Comments on: CLE, Fees, and the USPTO

By: anon

anon — Wed, 14 Aug 2019 15:13:24 +0000

Still not seeing a lot of pushback on the practitioner fee angle (although one of the list servs I see has raised some interesting admin law angles that the entire fee package does not accord with the powers of the patent office (only able to charge for its actual services and then, only on an actual cost recovery basis)

(by the way, the masked anon is not me, although the associated image is pretty cool)

By: anon

anon — Mon, 12 Aug 2019 12:10:16 +0000

The article notes: “As mentioned in Section 1,there is a strong public choice component to CLE inasmuch as it offers benefits to bar associations through course fees and increased attendance at bar conventions (Rhode and Ricca 2014). If changes to CLE policy are driven exclusively by lobbying and are independent of growth in charges of attorney misconduct,then the use of GMM-style instruments for MCLE training requirements would lead to specification problems. FN13. The same issue would arise if states set minimum [MPRE] scores on the basis of industry standards, path dependence, or lobbying by MPRE education providers, for instance, and the score level is independent of charges.”

By: Vagueandindefinite

Vagueandindefinite — Fri, 09 Aug 2019 15:12:33 +0000

I did not read the article, but note that the Title and Abstract only refer to Ethics CLE credits, not CLE credits in general.

By: Keith Miller

Keith Miller — Thu, 08 Aug 2019 20:19:59 +0000

I have no issues with CLE requirements, in fact I think it would be a good idea. However, I would have issue with member fees. I already pay bar dues to my State Bar and they really don’t give me all that much considering my area of practice. To pay 2 Bar dues every year would really put an encumbrance for solo practitioners, imho

By: Greg DeLassus

Greg DeLassus — Thu, 08 Aug 2019 19:37:53 +0000

I am indifferent on the value of PTO bar dues. CLE requirements are an excellent idea.

By: anon

anon — Thu, 08 Aug 2019 18:38:25 +0000

I have seen somewhat muted responses on the listservs (and blogs) THIS time around.

Perhaps there is a very real “wearing down” of the patent bar, given that this is the THIRD attempt in recent memory of the USPTO attempting to extract “member fees.”