Virginia Live CLE Bundle 2021

Probate horror stories aren’t just dramatic tales; they are real-life legal disasters with serious consequences. From rogue executors to ambiguous wills and family conflicts fueled by careless drafting, probate missteps can lead to costly delays, emotional turmoil, and prolonged litigation. Attorneys must take a proactive approach to minimize these risks and protect their clients' interests.

This program explores how probate proceedings can unravel and how effective, strategic drafting can prevent chaos before it begins. Through analysis of real-world cases where probate went awry, attendees will gain actionable insights and practical tools to strengthen their estate planning and drafting techniques.

Designed for both attorneys new to estate practice and seasoned professionals looking to refine their approach, this seminar offers essential strategies to navigate the complexities of wills, trusts, and probate with confidence.

Learning Objectives:

1. Identify common legal issues that arise when probate is mismanaged or poorly planned.
2. Discuss real-life cases of probate litigation to understand causative drafting errors.
3. Become familiar with drafting strategies to mitigate fiduciary risk and prevent family disputes.
4. Evaluate using clear and enforceable language in wills and trusts to reduce the likelihood of court intervention.
5. Recognize warning signs of potential future litigation during the estate planning phase.
6. Review legal ethics, specifically those related to wills and estates.

Course Time Schedule:

Eastern Time: 6:30 PM - 8:30 PM
Central Time: 5:30 PM - 7:30 PM
Mountain Time: 4:30 PM - 6:30 PM
Pacific Time: 3:30 PM - 5:30 PM
Alaska Time: 2:30 PM - 4:30 PM
Hawaii-Aleutian Time: 1:30 PM - 3:30 PM

This course is also being presented on the following dates:

Tuesday, April 21, 2026
Tuesday, May 19, 2026
Tuesday, June 9, 2026
Tuesday, June 23, 2026
Tuesday, July 21, 2026

One of the two broad topics this seminar focuses on is Model Rule 8.4, which prohibits lawyers and law firms from engaging in invidious sexual discrimination. The other is sexual activity within the attorney-client relationship. Regarding the former, every lawyer ought to want to stay abreast of issues or standards involving sexual discrimination within the profession. Regarding the latter, even though most lawyers would say, "I'd never even consider, much less engage in, sexual activity with a client, so why should I take a seminar titled 'Sexual Ethical Issues'"? The ethically responsible answer would be "Even though you're certain you'd never engage In sexual activity with a client -- and thus have no need to learn about the 'ethics' or lack thereof with respect thereto, your ordinary, behavior, conduct or attitude may be construed by others as manifesting sexual overtures and, as a lawyer, you ought to be interested in knowing whether your profession is responsibly regulating sexual activity on the part of lawyers within their attorney-client relationships.”

The anti-discriminatory, anti-harassment aspect of the seminar focuses on ABA Model Rule 8.4 (or equivalent state-supreme-court rules), which defines "misconduct" as any conduct evincing "harassment or discrimination based on… sex …, sexual orientation, [or] gender identity." Those rules are relatively uniform from state to state, but of course, their interpretation is generally a state-law issue rather than a federal-law issue. The sexual activity aspect of the seminar focuses on ABA Model Rule 1.8(j) (or equivalent state-supreme-court rules) governing sexual conduct by a lawyer with (or towards) a client. The content of this latter category of Rules varies quite a lot from one state to the next, and several states have declined to adopt a rule specifically regulating sexual "activity."

The format of this program combines the lecture method with the Socratic method, fostering extensive interactive participation and critical analysis of a broad range of issues relevant to the seminar's subject matter. This approach goes beyond merely chronological descriptions of specific topics and subtopics. In other words, the content of each workshop (and the order and extent of emphasis upon particular topics and subtopics) will be substantially influenced by the nature and extent of interactive participation regarding specific aspects thereof. Depending on the number of participants in a particular seminar, the format typically results in most, if not all, participants engaging in conversational-style, interactive discussions and analyses of specific topics during the seminar, and also permits interruptions, questions, challenges, and other contributions throughout the seminar. Think of collegially enjoyable and enlightening round-table discussions. It's a form of learning that involves thinking while interactively participating, rather than learning solely by listening (the latter of which is the lecture method).

This program is designed for any attorney interested in ensuring a more equitable environment free from sexual discrimination.

Learning Objectives:

