced at $2000 or less per credit for them. Staggered pricing should be implemented, or, make it free for those at the bar less than three (3) years.
Thank you for your very helpful observations which in many instances capture the views of the Committee
I am new to the profession and your comment that the course should charge $2,000 or less per credit is alarming. I can not afford to pay $96,000 for CLE’s 16 credits. This would be more than my salary. Plus I may be expected to find money to pay for accomodations, transportation, etc. It is most alarmingly since I borrowed money to study LOMAT and Ethics at Law School only to be told that my year group is being singled out to re-do ethics and LOMAT for the next three years. Why did the CLPD not force all young attorneys under three years to do this course. Attorneys who graduate in 2011 did not learn more ethics and LOMAT than my batch. The requirement for 4 extra credits (4 more hours) is discriminatory and should be abandoned. We urge that the committee re-think the requirement or provide exemptions to people who wont be practicing on their own or who are in the Government’s employ.
The Committee has a duty to provide CLPD programmes “at reasonable times and places”. What is the criteria for determining the “reasonable times and places”? Will attorneys as stakeholders be given a voice in determining the “reasonable times and places”?
Location of the venue, type of venue, day of worship etc. are important factors to take into consideration in the determination of the “times and places”.
The proposed Regulations do not appear to address the duty to give timely and effective notification of the CLPD programme.
What about the cost of these programmes? How will that be determined so the the cost of obtaining the required credits is fair and reasonable and does not become a strain in terms of travel costs, participation fee, meals, accommodation as the case may be?
Will there be a duty to repeat the CLPD programmes at a different time and place to capture optimum attendance?
It is hoped that these issues will be addressed adequately by the Regulations or administratively by the Committee duly empowered to do so and ofcourse in consultation with attorneys as stakeholders.
We are taking steps to ensure that activities are organized and arranged to allow island wide access and the administrative framework will be in place to ensure this. We intend to give notice of a full programme of activities which will satisfy the mandatory requirements.
If this is going to be strictly applied there should be an annual publication of the programmes and dates. This will allow persons to make the necessary arrangements to be present. The alternative will result in inconvenience to individuals as well as persons may be unable to attend because of inadequate notice.
Thank you for your comments. We do intend to notify the profession of the details of the programme well in advance.
Please consider exempting attorneys resident abroad or accepting CLEs that they must complete relevant to the jurisdiction or county in which they reside.Some kind of formula to accomodate attorneys members of the Jamaican Bar resident and practicing in other countries who are dually licensed would ease the burden of satisfying the requirements to comply with the regulations.
An Attorney may apply to the Committee for exemption of a prescribed number of credits on grounds which include working overseas.
Whilst I am totally in favour of continuing legal education the draft rules appear far too stringent in terms of the number of credits which will be required per year, the requirement for the Attorney to keep a record of credits earned “for presentation on request”, the classification of failure to fulfill the credit requirements or any breach of these regulations as “misconduct in a professional respect”.
The draft regulations beg the question of what is the ultimate objective of this programme? If it is intended to enable us to serve our clients more efficiently and effectively, i do not believe this will be accomplished by the requirements as currently stated. Time constraints on us as professionals particularly those practicing in the several Courts of this land as well as the very nature of our job which requires that we keep abreast of changes in law and practice, must be borne in mind when contemplating a framework for mandatory continuing legal education.
Thank you for your comments. I will pass them on to the Committee for consideration.
Please consider exempting attorneys resident overseas from the CPLD requirements as this would cause unnecessary hassles.
Thank you for taking the time to comment. Please see Reg 13(1)
Why is this really necessary? The GLC already has extensive oversight for ensuring that the breach of the already numerous laws and regulations are averted and addressed. I’m also curious as to whether these “courses” will attract a cost because it is an unnecessary expense and one for such some will not be able to afford. I also hope that these courses will be held on days where they will be accessible to all Attorneys, because Saturdays and Sundays are out of the question for many.
How long are these courses and activities? Most Attorneys have time constraints and if these activities are long and repeated, they will impinge on normal practice.
Are Attorneys who work for the government included? and if not, why not?
A suggestion would be to revamp th current CLEs which tend to be generally underwhelming and focused towards esoteric topics that don’t have much practical applicability for the general practitioner. In my opinion this is because of the sluggish rate at which legislation is passed in Jamaica and the law actually changes. It is also due to the poor law reporting of judgments in Jamaica.
There should also be explicit provisions for government attorneys to be involved in the proposed Committee as they would have a heads up in the policy direction and drafting instructions and are likely to be able to give a deeper practical perspective on proposed legislative changes.
The regulations should also incentivize the preparation of papers and active participation in then organizing of the CLEs. The means of verification of attendance at the CLEs must also be improved in the regulations to ensure that dishonest persons do not sign for other persons when the seminars are held.
I would suggest that you remove the exemption provision or it be amended to put in place an explicit timeline for a written response from the Committee as otherwise an attorney may have his response dragged out due to the delay of the committee responding within a reasonable time.
Thank you for your very relevant comments . I shall pass them on to the Committee for consideration