The mission of the Maricopa County Bar Association is to be the place “Where the Legal Community Connects.” Ideally, that means connecting people with information—and connecting people with people.
After all, the legal profession is built on relationships. We learn from one another, refer cases to one another, challenge one another’s thinking, and—at our best—hold one another accountable to shared professional standards.
Continuing Legal Education (CLE) has long been one of the places where those relationships are formed and reinforced. As CLE has increasingly moved online, access and convenience have improved. At the same time, we have lost that sense of community and learning together. That is especially true when CLE becomes an experience marked by minimal or non-existent participation: muted microphones and black screens – from the presenter’s standpoint, like speaking in an empty auditorium. Not fun or beneficial for anyone.
But CLE has never been solely about information delivery. If that were the goal, statutes, memos, and practice guides would suffice. Instead, CLE has historically served two interconnected purposes: keeping lawyers competent and compliant, and reinforcing professional norms, relationships, and shared expectations.
In-person CLE naturally supported both. Lawyers learned substantive law, but they also chatted during breaks and learned by watching peers ask questions, hearing different perspectives, and engaging in real-time discussion. Those moments—informal and formal—were part of how our profession developed. As CLE moved online, the content largely followed. However, I can attest as a frequent seminar speaker and attendee, the quantity and quality of engagement has declined.
Research confirms what most lawyers already know. Online learning can be effective when it is intentionally designed and actively attended. Too often, CLE is neither. Programs are not necessarily designed for online presentation. Online environments make divided attention easier. Multitasking is more common. Just because of technological limitations, it is just awkward and more difficult to engage in a robust conversation online, especially with a large group. Participation becomes optional rather than expected. Over time, that affects retention, application, and professional development. The issue is not legitimacy—it is effectiveness in serving both purposes of CLE – information delivery and relationship building.
The prevalence of cameras-off CLE has become shorthand for disengagement, but the reality is more nuanced. Visual presence can improve social connection. The real issue is not whether cameras are on, but whether participation is expected at all. When CLE does not invite interaction, it quietly signals that logging in is enough. In reality, it is not enough – if you want to learn and connect. To be effective, presenters must keep this in mind when designing online CLEs.
This matters because Arizona’s legal community is large, diverse, and increasingly specialized. CLE has traditionally been one of the few consistent spaces where lawyers encounter one another in groups. Those encounters are a huge opportunity for collaboration and problem solving. They support referrals, mentoring, and professional trust. When CLE becomes passive and anonymous as it is more likely to become during an online presentation, those benefits diminish and connections weaken—especially for newer lawyers and solo practitioners.
Arizona’s MCLE framework already reflects these concerns by distinguishing interactive CLE from self-study and limiting the latter. The rules do not reject online learning; they recognize that passive consumption is not the same as active education.
Online CLE offers real benefits. It is accessible, efficient, cost-effective, and allows lawyers to learn from a wider range of speakers. However, those benefits must be weighed against the loss of real learning and connection present with in-person CLE.
Possible Norms for Online CLE
Where online CLE is used, it should be used in a way as to promote attention, engagement, and connection:
-
Design online CLE with the expectation of real-time participation
-
Use polls, hypotheticals, and integrated Q&A to encourage engagement
-
Align format with content
-
Treat CLE as professional education, not background activity
-
Require visible participation (cameras on) when feasible
The future of effective CLE should not turn on whether learning happens in a conference room or on a screen. The real issue is whether presenters structure their content accordingly and lawyers are expected—and encouraged—to engage with the material and with one another.
Given its significant benefits, online CLE should continue to play a central role in professional education. But it must be designed and attended in ways that promote attention and participation. In-person CLE remains equally important where interaction, skill-building, and relationship development are essential. Each format has strengths, and each works best when used intentionally.
So, the next time you attend—or present—a CLE, consider treating it as more than a requirement to satisfy. Show up with the expectation that participation matters. Ask a question. Respond to a prompt. Engage with the speaker or with a colleague. Even small moments of interaction reinforce that CLE is a shared professional experience, not a solitary task.
Cameras may still be optional. Engagement should not be.
The post Camera Optional, Attention Required: Rethinking How Lawyers Learn Together appeared first on Berk Law Group.