Mississippi Supreme Court Authorizes $50 CLE Sponsor Application Fee as a Condition of Accreditation

Introduction

This commentary examines the Mississippi Supreme Court’s administrative order in In re: Commission on Continuing Legal Education (No. 89-R-99011-SCT), entered for publication on October 2, 2025. The Court amended the Rules and Regulations for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE), specifically Rule 1(d) on financing, to authorize a new per-course application fee of $50 for CLE sponsors that charge Mississippi attorneys to attend, while retaining the existing $2-per-credit-hour reporting fees. The order directs publication in the Mississippi Rules of Court and the Southern Reporter (Third Series, Mississippi Edition).

The case arises from a series of petitions by the Commission on Continuing Legal Education (the “Commission”) seeking adjustments to the revenue structure that funds MCLE administration. The central issues include: (1) whether the Commission is authorized to collect a $50 per-course application fee from fee-charging sponsors; (2) whether the record contained sufficient financial justification for increased revenues; (3) how the new fee interacts with “presumptively approved” CLE vendors; and (4) governance and compliance concerns stemming from the Commission’s prior, unauthorized collection of application fees.

The Court approved the rule change and ordered publication. A separate concurring statement by Presiding Justice Coleman, joined by eight Justices, defends the sufficiency of the Commission’s financial showing. Justice Griffis objects in a separate statement, faulting the Commission’s process, the adequacy of financial documentation, the lack of a refund plan for previously collected unauthorized fees, and potential inconsistencies the amendment creates with other MCLE regulations.

Summary of the Opinion

The Court amended Rule 1(d) (Financing) of the Rules and Regulations for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education, adopting the following structure (as set out in Exhibit A):

A new per-course application fee of $50 applies to sponsors seeking accreditation of CLE programs/courses that charge Mississippi attorneys a fee to attend. The fee does not apply where a sponsor offers free CLE course hours to attendees.
Sponsors of CLE programs held within Mississippi, as a condition of accreditation, must submit a list of Mississippi attendees and remit a fee of $2.00 per credit hour for each State Bar member subject to MCLE who attends. Lists and fees are due within 30 days of the program.
Individual attorneys must pay $2.00 per credit hour when claiming credit for (a) approved CLE programs outside Mississippi, or (b) unapproved in-state programs that would have been approved but for the sponsor’s failure to pay the in-state $2.00-per-credit-hour sponsor remittance in the preceding item. These individual payments accompany the attorney’s annual compliance report.

The Court instructed the Clerk to spread the order on the minutes and forward it for publication. The Justices’ alignment is noted as: Randolph, C.J., and King and Coleman, P.JJ., with Maxwell, Chamberlin, Ishee, Sullivan, and Branning, JJ., agreeing; Coleman, P.J., filed a separate writing in agreement (joined by the foregoing Justices); Griffis, J., objected with a separate statement.

Analysis

Procedural Background and the Parties’ Positions

Petition 1: The Commission initially sought to increase the per-credit-hour fee from $2.00 to $3.00 (a 50% increase) but, according to Justice Griffis, provided no supporting financials, revenue projections, or expenditure plans.
Petition 2 (June 5, 2025): The Commission disclosed that, beginning February 2025, it had instituted a $50 application fee without prior Court approval, collecting more than $11,000. It apologized and promised to seek Court approval before any further fee increases. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) estimated that formal adoption of the $50 fee would generate approximately $240,900 annually, but the petition still lacked a comprehensive financial plan, in the view of Justice Griffis.
Petition 3 (July 2, 2025): The Commission filed an Amended Expedited Petition proposing explicit amendment language for Rule 1(d) to add the $50 sponsor application fee for fee-charging courses.

The Court ultimately approved Petition 3’s amendment to Rule 1(d), codifying the $50 application fee. The majority did not address refunds of previously collected unauthorized fees or potential conflicts with the “presumptive approval” regime in other MCLE regulations; the dissent highlights these omissions.

Precedents Cited

The order functions as an administrative rulemaking decision rather than an adjudication of a dispute. The text of the order and the separate writings do not cite case authorities. Instead, the decision is grounded in the Court’s supervisory authority over the bar and the MCLE regime, exercised through docket No. 89-R-99011-SCT. The legal materials referenced within the order and the separate statements are the Court’s own Rules and Regulations for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education—notably:

Rule 1(d) (Financing) – Amended to add the new $50 application fee for fee-charging sponsors; it also recites the in-state $2.00-per-credit-hour sponsor remittance and the $2.00-per-credit-hour individual attorney reporting fee for certain circumstances.
Regulation 4.14 and/or Regulation 4.17 – Referenced by Justice Griffis as listing numerous CLE vendors whose programs are “presumptively approved for credit.” He argues the new $50 fee creates potential conflicts/ambiguities with that presumptive approval framework.

