Lawyers Object to Continuing Classes : Attorneys: More than 100,000 in state must take courses or lose the right to practice. Critics find some subjects and locations, such as cruise ships, inappropriate.

Amid some controversy, more than 100,000 California attorneys are being required to go back to school to learn more about law or lose their right to practice.

While most classes are being held in ordinary meeting rooms, critics are raising questions about courses being staged at ski resorts, desert spas or on cruise ships.

And although most classes will focus on traditional topics such as tax and securities law, others will take up drug abuse, sexual-orientation bias or how to act in front of a jury--subjects some lawyers doubt should be included in the program.

This month, the State Bar launched a massive, mandatory continuing legal education program for practicing lawyers, requiring 36 hours of courses over a three-year period. Over 600 providers--law firms, legal groups and individual specialists--have been authorized to offer classes expected to generate tens of millions of dollars in course fees and book and tape sales.

While 36 other states also maintain such programs, California’s is unique in size and scope. About one-fifth of the nation’s lawyers reside in the state--and, except for those exempt from the program, all will be required to take courses on substance abuse, ethics and discrimination in the legal system.

“Everyone recognizes that continuing education is essential to the maintenance of the skills of a lawyer,” said Edward E. Kallgren of San Francisco, a member of the State Bar’s committee on continuing education. “This sets a minimum floor of competence for all attorneys.”

But critics, while endorsing the concept of mandatory education, are raising an array of complaints and concerns. They worry that the Bar is not adequately screening courses and providers--and question the motives of attorneys lured by some of the advertisements that fill the legal press. One ad offers courses during cruises to Canada (“Cruisin’ for Credit”), while another offers acting classes for lawyers (“Enhance Your Communications Skills”).

“The idea behind the program may be good,” said Kay Ostberg, director of HALT, a Washington-based legal consumer rights group. “But if lawyers are not sincerely interested in educating themselves, they are going to fulfill this new requirement in a meaningless and self-serving way.”

A lawsuit has been filed in Alameda County challenging the mandatory bias and drug abuse courses as an unconstitutional attempt to impose ideological views on unwilling participants.

“The Bar is always coming out with these things to improve the image of attorneys,” said Mark D. Greenberg, one of three Berkeley lawyers who filed the lawsuit. “It shouldn’t be concerned with political issues. These courses strike us as ‘re-education camps’ for lawyers.”

The suit also challenges the exemption of federal and state officials, law professors and retired judges. Greenberg said: “They exempted just those who could grouse about the program and were strong enough to make their grouses heard.”

Voluntary continuing education courses have long been offered to California lawyers. In 1989, the Legislature, seeking to bolster lawyer competence, passed a law requiring the Bar to draft a mandatory program. The state Supreme Court approved the program in December, 1990.

Lawyers must take 10 hours on legal ethics, law practice management, substance abuse, emotional distress and the elimination of discrimination in its many facets--bias based on sex, color, race, religion, ancestry, national origin, physical disability, age or sexual orientation.

Attorneys are free to choose the subjects for their remaining 26 hours of courses, and many are expected to concentrate on their specialty of law. Up to half of the required hours may be attained through self-study, such as watching videotapes on legal subjects or publishing articles.

Providers must be approved by the Bar and courses must have “significant” intellectual or practical content. Lawyers will be expected to certify--under penalty of perjury--that they have taken the required hours. The program took effect Feb. 1, but courses taken since Sept. 1 can be counted.

Responding to critics, program providers say their courses will help lawyers increase their knowledge and skills--all to the benefit of their clients. They see nothing wrong with holding class on a cruise ship or applying the methods of the acting profession to the legal profession. It is in the lawyer’s interest to make the most of the classes, they say, and the marketplace will eliminate valueless courses.

“Doctors have done this sort of thing for years, and airline pilots have to take refresher classes to keep up with new equipment,” said Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert M. Mallano, who this summer will be on a cruise ship teaching a course on the county’s successful trial-delay reduction plan. “This program’s a good idea.”

Judith Bohannon, an actress and onetime legal secretary who operates The Lawyer Act in North Hollywood, stands by the value of the acting class she and fellow actress Madonna Magee are offering attorneys. With the aid of Bohannon and Magee, lawyers are working on their opening and closing statements to juries and viewing videotapes of courtroom presentations in other cases--such as the William Kennedy Smith trial.

“You’re not going to come out being George C. Scott, but the hope is we will enhance your performance,” said Bohannon. “I’m amazed that law schools don’t teach this kind of thing.”

Defenders of the bias and drug abuse courses argue that many lawyers might remain unaware of such problems if the classes are not mandatory.

Maria Gil de Lamadrid, staff counsel for the Center for Lesbian Rights, is participating in panels in San Francisco, outlining anti-discrimination laws and urging firms to pay more attention to gay and lesbian employees. She urges that when firms draw up “spouse lists” for social events, they note that employees may bring same-sex partners.

“The Bar has a responsibility to ensure not only that lawyers are well-versed in the law, but abide by certain (anti-discrimination) standards as well,” she said.

While there apparently is little opposition to the idea of mandatory courses, critics voice doubts about their effectiveness.

Richard H. Lubetzky of Los Angeles, head of the legal reform group CalJustice, sees “major weaknesses” in the program. In one course, he said, lawyers were handed certificates before the class began. And, he added, there is little way to verify that an attorney has watched a legal videotape at home.

Lubetzky also is skeptical of classes--such as Acting for Attorneys--that may not have much to do with improving legal professionalism. “The Bar really needs to scrutinize the quality of these programs before putting a rubber stamp on them,” he said.

Other critics say that while continuing education is laudable, the profession should be improving access of consumers to the legal system, such as by allowing trained non-lawyers to provide certain less-costly basic services.

Martin D. Omoto, legislative director of the Sacramento-based California Coalition for Legal Access, called the requirements “essentially a farce.”

“No one should be convinced that (the program) maintains, promotes or tests the competency of attorneys,” said Omoto. “The public is in no way protected.”