Jump To

Top Caption Summary Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Oct. 2, 2025 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In Re: Commission on Continuing Legal Education

Mississippi Supreme Court

• Citations: None known

• Docket Number: 89-R-99011-SCT

• Opinion

• Authorities (0)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (10K)

• PDF

Summary

In Re: Commission on Continuing Legal Education; Disposition: The Expedited Petition to Amend the Rules and Regulations for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education and the Amended Expedited Petition to Amend the Rules and Regulations for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education filed by the Mississippi Commission on Continuing Legal Education are hereby granted as set forth in Exhibit A. The amendment is effective immediately. Agree: Randolph, C.J., King and Coleman, P.JJ., Maxwell, Chamberlin, Ishee, Sullivan and Branning, JJ. Disagrees: Griffis, J. Coleman, P.J., Agreeing with the Order with Separate Written Statement Joined by Randolph, C.J., King, P.J., Maxwell, Chamberlin, Ishee, Sullivan and Branning. JJ. Griffis, J., Objecting to the Order with Separate Written Statement. Order entered 9/23/25.

Combined Opinion

Serial: 258407
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI FILED
No. 89-R-99011-SCT SEP 2 3 2025
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
SUPREME COURT
COURT OF APPEALS
IN RE: COMMISSION ON CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

EN BANC ORDER

Before the Court are the Expedited Petition to Amend the Rules and Regulations for

Mandatory Continuing Legal Education and the Amended Expedited Petition to Amend the

Rules and Regulations for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education filed by the Mississippi

Commission on Continuing Legal Education. After due consideration, the Court finds the

petitions should be granted and the rules shall be amended as set forth in Exhibit A.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Expedited Petition to Amend the Rules and

Regulations for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education and the Amended Expedited Petition

to Amend the Rules and Regulations for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education are hereby

granted as set forth in Exhibit A. The amendment is effective immediately.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall spread this Order

upon the minutes of the Court and shall forward a true copy hereof to West Publishing

Company for publication in the next edition of the Mississippi Rules of Court and in the

Southern Reporter, Third Series (Mississippi Edition).

SO ORDERED, this th~ :,~ay of Septemb

ED. KING, PRESIDING JUSTICE

AGREE: RANDOLPH, C.J., KING AND COLEMAN, P.JJ., MAXWELL,
CHAMBERLIN, ISHEE, SULLIVAN AND BRANNING, JJ.

DISAGREES: GRIFFIS, J.

COLEMAN, P.J., AGREEING WITH THE ORDER WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN
STATEMENT, JOINED BY RANDOLPH, C.J., KING, P.J., MAXWELL,
CHAMBERLIN, ISHEE, SULLIVAN AND BRANNING, JJ.

GRIFFIS, J., OBJECTING TO THE ORDER WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN
STATEMENT.

2
EXHIBIT A

RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL
EDUCATION

Rule 1. Continuing Legal Education Commission

d. Financing:

1. Sponsors seeking application to hold CLE programs
   and/or courses that charge Mississippi attorneys a fee to
   attend shall pay a $50.00 fee per course, once said course
   is approved, as a condition of accreditation. This fee
   shall not apply to any sponsor who offers free CLE
   course hours to its attendees.

2. Sponsors of CLE programs to be held within the State of
   Mississippi shall, as a condition of accreditation, agree to
   remit a list of Mississippi attendees and to pay a fee of
   two dollars ($2.00) per credit hour for each State Bar
   member who attends the program and is subject to
   mandatory continuing legal education. Such lists and
   fees shall be submitted to the Commission within thirty
   (30) days of said program.

3. Individual attorneys who either attend approved CLE
   programs outside the State of Mississippi, or attend
   unapproved CLE programs within the State of
   Mississippi that would have been approved for credit
   except for failure of the sponsor to pay the fee described
   in the preceding paragraph, shall pay a fee of two dollars
   ($2.00) for each credit hour claimed. Such fees shall
   accompany the attorney's annual report of compliance to
   the Commission.

3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 89-R-99011-SCT

In Re: Commission on Continuing Legal
Education

COLEMAN, PRESIDING JUSTICE, AGREEING WITH THE ORDER WITH
SEPARA TE WRITTEN STATEMENT:

in. In his separate written statement objecting to the order, Justice Griffis accuses his

other eight colleagues, all of whom have voted to agree with the order, of acting without

sufficient supporting financial information from the Commission regarding why it needs the

increased revenue or what it plans to do with the revenue.

,i2. In its Amended Expedited Petition to Amend the Rules and Regulations for

Mandatory Continuing Legal Education, the Commission represents to the Court that it

intends to use the newly generated funds to help pay the salaries of an administrator, an

assistant, and a part-time assistant. The Commission provides the Court with a line-item

estimate of the costs of each position. The Commission also represents to the Court that it

intends to defray the costs of IT support for the Commission's work and provides an

estimated cost for that as well.