1. Refresh what should be every lawyer's common knowledge of unique aspects of the legal profession in contrast to all other professions, occupations, etc.: It's the effect of the Constitution's (and each state constitution's) vesting of "the judicial power" of the sovereign in its "Supreme Court" and its thereby incorporation of the evolutionary nature of the judiciary's common law inherent judicial power (i.e., sui generis power) to define, prescribe, and enforce educational, moral, ethical and civil standards for the practice of law and the status of lawyers as officers of the courts.
2. Understand that the supreme court of the sovereign (i.e., the U.S. Supreme Court and each state supreme court) creates structural and functional tools for the administration of justice from common law inherent judicial power (sui generis power) in an adversarial system created under common law, -- i.e., rules of evidence, burdens of proof, procedural rules, and regulatory control over the conduct of attorneys. 
3. Engage actively in the regulatory control over the legal profession generally and the conduct of lawyers individually, as the judiciary typically encourages lawyers to participate. Therefore, each attorney must keep abreast of such disciplinary and regulatory activities and, as much as possible, to actively participate (pro bono, of course) in and support such activities.
4. Explore the types of conduct by a lawyer that would constitute (or that might be construed as) harassment or unlawful discrimination regarding sex, gender, or orientation. Generally, there are not wide variations in the content (or interpretation) of the state-by-state versions of ABA Model Rule 8.4, defining as "misconduct" any conduct evincing "harassment or discrimination based on… sex …, sexual orientation, [or] gender identity."
5. Review types of conduct that would constitute (or that may be construed as) "misconduct" involving sexual activity with or towards a client under ABA Model Rule 1.8(j) or under varying state-by-state versions of such Rule (or in states which have declined to adopt any Rule specifically regulating the subject matter). 
6. Evaluate that any Rule or law governing "sex" and/or "sexual orientation" or "gender" ought to be construed per whatever is the current state of medical knowledge on matters such as "XY" and "XX" chromosomes, does the intrinsically pliable nature of terms such as "orientation" and "gender" thereby somehow render such chromosomal terminology pliable (rather than empirical, scientific descriptions of the biological status of males and females) even though the statistical variations (in XY and XX chromosomes) comprise incredibly tiny percentages of deviations from the norm? So, how should attorneys view deviations from that norm? For example, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, such deviations prohibit different treatment unless it is reasonably warranted in the context of such treatment. For example, the disqualification of a person with a severe peanut allergy from employment requiring proximity to peanuts would not constitute an illegal form of "discrimination." Could the XX or XY status of a lawyer warrant different treatment without such treatment being deemed violative of the Rule 8.4 prohibition against sexual discrimination?

Course Time Schedule:

Eastern Time: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM
Central Time: 3:00 PM - 5:00 PM
Mountain Time: 2:00 PM - 4:00 PM
Pacific Time: 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM
Alaska Time: 12:00 PM - 2:00 PM
Hawaii-Aleutian Time: 11:00 AM - 1:00 PM

This course is also being presented on the following dates:

Tuesday, March 31, 2026
Tuesday, April 7, 2026
Tuesday, April 14, 2026
Tuesday, April 21, 2026
Tuesday, April 28, 2026

Many (if not most or all) lawyers would never take a seminar on "professionalism" unless required to do so by their mandatory CLE requirements.  Why?  James Wrenn, Jr. has been a lawyer since 1972 – long before mandatory CLE, and in those days, the better or best lawyers voluntarily attended three-to-six two-hour CLE seminars every year, most of which were on subjects directly related to their particular field of practice -- i.e., subjects serving their economic interests rather than subjects focusing on broader, generic aspects of good lawyering.  Mr. Wrenn was the representative from the "Young Lawyers Conference" on his state bar's CLE Committee.  (He was against proposals for mandatory CLE.)  Lawyers other than those he deemed the "better or best" tended to attend only one or two CLE seminars, if any, per year.  One of the committee's goals was to increase attendance at high-quality CLE seminars among all lawyers.  This included encouraging the embedding of contextually important ethics issues (including those focusing on broader, generic aspects of good lawyering) in virtually all bar-sponsored CLE seminars (all of which were voluntary rather than mandatory).

Virtually all lawyers agreed that regularly incorporating such ethics issues into seminars improved them, which otherwise focused almost entirely on subjects related to particular fields of practice. This is not meant to imply that before such "embedding," there were never seminars focusing entirely on ethics. Still, they were rare and usually served the purpose of informing lawyers of changes to the Rules governing ethics or procedures for enforcing them.  Although not all jurisdictions mandate CLE courses on "professionalism" (which is one reason attorneys "should attend" this seminar), there are essential good-lawyering and public-interest reasons that lawyers ought to attend this program on "professionalism" because it helps those not already among the "better/best" lawyers to progress into that group of lawyers.

Even though standards for what the CLE-Mandating/Approving Authorities deem to be "Professionalism" are "aspirational" in contrast to the mandatory legal-ethics standards (i.e., the Rules of Professional Conduct), they are nevertheless quite important despite the absence of enforceability in the same way the Rules are.

The format of this program combines the lecture method with the Socratic method, fostering extensive interactive participation and critical analysis of a broad range of issues relevant to the seminar's subject matter. This approach goes beyond merely chronological descriptions of specific topics and subtopics.  In other words, the content of each workshop (and the order and extent of emphasis upon particular topics and subtopics) will be substantially influenced by the nature and extent of interactive participation regarding specific aspects thereof. Depending on the number of participants in a particular seminar, the format typically results in most, if not all, participants engaging in conversational-style, interactive discussions and analyses of specific topics during the seminar, and also permits interruptions, questions, challenges, and other contributions throughout the seminar. Think of collegially enjoyable and enlightening round-table discussions.  It's a form of learning that involves thinking while interactively participating, rather than learning solely by listening (the latter of which is the lecture method).

