82,891
edits
Continuing professional development: Difference between revisions
Continuing professional development (view source)
Revision as of 07:57, 28 August 2021
, 28 August 2021no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a| | {{a|work|[[File:CPD.jpg|450px|thumb|center|“And that’s not all. Another thing that will, like, totally ''blow your mind'' about Phase 3 regulatory margin is that the threshh...”]] | ||
}}The case, ''par excellence'' of the [[box-ticking]] culture than modern risk management has become. | }}''New feature: The JC’s guide to [[how to present a law firm seminar]]''<br> | ||
===As [[box-ticking]]=== | |||
The case, ''par excellence'' of the [[box-ticking]] culture than modern risk management has become. | |||
Once upon a time, somewhere, someone in a self-regulating professional trade body for attorneys confected a worry that the daily practice of one’s professional calling might not be enough to keep that member’s edge suitably whetted. The suffocating drudgery that is your average [[Mediocre lawyer|attorney]]’s daily existence would, without intervention, render her stale, out-of-touch or dangerously unlearned in the ways of {{sex|her}} calling. | Once upon a time, somewhere, someone in a self-regulating professional trade body for attorneys confected a worry that the daily practice of one’s professional calling might not be enough to keep that member’s edge suitably whetted. The suffocating drudgery that is your average [[Mediocre lawyer|attorney]]’s daily existence would, without intervention, render her stale, out-of-touch or dangerously unlearned in the ways of {{sex|her}} calling. | ||
| Line 26: | Line 29: | ||
A small one, we humbly submit. | A small one, we humbly submit. | ||
===As punishment=== | |||
The tide may be ebbing on the golden era of continuing professional education, but activist courts are always open to finding novel uses for it. | |||
None more creative than that found by District Judge Linda Parker, who recently ordered Republican Party attorneys to undergo it as a sanction for “a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process” when dismissing their vexatious claims of electoral fraud during the 2020 presidential election.<ref>[https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.350905/gov.uscourts.mied.350905.172.0_3.pdf ''King v. Whitmer judgment transcript]</ref> | |||
It is interesting to contemplate the theory of justice at work here. It can hardly be restorative or distributive, nor corrective — it axiomatic that one leaves a CPD session no wiser than when one entered it — so we conclude it was motivated by the desire to mete out ''punishment''. | |||
But ''twelve hours'' of it? And it might be more even than that: there were multiple charges; the sanction applies to each; the judgment does not state whether they are to be served concurrently or consecutively. Since one of the other sanctions is a reference to local professional regulators with a view to outright disbarment — following which, updated knowledge of procedural minutiae is utterly pointless, however thinly imparted —whatever your view of the constitutional impact of the plaintiffs’ behaviour, this is surely cruel and unusual punishment. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Computer-based training]] | *[[Computer-based training]] | ||
*[[Client alert]] | |||
{{draft}} | {{draft}} | ||
{{ | {{Ref}} | ||