Virginia Live CLE Bundle 2021

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, January 13, 2026
Tuesday, January 20, 2026
Tuesday, January 27, 2026
Tuesday, February 3, 2026
Tuesday, February 10, 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, January 13, 2026
Tuesday, January 20, 2026
Tuesday, January 27, 2026
Tuesday, February 3, 2026
Tuesday, February 10, 2026

In an era of rapid technological advancement, the practice of law is undergoing a profound transformation. This course is designed to equip attorneys with the practical skills and knowledge necessary to navigate this new landscape effectively. By focusing on real-world problem-solving and integrating cutting-edge AI tools, this program will empower attorneys to enhance their efficiency, deliver greater value to their clients, and stay ahead of the curve in a competitive legal market.

Attorneys should attend this program to become better equipped to address their clients’ needs when problem-solving, while saving time and creating happier clients. Attendees will gain confidence in their interactions with clients and the ability to bring meaningful resolution to matters. This program will also teach attendees how to leverage AI for legal research, case analysis, document review, and strategic planning. Attorneys will also learn actionable techniques and tips on the practical application of AI in their daily practice.

Attendees will gain a comprehensive understanding of modern problem-solving methodologies, with an emphasis on the practical application of artificial intelligence in legal practice. Participants will learn how to leverage AI for legal research, case analysis, document review, and strategic planning. Actionable techniques and tips on the practical application of AI in daily practice will be discussed.

This program is designed for attorneys at all stages of their careers, from newly admitted lawyers seeking to build a strong foundation to seasoned practitioners looking to update their skills. Whether a solo practitioner, in-house counsel, or part of a large firm, the principles and techniques taught in this course will be immediately applicable to an attorney’s daily practice. This program is particularly appropriate for those wanting to inject some creativity into (or re-invigorate) their approach to problem solving, and is intended for newer attorneys or experienced attorneys who may be new to transactional or in-house work.

Learning Objectives:

1. Define and analyze the basics of solving any problem.
2. Identify and apply a systematic framework for solving complex legal problems.
3. Implement a framework for success in one’s legal practice.
4. Identify, size up, and resolve the matter at hand.
5. Foster more positive interactions with clients while resolving legal matters effectively and efficiently.
6. Evaluate the steps and considerations when doing intake of new legal issues.
7. Navigate the landscape of AI tools available to legal professionals.
8. Utilize AI-powered platforms for efficient and comprehensive legal research and analysis, streamline document review, identify key information, and assess case strengths and weaknesses.
9. Develop strategies for integrating AI into legal practice to enhance productivity and client outcomes.

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:

Tuesday, February 3, 2026
Tuesday, March 31, 2026
Tuesday, April 28, 2026
Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Tuesday, June 23, 2026

This program will refresh knowledge of the evolution of the legal profession, legal ethics standards, civil liability standards, and modes of enforcement of such standards, all of which make the legal profession uniquely distinguishable from all other professions or occupations.

Attendees will learn (or be reminded of) the extent to which) legal-ethics standards gradually changed from being case-law-based to a uniform state-by-state set of "canons" and then uniform state-by-state codes, which gradually lost uniformity among the states. This program will also discuss the least-uniform standards in the form of the current set of Rules of Professional Conduct.

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. 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. This program employs 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 designed for any attorney desiring to learn, or reacquire an in-depth understanding of what makes the legal profession uniquely vital to democracy, which is designed to protect liberty writ large.

Learning Objectives:

1. Refresh what should be every lawyer's common knowledge of unique aspects of our profession in contrast to all other professions, occupations, etc.: It's the effect of our 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. Evaluate how the interpretation and enforcement of legal ethics standards have become more dynamic, making it vital for lawyers to not only keep abreast of changes in the law in their fields of practice but also changes in the ethical regulation of our profession.
3. Explore how the judiciary generally encourages lawyers to participate actively in the regulatory control over our profession and the conduct of lawyers individually. Therefore, each of us as a lawyer 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 to maximize one's objectivity in the process of seeking a thorough analysis of all relevant and material facts, issues, and laws in determining how to solve an ethics problem or dilemma.
5. Evaluate intrinsic conflicts between "justice" (or what's "morally right") on the one hand and our ethical duties on the other, and then analyze them to determine when we must, or sometimes must not, implement an ethically correct solution that is a polar opposite of "justice." 
6. Analyze the best way to prevent self-interest in desiring to avoid damage to the legal professional's standing in solving an ethics problem, and an attorney’s professional responsibility to derive an ethically proper solution.

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:

Wednesday, January 14, 2026
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
Wednesday, January 28, 2026
Wednesday, February 4, 2026
Wednesday, February 11, 2026