Given the absence of external case citations, the precedential import of this order rests primarily in the Court’s modification of the MCLE financing rules and its implicit guidance on administrative process and oversight.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s per curiam order states the change and directs publication; its reasoning is supplied by the separate writings:

Concurring reasoning (Coleman, P.J.): The concurrence responds to Justice Griffis’s criticism that the Commission had not provided sufficient financial justification. The Commission’s Amended Expedited Petition, according to the concurrence, includes a plan with line-item estimates for staffing—specifically, salaries for an administrator, an assistant, and a part-time assistant—and an estimated cost to defray necessary IT support. On that basis, the concurrence concludes the Commission provided enough information to demonstrate a plan to address the “turmoil and upheaval” noted in its petition and to justify the newly generated funds.
Objecting reasoning (Griffis, J.): The objection emphasizes process rigor and fiscal transparency. It recounts that Petition 1 sought a 50% increase to the $2.00 per-credit fee without supplying foundational financials; Petition 2 revealed an unauthorized $50 fee imposed in February 2025 that yielded over $11,000, coupled with a request to retroactively bless the fee without a detailed revenue and expenditure plan. The objection points out that AOC projected roughly $240,900 in new revenue from the $50 fee—potentially doubling the Commission’s budget—without sufficient justification or a plan. It further flags (1) the absence of any commitment to refund the illegally collected $11,000, and (2) the interaction problem with the list of presumptively approved vendors (Regulation 4.14/4.17), which could allow such vendors to avoid the new application fee altogether if no application is required. Justice Griffis urges a comprehensive, harmonized rule package and a concrete operational plan before approving a major revenue increase.

In sum, the majority accepts the Commission’s justification as adequate to move forward with the $50 sponsor application fee, while the objection would have required more robust financial details, clarity on rule interactions, and resolution of past unauthorized collections before approval.

Scope and Mechanics of the Amended Rule

The amendment establishes a distinct revenue stream separate from the per-credit-hour charges:

$50 per-course application fee: Applies only when a sponsor seeks accreditation for a program that charges Mississippi attorneys to attend. It does not apply when the sponsor offers the course free to attendees.
$2 per-credit-hour in-state sponsor remittance: For Mississippi-held programs, the sponsor must, within 30 days, remit a list of Mississippi attendees and pay $2 per credit hour for each Mississippi Bar member subject to MCLE who attended.
$2 per-credit-hour individual attorney fee: Applies to (a) approved out-of-state programs and (b) certain unapproved in-state programs that would have qualified but for the sponsor’s failure to pay the in-state $2-per-credit-hour sponsor fee. The attorney remits this with the annual compliance report.

Notably, while Petition 1 had sought to raise the $2.00 per-credit-hour rate to $3.00, the adopted amendment leaves the per-credit-hour amounts unchanged at $2.00.

Interaction with “Presumptively Approved” Vendors

Justice Griffis identifies a key implementation issue: Regulation 4.14 (and elsewhere referenced as 4.17) lists numerous vendors whose offerings are “presumptively approved for credit.” If a vendor’s program is presumptively approved, the vendor may not need to submit an application at all; if no application is required, the new $50 fee—by its terms triggered when a sponsor “seeks application”—might not apply. That reading could create an uneven playing field:

Sponsors that must apply and that charge Mississippi attorneys would owe the $50 per course.
Presumptively approved vendors might avoid the $50 fee if their programs do not go through an application process, even when they charge Mississippi attorneys.

The order does not squarely address this potential gap. The dissent urges that the rule package be harmonized before or alongside adoption of the new fee. The majority’s silence leaves this as an area for further administrative guidance or future amendments.

Impact

The amendment carries immediate and practical consequences for stakeholders:

CLE sponsors operating in Mississippi:
- Fee-charging programs: A $50 per-course application fee will become a standard cost of accreditation, likely to be incorporated into pricing models. Sponsors must also continue to remit the $2.00 per-credit-hour fee for in-state programs and attendee lists within 30 days.
- Free programs: If a sponsor “offers free CLE course hours to its attendees,” the $50 application fee does not apply. Sponsors should confirm whether “free” must apply to all attendees or can be limited (e.g., free to Mississippi attorneys only) and whether mixed free/paid tiers affect the fee.
- Presumptively approved vendors: Until clarified, vendors listed as presumptively approved may not need to apply, potentially avoiding the $50 fee. Sponsors should watch for Commission guidance to ensure compliance.
Mississippi lawyers:
- Potential pass-through costs: Sponsors may pass new application fees through to registrants, raising tuition for fee-based CLEs.
- Reporting obligations unchanged: Attorneys still owe $2.00 per-credit-hour for approved out-of-state CLE or for certain in-state programs not approved due to the sponsor’s failure to remit the in-state $2 fee.
Commission on Continuing Legal Education:
- Revenue stability and staffing: With authorization to collect $50 per-course from fee-based programs, the Commission gains a clearer funding stream to support staffing (administrator, assistant, part-time assistant) and IT infrastructure, as described in the concurrence.
- Governance expectations: The Court’s process highlights the expectation that fee changes be pre-approved by the Court and supported by adequate financial planning and public-facing transparency, especially when changes may approximate a doubling of the budget (as flagged by the objection citing AOC’s estimate of $240,900).
- Outstanding issues: The order does not resolve the status of the >$11,000 collected before authorization or the harmonization of the “presumptively approved” regime with the new fee. Those issues may prompt further rulemaking or guidance.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Condition of accreditation: A prerequisite that must be met before the Commission will recognize a CLE program for Mississippi credit. Here, paying the $50 application fee (for fee-charging programs) and the $2-per-credit-hour remittance and reporting (for in-state programs) are conditions tied to accreditation and ongoing compliance.
Presumptively approved vendors: Certain listed CLE providers whose programs are treated as approved without a full, program-by-program application process. This streamlines credit approval but, as the objection notes, may complicate whether the new $50 fee applies.
Sponsor remittance versus attorney reporting fee:
- Sponsor remittance: The $2-per-credit-hour fee a sponsor must pay for in-state programs, along with attendee lists, within 30 days.
- Attorney reporting fee: The $2-per-credit-hour fee an attorney pays when claiming out-of-state credits, or for certain in-state programs not approved solely due to the sponsor’s failure to remit the in-state sponsor fee.
“Spread upon the minutes” and publication: Administrative formalities signaling that the order is officially recorded in the Court’s records and disseminated through recognized legal publications (Mississippi Rules of Court and Southern Reporter) so it is authoritative and accessible.
“Time of turmoil and upheaval”: The Commission’s characterization of recent operational challenges. The concurrence accepts that this warrants enhanced staffing and IT support; the objection views this description as insufficient without detailed plans and financials.

Practical Guidance and Open Questions

Effective date: The order does not specify an effective date. Absent contrary direction, such amendments typically take effect upon entry. Sponsors should confirm with the Commission any transition periods or grace mechanisms for programs already scheduled or pending at the time of entry.
Applicability to presumptively approved programs: Clarification is needed as to whether presumptively approved vendors must pay the $50 fee when they charge Mississippi attorneys. Until clarified, these vendors should consult the Commission before assuming exemption.
Definition of “free”: The exemption applies when a sponsor “offers free CLE course hours to its attendees.” Questions remain whether the course must be free to all attendees, free only to Mississippi attorneys, or whether partial scholarships/discounts affect the fee. Written guidance from the Commission would be helpful.
Refunds of pre-authorization collections: The objection notes more than $11,000 collected before Court approval and the absence of a refund commitment. The order is silent. Sponsors affected by pre-authorization charges may inquire about the Commission’s position on refunds or credits.
Harmonization of MCLE regulations: The dissent underscores the need to adjust other provisions (including the presumptive approval regulation) so the financing regime operates coherently. Additional rule amendments may follow.

Conclusion

The Mississippi Supreme Court has formally authorized a $50 per-course application fee for CLE sponsors that charge Mississippi attorneys to attend as a condition of accreditation, while leaving intact the existing $2-per-credit-hour sponsor remittance (for in-state programs) and the $2-per-credit-hour attorney reporting fee (for out-of-state or certain unapproved in-state programs). The Court’s concurrence finds the Commission’s line-item staffing and IT support plan sufficient to justify the new revenue stream in light of recent operational challenges. The objection by Justice Griffis emphasizes the need for fuller financial transparency, potential budgetary impact (with AOC estimating $240,900 in new annual revenue), reconciliation with the presumptive approval framework, and resolution of more than $11,000 collected before authorization.

The immediate legal effect is clear: fee-charging CLE sponsors must now account for a $50 application fee per course as part of accreditation in Mississippi. Yet meaningful implementation questions remain, particularly regarding presumptively approved vendors and the treatment of previously collected unauthorized fees. The order thus both refines the MCLE financing architecture and signals the Court’s expectation of disciplined administrative process and fiscal justification for future changes. Stakeholders should monitor for further Commission guidance or additional amendments to harmonize the financing rule with the rest of the MCLE regulatory scheme.