This course is suitable for attorneys with any level of experience who are interested in professionalism and legal ethics. Even a lawyer deeming "professionalism" standards to be idealistic notions resting on a presumption that lawyers (and judges) are snowflakes easily melted by the heat of the adversarial system, absent what advocates of "professionalism" deem to be the cooling effects of civility, courtesy, collegiality, clarity, cooperativeness, and circumspection, is encouraged to attend.

Learning Objectives:

1. Refresh lawyer's common knowledge of unique aspects of the legal profession in contrast to all other professions, occupations, etc.:  It's the effect of the Constitution's (and each state constitution's) vesting of "the judicial power" of the sovereign in its "Supreme Court"  and its thereby incorporation of the evolutionary nature of the judiciary's common law inherent judicial power (i.e., sui generis power) to define, prescribe, and enforce educational, moral, ethical and civil standards for the practice of law and the status of lawyers as officers of the courts.
2. Explore how exercising such common law inherent judicial power (sui generis power) in an adversarial system created under common law, the supreme court of the sovereign (i.e., the U.S. Supreme Court and each state supreme court) creates structural and functional tools for the administration of justice -- i.e.,  rules of evidence, burdens of proof, procedural rules, and regulatory control over the conduct of attorneys. 
3. Examine how the judiciary generally encourages lawyers to participate actively in the regulatory control over the legal profession and the conduct of lawyers individually.  Therefore, each attorney must keep abreast of such disciplinary and regulatory activities and, as much as possible, actively participate (pro bono, of course) in and support such activities.
4. Assess how and why what CLE authorities describe as "professionalism" is vital as a factor likely to increase, rather than diminish, the public's confidence in the system of justice.
5. Analyze the variety of ways in which a variety of states (but not all states) have formally promulgated rules describing behavioral attributes of conduct by lawyers evincing "professionalism" even though a number of such states have declined to use "professionalism" as the proper description of the mode of behavior – to learn that there's no one-size-fits-all definition of such behavior. 
6. Differentiate among the many duties imposed on lawyers; one of them is to apply critical analysis to all of the legal ethics standards as well as the procedural standards for their enforcement to perhaps motivate legal professionals to try harder to comply, to understand better the "spirit" (rather than merely the "letter") of such standards, and to be willing to serve on Bar committees to study (and potentially propose modifications of) such standards.

Course Time Schedule:

Eastern Time: 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM
Central Time: 12:00 PM - 2:00 PM
Mountain Time: 11:00 AM - 1:00 PM
Pacific Time:  10:00 AM - 12:00 PM
Alaska Time: 9:00 AM - 11:00 AM
Hawaii-Aleutian Time: 8:00 AM - 10:00 AM

This course is also being presented on the following dates:

Tuesday, March 31, 2026
Tuesday, April 7, 2026
Tuesday, April 14, 2026
Tuesday, April 21, 2026
Tuesday, April 28, 2026

Attorneys should attend this course if they want to sharpen their mastery of civil procedure and turn the Federal Rules into powerful tools for advancing plaintiffs’ employment cases. Too often, practitioners overlook the straightforward application of the rules they learned in law school. This course will demonstrate how a disciplined approach to the rules, rather than relying on guesswork or hostility, can ensure that claims are taken seriously and cases progress efficiently toward resolution.

Participants will learn how to strategically apply civil procedure rules from the pleading stage through discovery, motions practice, and settlement. Using real-world case studies, the program will demonstrate how to file effective pleadings, hold defendants accountable for deficient answers, leverage discovery obligations, respond to obstructionist tactics, and use the rules themselves to advance wage-and-hour and discrimination matters.

This program is designed for any plaintiff-side employment attorneys who want to improve case management and maximize results by leveraging procedural rules. It will also benefit newer attorneys seeking to “raise the floor” in litigation practice, as well as experienced practitioners looking to refine strategies against difficult opponents.

Learning Objectives:

1. Recognize how disciplined use of federal civil procedure rules streamlines case advancement and avoids unnecessary conflict.
2. Apply Rules 8, 11, 12, and 15 effectively at the pleading stage to strengthen complaints and hold defendants accountable for deficient answers.
3. Utilize Rules 26 and 37 to enforce discovery obligations, prevent abuse, and move quickly on motions to compel.
4. Develop protective strategies under Rule 26(c) and respond to improper or overbroad defense discovery requests.
5. Translate procedural leverage into practical results at summary judgment, mediation, and settlement negotiations in wage-and-hour and discrimination cases.
6. Explore ways to get courts/judges to take defendants’ conduct or rules violations seriously, such that attorneys can advance or even win their case on that basis.

Course Time Schedule:

Eastern Time: 11:00 AM - 12:30 PM
Central Time: 10:00 AM - 11:30 AM
Mountain Time: 9:00 AM - 10:30 AM
Pacific Time: 8:00 AM - 9:30 AM
Alaska Time: 7:00 AM - 8:30 AM
Hawaii-Aleutian Time: 6:00 AM - 7:30 AM

This course is also being presented on the following dates:

Wednesday, April 29, 2026
Wednesday, May 13, 2026
Wednesday, June 17, 2026
Wednesday, July 22, 2026
Wednesday, August 26, 2026