MAY 18, 2023 – In the early days of my legal career, I dreaded “CLE” (Continuing Legal Education) seminars. Al Gore had yet to invent the internet, so “webinars” didn’t yet exist either. Even “casual Fridays” were a thing of the future. You had to attend all sessions in person and wear your usual uniform—a varsity suit—and keep yourself awake for a day-long drone session by lawyers your dad’s age (back then, old men still dominated the profession) talking about legal arcana. Surprisingly for a profession known for grandiloquence, few of the CLE speakers excelled at . . . public speaking.
Humor was rarely on the outline, though presenters on the cutting edge of what has always been an inherently conservative (as reflected by the bedrock principle of stare decisis) vocation would open with a lame, professionally self-effacing joke that fell as flat as a yellow legal pad. PowerPoint, with its entertaining graphic and video possibilities, had yet been imagined, though the old overhead projectors, with their clear plastic overlays were sometimes used to magnify the materials inside the thick, three-ring binder that every attendee would receive. “Online” was as far from being a concept as Neptune was from earth.
During those old-time sessions, at break times you’d have to rush to the pay-phones to avoid waiting to call your secretary and take down phone messages, and as circumstances required, return calls. There was no such thing as texts, email or voicemail.
Nor was there a requirement that of your 45 triennial CLE credits, three had to concern “ethics” and two, “elimination of bias.” Eventually people in charge of licensing determined that lawyers should have some ongoing education in these two areas. I used to laugh at “elimination of bias.” If ever there were a profession in which bias was an essential feature, it would be the law. In fact, the bias requirement is explicit: the Rules of Professional Responsibility impose the standard of “zealous advocacy.” I mean, out of duty, isn’t every lawyer with a client supposed to be biased toward the client? Whether in litigation or a transactional setting, how are we to wield the sword of “zealous advocacy” if we “eliminate bias”?
But of course, that’s not the kind of bias that the CLE seminars are designed to eliminate.
Now fast forward to the CLE webinar I took today, entitled, “I think, therefore I am biased.” The presenter was Sean Carter, a nationally acclaimed speaker on the matter of bias in the legal profession. As Carter led us attendees through his smart, witty and hilarious presentation, I contrasted it favorably against the buttoned-down seminars of yore presented by buttoned-down white, male Minnesotans.
Carter reminded me of Neil deGrasse Tyson, the entertaining astrophysicist—smart, witty, funny and a riveting speaker. The hour-long course was filled with effective examples of how our minds work. Bias is a natural condition of our biology, and we can never escape entirely our preconceptions—which are simply baked into our brains. But if we’re aware of the draw of the tribe and the familiar; if we’re conscious of our need for answers (see religion, take your pick) and tendency to see what we want to believe, we can make strides toward looking and seeking beyond our built-in biases.
With Carter’s webinar, I’ve completed my CLE requirement for “elimination of bias” credits. Now it’s back to another 11.5 hours of legal arcana. But I must say, absent is boredom. Perhaps my frame of reference is much broader and deeper than it was when I was a baby lawyer. Or maybe the presenters across the board are better than the speakers 30, 40 years ago. With a few “droner” exceptions, every seminar this reporting cycle has been useful and interesting. I’ve stayed wide awake and focused. But it doesn’t hurt to have the likes of Sean Carter, the self-styled “legal humorist” on the docket, exposing our biases largely by poking fun at them.
Subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
© 2023 by Eric Nilsson
