President's Perspective
Waking from Success
By David A. Saichek
Success is a beast. It devours incentive and creativity. Detroit
imitated Rip Van Winkle until the unlikely combination of Japan and
Ralph Nader awakened it, all too slowly.
We need to reexamine and reform our methods for delivering continuing
legal education. Seminars, books, tapes - everything!
Why? Our CLE efforts have been a spectacular success. In times of
financial success it is challenging to envision anything other than
dollar signs. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1996, our CLE seminars
revenue was $1.82 million. Direct expenses were $1.14 million. Gross
operating profit was $680,000. Even after "charging" that department
$347,000 worth of general overhead (governance and administration), the
net operating profit was $333,000.
CLE books took in $1.35 million and had direct expenses of $957,000
for a gross operating profit of $396,000. After being charged with
governance and administration the net operating profit was $105,000. So
far in FY 1997 we are on a pace to beat last year, according to our
director of finances, Geoff McCloskey.
Our CLE departments have delivered excellent products, competitive
prices, and some measure of general satisfaction. This kind of profit
allows the Bar to use nondues revenue to fund the work of commissions
and committees concerned with delivery of legal services, independence
of the judiciary, ethics, consumer protection, defense of indigents,
lawyer referral, law-related education, outreach to media and other
professions, and studies in diversity, professionalism, technology, fee
disputes, local bar relations, and assistance to solo and small firm
practitioners. Profitable CLE also helps to fund publications that do
not make a profit such as our monthly newsletter and the Wisconsin
Lawyer.
For FY 1996 our revenue from dues accounted for only 28.88 percent of
total revenue. Our total revenue in FY 1996 was $7.75 million.
The problem? If CLE revenues go down by as much as 35 percent we
would need to make drastic decisions concerning dues increases, staff
layoffs, pricing of services, and wholesale reductions of our efforts
under SCR 10.02 in "improving the administration of justice" and "to
promote the innovation, development and improvement of means to deliver
legal services to the people of Wisconsin." In FY 1996 dues alone were
not even enough to fund staff salaries of $2.37 million plus benefits
for a total of more than $3 million.
Staff has grown in the last 15 years from 35 to 80. This could mean
we have failed to control costs and increase efficiency. The
Bar Center's lower level was renovated recently to add workstations and
reduce meeting space. We could "improve" ourselves into needing a new
bar center which, even if not luxurious, could be very expensive. If the
idea of a new bar center is questionable at the moment, just think how
downright disagreeable it could be if our nondues revenue went down!
We need to rethink our organizational structure, delivery of
services, and efficiency of staff and management. For something so
important as CLE and its attendant revenues the time for reexamination
is now.1 There are a fair number
of members who feel that our CLE offerings are:
- too expensive
- too inflexible
- too inconvenient
- too theoretical
- too time-consuming
How can we improve our methods of delivery? We should consider:
- doing more than scratching the surface of desktop delivery
- self-study methods
- auditing without credit at lower prices
- videotape rental
- CLE on the Internet (some courses are already available in
California and other states)
- searchable CD-ROMs containing all outlines for the previous
year
- dial-up specific parts of seminars allowing the viewer or listener
to select the portions as she wants them, which has come to be known as
a "salad bar" approach
- reciprocal acceptance of CLE credits among states
Consideration of these approaches could improve our services to
members and give us a chance to preserve some profitability as we
embrace the future. Delays which might seem prudent in times of high
profitability could spell disaster when the world of online CLE passes
us by.
In December your Executive Committee convened State Bar 2000, a kind
of "technology summit" facilitated by consultants with expertise in
organizational matters for nonprofit corporations and governmental
units. How might decision-making be restructured for an electronic age
to deliver services to our members more efficiently at lower cost? The
Board of Governors should assure follow-up to this conference to
coordinate the necessary planning and possible rule changes required to
replace contentment with rapid progress.
This question needs to be asked of our officers, governors, Standing
Committee on CLE, Wisconsin Board of Bar Examiners, all segments of the
Bar, and you the member: Shall we actually plan for the future?
Or perhaps we prefer to take a nap.
Endnotes
1 Defer no time, delays have
dangerous ends. William Shakespeare, 1 King Henry VI, Act 3, Scene
2.
Wisconsin
Lawyer
