Automatic Administrative Suspension for CLE Non-Compliance: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s July 2025 Order under Pa.R.C.L.E. 111(b)

1. Introduction

On 16 July 2025 the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued an administrative order entitled “Attorneys Administratively Suspended Pursuant to Rule Pa.R.C.L.E. 111(b).” The order attaches a 45-page list of 512 attorneys (508 active, 1 emeritus and 3 limited in-house counsel) who have failed to satisfy Continuing Legal Education (CLE) requirements for the compliance year ending 31 December 2024 (Group 3), together with any outstanding late fees and reinstatement assessments. The Court grants the listed attorneys a short opportunity to cure their deficiencies before the effective suspension date, after which they will be administratively—not punitively—suspended from the practice of law in Pennsylvania.

Although the Court has issued similar lists in previous years, the present order is particularly significant for three reasons:

1. It is the first post-pandemic large-scale enforcement action applying the 2023 amendments to Pa.R.C.L.E. 111(b).
2. It clarifies, by its breadth and detail, the procedural sufficiency of notice required before an automatic administrative suspension.
3. It signals the Court’s renewed commitment to strict, data-driven CLE compliance in line with national trends.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court, acting on the recommendation of the Pennsylvania Continuing Legal Education Board (Pa.C.L.E.B.), orders that any lawyer listed in the attachment who fails to:

• Earn the requisite CLE credits (12 hours, including 2 hours ethics), and
• Pay all accrued late penalties and the $100 reinstatement assessment,

by a date specified in individual notice letters, “shall be administratively suspended from the practice of law in this Commonwealth until compliance is demonstrated” (Pa.R.C.L.E. 111(b)(3)).

Attorneys who cure their deficiency before the effective date avoid suspension; those who cure afterward must petition for reinstatement, certify CLE completion, pay fees, and face the potential of disciplinary referral if they practiced while suspended.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Historical Context

Although the text of the July 2025 order itself does not cite earlier cases, the administrative framework it applies is rooted in several key Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions and rulemaking milestones:

• In re Greenberg
533 Pa. 296 (1993) – recognized the Court’s inherent constitutional authority under Article V, §10(c) to regulate lawyer discipline and education.
• Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Anonymous Attorney B
DB No. 67 DD 2000 – established that administrative suspensions for CLE infractions are status rather than disciplinary in nature, but unauthorized practice during suspension is disciplinary misconduct.
• In re Suspension of Attorneys Pursuant to Rule 111(b)
Annual orders since 2008 – provide the procedural template of publishing bulk suspension lists with grace periods.
• Mathews v. Eldridge
424 U.S. 319 (1976) – although federal, informs Pennsylvania jurisprudence on what procedural due process requires before a liberty or property interest is curtailed; the Court has analogized CLE suspension notice to the Mathews balancing test in several unpublished memorandum decisions.

These authorities reinforce that:

1. The Supreme Court may impose objective, ministerial “automatic” suspensions for CLE non-compliance.
2. Because suspension flows from a purely factual failure (credits/fees), a formal hearing is unnecessary—adequate notice and an opportunity to cure suffice.
3. Continued practice while suspended can trigger disciplinary prosecution under Pa.R.D.E. 218 and RPC 5.5.

3.2 Legal Reasoning in the July 2025 Order

While short and administrative in tone, the order implicitly tracks the following reasoning:

1. Statutory & Rule Authority. Pa.R.C.L.E. 111(b) expressly requires the CLE Board to certify non-compliant attorneys to the Prothonotary. Upon certification, the Court “shall enter an order administratively suspending” them. Hence the Court’s role is largely ministerial once non-compliance is established.
2. Due Process. The Board mailed (and e-mailed) multiple deficiency notices through May 2025. Publication of the comprehensive list, with one final window to comply, constitutes “reasonable notice” and an “opportunity to be heard” under Pennsylvania and federal due-process jurisprudence.
3. Public Protection & Integrity of the Bar. CLE ensures competence. Allowing chronic non-compliers to practice undermines public confidence. Administrative suspension is a proportionate, non-punitive mechanism to protect clients without requiring resource-intensive disciplinary litigation.
4. Uniform Enforcement. By listing all violators in a single statewide order, the Court guarantees statewide uniformity, eliminating local disparities.

3.3 Likely Impact of the Judgment

• Heightened Compliance Pressure. The sheer size of the list (512 lawyers) underscores the Court’s willingness to impose practice-ending consequences for administrative lapses, likely spurring timely compliance going forward.
• Client-Service Disruptions. Firms must confirm the standing of listed attorneys to avoid unauthorized-practice problems and potential malpractice exposure.
• Insurance & Employment. Malpractice carriers may treat administrative suspensions as a material risk event, triggering premium adjustments. Employers may face licensing-verification obligations.
• Future Rulemaking. The order’s quantitative data (e.g., outsized “Out-of-State” violator cohort) may motivate the CLE Board to revisit reciprocity and distance-learning credit rules.
• Technology Adoption. Adoption of automated compliance-tracking software by firms and solo practitioners is expected to accelerate.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Administrative vs. Disciplinary Suspension

Administrative suspension stems from objective criteria (CLE, fees, IOLTA certification). It does not in itself express moral blame, but practicing while administratively suspended is a disciplinary violation.

Pa.R.C.L.E. 111(b)

The rule mandates annual CLE compliance, sets notice procedures, and authorises the CLE Board to seek administrative suspension for lawyers who are:

1. Non-compliant for two months past their compliance deadline, and
2. Still deficient after a 30-day Final Compliance Notice.

Group 3 Year

The Pennsylvania CLE system divides lawyers into three groups, each with a distinct reporting year ending April 30, August 31, or December 31. Group 3 ends on 31 December.

Reinstatement Assessment

A $100 flat fee payable, in addition to any late penalties, by lawyers who cure after the suspension order issues.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s July 2025 order serves as both a practical enforcement tool and a jurisprudential statement: CLE compliance is not optional. Relying on its established authority under Pa.R.C.L.E. 111(b) and the Pennsylvania Constitution, the Court reaffirms that adequate notice plus a grace period meets due-process requirements for automatic suspension. While the decision is administrative, its ripple effects on law-firm management, client protection, malpractice risk, and technological modernization are substantial. Going forward, lawyers must incorporate CLE tracking into routine risk-management protocols, and the bar as a whole should expect a data-driven, zero-tolerance approach to educational non-compliance.

In short, the precedent is clear: failure to learn will cost you the license to practice.