![handle is hein.journals/goal8 and id is 1 raw text is: Divesit Tranin CLENowMandtor
inteOrgSte Ba
A4 ~ An gelI Lo pe z
On February 21, 1992, the Oregon
Supreme Court appointed a task force to
review the state of racial and ethnic issues
within the Oregon State justice system.
This group was chaired by then-Chief
Justice Edwin Peterson. It was comprised
of lawyers, judges, and key members of
the public. In May 1994, the task force
issued its report, which, among other
things, recommended ethnic and racial
diversity training for the state's lawyers.
The Oregon State Bar was charged with
the responsibility of including diversity
training as part of its Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
requirement. The task force made it clear
that the initial report was intended to be a
vital working document and not one
intended to sit on library shelves, gather-
ing dust. Having been part of the task
force, I took the admonition to heart. As I
was later to learn, I was not alone.
I was elected to the Oregon State Bar
Board of Governors (BOG) in 1998.
Circuit Court Judge Richard Baldwin,
then the director of the Oregon Law
Center, was also a BOG member. It quick-
ly became clear to us that the concept of
mandatory diversity training had largely
gone ignored and that the time had come
to bring the idea to the BOG for consider-
ation. On Judge Baldwin's recommenda-
tion, both racial diversity and the women's
issues task force studies were reviewed to
determine which of the recommended
goals the Oregon State Bar had met, which
were attainable, and which were not. A
subcommittee was formed to complete the
review and make final recommendations
to the BOG.
In Oregon, lawyers are mandated to
fulfill a forty-five-hour MCLE requirement
every three years in order to keep up their
eligibility as active practitioners. Six of
those credits must be allocated toward
legal ethics. The diversity proposal con-
templated keeping the forty-five-hour
obligation but renaming the ethics require-
ment the professional responsibility
requirement. The proposed rule then
expanded the professional responsibility
requirement to nine hours, three of which
had to be satisfied by attending a seminar
on the role of lawyers concerning racial
and ethnic issues, gender fairness, disabili-
ty issues and access to justice. The
remaining six hours would continue to be
made up of legal ethics training. At its
presentation to the BOG, the proposed
MCLE change was itself modified to
include attending seminars dealing with
practice and personal management
assistance, along with the diversity
requirement.
The Oregon Supreme Court had two
reservations about this proposed rule.
First, the court was concerned that the
proposed rule as amended and presented
would dilute the diversity training require-
ment beyond effectiveness. Second, the
court was worried about the member-
ships' reaction to mandatory diversity
training.
These issues were fully addressed in a
letter drafted by the Multnomah County
continued on page 7
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
COMMISSION ON RACIAL AND-ETHNIC DIVERSITY IN THE PROFESSION
]](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/goal8&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most