,i3. In short, the Commission, in my view, has provided sufficient information to show

the Court it has a plan to address the ''turmoil and upheaval" of which it writes in its petition.

RANDOLPH, C.J., KING, P.J., MAXWELL, CHAMBERLIN, ISHEE,
SULLIVAN AND BRANNING, JJ., JOIN THIS SEPARATE WRITTEN
STATEMENT.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 89-R-99011-SCT

In Re: Commission on Continuing Legal
Education

GRIFFIS, JUSTICE, OBJECTING TO THE ORDER WITH SEPARATE
WRITTEN STATEMENT:

1. The Commission on Continuing Legal Education has filed three Petitions to Amend

Rule 1(d) of the Rules and Regulations for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education.

1. The first Petition, Petition 1, sought to increase the fee per credit hour from $2.00 to

$3 .00, a 50 percent increase. In Petition 1, the Commission presented this Court with no

supporting financial documentation, no projection of the additional revenue to be generated,

and no projection of planned increased expenditures. Despite the lack of supporting

information, the Commission asked this Court to approve a 50 percent revenue increase with

little to no explanation as to how the new revenue would be spent.

1. The second petition, Petition 2, was filed on June 5, 2025. In Petition 2, the

Commission advised the Court that, in February 2025, the Commission instituted a new $50

application fee for any CLE course in Mississippi. As a result, the Commission collected

more than $11,000 in application fees that were not authorized by the Rules and Regulations

for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (CLE Rules) and were not approved by this

Court. Instead, the Commission instituted this fee on its own and did not provide this Court's

Committee on the Legal Profession with notice of any proposed changes to the CLE Rules.
14. In Petition 2, the Commission apologized for implementing this fee without this

Court's prior approval. The Commission also stated that it was committed to seek this

Court's approval before any further fee increase occurs. In essence, the Commission has

confirmed that it will now follow the law. But the Commission does not commit to refund

the more than $11,000 that it illegally collected.

1. Petition 2 asked this Court to approve the $50 application fee. Based on last year's

numbers, the executive director of the Administrative Office of the Courts has estimated that

this new fee will generate additional revenue of$240,900. Yet, once again, the Court does

not have adequate financial information to approve this request. The financial information

submitted by AOC does not explain why the Commission needs an additional $250,000 in

revenue, a substantial amount more than its existing legislatively approved budget, and what

it plans do with this new fee.

1. The only reason given for this significant increase in revenue is the statement that the

Commission has been in "a time of turmoil and upheaval." (Emphasis added.) But this

Court has received no report or information as to this "turmoil and upheaval" and no plan for

the future operation of the Commission. Despite this lack of information or explanation, this

Court has not received adequate information as to how doubling the Commission's budget

is now necessary to complete its assigned responsibility.

1. Then, on July 2, 2025, the Commission filed an Amended Expedited Petition to

Amend the Rules and Regulations for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education, Petition 3.

2
Petition 3 again asked this Court to add the following language to Rule 1(d) in the CLE

Rules:

d. Financing

1. Sponsors seeking application to hold CLE programs and/or courses that
   

   charge Mississippi attorneys a fee to attend shall pay a $50.00 fee per course, once said
   course is approved, as a condition of accreditation. This fee shall not apply to any sponsor
   who offers free CLE course hours to its attendees.

2.  This Court's approval of this Petition and the change to Rule l(d) creates a conflict
   

in the CLE Rules. Petition 3 is premised on the Commission's receiving application fees

from at least three thousand CLE sponsors. But Rule 4, Regulation 4.14 lists a voluminous

number of CLE vendors, and Regulation 4.14 provides that the listed vendors' events are

"presumptively approved for credit." This Rule change does not state whether these vendors

who are "presumptively approved for credit" must also pay the $50 application fee required

by Rule 1(d). If a listed CLE vendor is "presumptively approved for credit" under

Regulation 4.17, there is no reason for the "presumptively approved" vendors to file an

application or pay the $50 application fee. Instead, they will simply let the attendees pay the

$2 per hour fee under current Rule 1(d)(2), proposed Rule 1(d)(3 ). This should be clarified.

1. Indeed, this Court and the Commission are aware that other Rules changes need to be

made if this Petition is granted. Yet the Commission has not finalized those Rules changes

for submission to this Court. I object to this order on the grounds that the Rules changes

need to be finalized and need to be part of a comprehensive plan presented to the Court and

3
the Committee on the Legal Profession before we agree to double the revenue of the

Commission.

4