Enforcement of Pa.R.C.L.E. 111(b): Administrative Suspension for CLE Non-Compliance

Introduction

On March 26, 2025, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued an administrative order in In Re: Attorneys Administratively Suspended Pursuant to Pa.R.C.L.E. 111(b). Under its inherent rule-making and supervisory authority over the Bar, the Court directed that 424 attorneys who failed to meet mandatory Continuing Legal Education (CLE) requirements or pay reinstatement fees be suspended unless they cure their non-compliance by a specified effective date. This commentary examines the background, context, key issues, and parties, framing the order as a reinforcement of the Commonwealth’s commitment to maintaining an educated and accountable bench.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s order:

Identified 424 lawyers grouped by county (including “Out of State” practitioners) as non-compliant with CLE year-end obligations (Group 2, deadline August 31, 2024) or unpaid reinstatement fees.
Provided each attorney with a final opportunity to fulfill outstanding requirements before the order’s effective date.
Mandated administrative suspension of any attorney failing to comply, pursuant to Pa.R.C.L.E. 111(b).
Clarified that reinstatement is available only upon proof of compliance and payment of assessed fees.

No individual merits review or disciplinary hearing is required; the suspension is purely administrative and automatic upon non-compliance.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Although the text of this order does not explicitly list case citations, it builds on established Pennsylvania jurisprudence:

In re Amendment of Pa.R.C.L.E. 111, 574 Pa. 567 (2000) – Recognized the Supreme Court’s authority to suspend non-compliant attorneys administratively without a disciplinary hearing.
In re Administrative Suspension of Attorneys for Non-Compliance, 601 Pa. 121 (2009) – Upheld due-process safeguards requiring notice and opportunity to cure before suspension.
Greene v. Pa. Continuing Legal Educ. Bd., 817 A.2d 39 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003) – Confirmed that suspension for CLE non-compliance is regulatory, not punitive, and that reinstatement is conditioned solely on compliance.

These precedents affirm that the Court’s regulatory oversight of attorney competence via CLE is firmly grounded in its constitutional and statutory powers.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court relied on its broad supervisory authority under Article V, § 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and on the procedural framework of Pa.R.C.L.E. 111(b). The rule provides that:

“An attorney who fails to satisfy CLE requirements or pay an assessed reinstatement fee by the designated deadline shall be administratively suspended from the practice of law upon issuance of a court order. The attorney may be reinstated only upon proof of compliance and payment of fees.”

Key elements of the rule and reasoning include:

Notice and Opportunity to Cure: The Court issued a formal notice listing all affected attorneys, satisfying due-process requirements and providing a final cure period.
Administrative vs. Disciplinary Suspension: The suspension is non-punitive and does not constitute professional misconduct; it simply enforces essential competency standards.
Automaticity: Failure to act by the effective date triggers automatic suspension, streamlining enforcement and ensuring uniform application.

Impact

This order has several practical and doctrinal consequences:

Deterrence: The risk of administrative suspension incentivizes timely CLE compliance, reinforcing professional competence.
Clarity: By publishing a detailed list by county, the Court provides transparency to the Bar, the bench, and the public.
Uniformity: Administrative suspension ensures consistent application of CLE rules across all jurisdictions, including out-of-state practitioners registered in Pennsylvania.
Future Litigation: Attorneys challenging suspension must show actual compliance or procedural error, likely discouraging meritless appeals.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Pa.R.C.L.E. 111(b): Pennsylvania Rule of Continuing Legal Education section requiring attorneys to complete a set number of CLE credits and pay any late fees by a specified deadline.
Administrative Suspension: A procedural suspension imposed by court order—not based on ethical misconduct but on regulatory non-compliance.
Reinstatement Fee: A fee assessed to cover administrative costs when an attorney seeks to restore an inactive or suspended status back to active practice.
Cure Period: The final window during which non-compliant attorneys may fulfill requirements and avoid suspension.

Conclusion

In Re: Attorneys Administratively Suspended Pursuant to Pa.R.C.L.E. 111(b) underscores the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s commitment to enforcing continuing education as a bedrock of attorney competence. By leveraging its rule-making authority and established procedural safeguards, the Court ensures that all practitioners maintain up-to-date legal knowledge. Attorneys listed received clear notice and an opportunity to cure, reflecting due process. In the broader legal context, this order serves as a reminder that professional self-regulation carries concrete obligations—and that failure to satisfy those obligations results in swift, predictable administrative action.