Topic Managing CPD – what does success look like? Facilitator: Christine Grice,   Executive Director, New Zealand Law Society The general high level aim of a Continuing Professional Development framework (CPD framework) is  to lay down formal requirements for ongoing maintenance and development of the knowledge and  skills of lawyers. The ideal output is the demonstrable maintenance and development of  competence throughout a lawyer’s career. The measurement of success using that output poses  considerable difficulties. The models of CPD adopted in our jurisdictions vary considerably. The early models of CPD were  introduced over 30 years ago. Their focus then was on measuring simple inputs. The measurement  for success was the number of hours (or points) that the lawyer accumulated attending CPD  sessions. The CPD was usually required to be provided by accredited or credentialed providers in  substantive law topics. The regulator approved the providers. In more recent times the emphasis has moved away from the number of hours or points of CPD  undertaken to the actual engagement by the lawyer in the development of skills and knowledge and  so supporting their competence development. The individual takes responsibility for planning and  implementing professional development to meet their own identified specific learning needs. The  aim of this model is to support the lawyer to maintain competence in their chosen areas of the law.  The lawyer must consider and distil the objectives that will support their goals, plan their CPD needs  and implement the identified development requirements by engaging in CPD activities. This is  usually effected through the preparation of a CPD plan by the lawyer. It is regularly reviewed by the  individual and adjusted as the professional development is effected and the lawyer’s needs are  fulfilled or replaced. Educationalists consider the planning approach more effective in achieving real learning, than  models which are entirely prescriptive or based solely on hours or points. They are also of the view  that face to face learning is the most effective mode of learning. Reflective practice was introduced to the legal profession for the first time 4 years ago. It incorporates a set  number of hours which must be completed annually (10 hours prescribed but a further 40 hours  discretionary learning is recommended). The lawyer must prepare their own CPD plan which is  designed to support their learning objectives. The learning objectives must be itemised. The 10  hours prescribed must relate to activities which are: first verifiable; secondly allow for   interaction/feedback by the participants; thirdly are in accordance with the stated purpose and  outcomes set out in the plan; fourthly include identified learning objectives and finally are not part  of the lawyers daily work. Following the CPD learning activity the lawyer must reflect on what they have learnt and what is  needed to build on this or to fill gaps identified. This is all recorded in a written reflection in the CPD  plan.    In other jurisdictions such as England and Wales, the requirement for the recording of a specified  number of hours or points has been dispensed with. What is required is that the lawyer plans,  implements and reflects to satisfy their own learning needs designed to maintain or attain  competence in their own practice. This is judged in the first instance by the lawyer.    There are also jurisdictions that have mandatory requirements to include specific CPD topics such as  ethics. Others include supervised practice requirements to demonstrate learning achievement and in  some professional models a minimum number of hours in practice are also required in addition to or  instead of learning activities. Discussion points Present state: What model do you have in your jurisdiction? What is your measure /s of success? How and to whom do you publish the measures of success?…

Topic Managing the interface with other regulators: whether it is lawyers, who provide financial services in a firm that need to be regulated, or co-regulators for those who permit MDPs? Brief History/Background The Society’s solicitor members have traditionally conducted financial services as part of their business activities. Up until 1988 this financial services work was…

Topic Separating out regulatory and representational work: Where do the boundaries lie? Changing regulatory structures: How to re-engineer existing regulatory structures into a new system? Facilitator: Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, Executive Director (2015-2017) The State Bar of California Discussion points 1. Framing Are regulatory and representational organizations fundamentally different in their mission, roles and responsibilities? Can…

Topic The appropriate role for a regulator: How to avoid mission creep and when to accept it? Should, for example, a legal regulator be responsible for promoting access to justice and public legal awareness? Facilitator: Dr Vanessa Davies, Director General, Bar Standards Board (England and Wales) Discussion points 1. Framing To avoid mission creep, we…