Requests the Supreme Court of Louisiana to approve ethics training for legislators
If adopted, HCR88 would bridge the gap between the mandates governing legal ethics education and the necessity of governmental ethics training for legislators. Currently, Louisiana law requires elected officials to undergo annual ethics training; however, this bill seeks to enhance that requirement by allowing the training to count toward the CLE credits that attorneys must obtain yearly. This could potentially encourage more legislators who are lawyers to engage actively in ethics training, thereby improving their understanding and compliance with ethical standards.
House Concurrent Resolution 88 (HCR88) urges the Supreme Court of Louisiana to allow legislators who are licensed to practice law in the state to receive continuing legal education (CLE) credit for their participation in governmental ethics training. The resolution highlights the importance of integrating legal ethics education into the legislative process, particularly for those members who are also practicing attorneys. This initiative aims to promote a higher standard of ethics among lawmakers in Louisiana, ensuring they are well-versed in the rules governing their roles as public officials.
The general sentiment surrounding HCR88 appears to be supportive, particularly among those advocating for greater ethical standards in government. By recognizing the dual roles of lawmakers as legal practitioners and public officials, the resolution has been seen as a progressive step toward fostering a deeper commitment to ethical governance. However, the sentiment may vary among constituents or members who believe that continuing legal education should be distinct from training specifically geared toward governmental ethics.
Notably, while the resolution expresses a strong desire for change, some debate may arise over the practical implications of implementing this change. Questions may be raised regarding the appropriateness of allowing legal ethics training to fulfill governmental ethics obligations, as well as how this may affect the training's content and focus. Opponents might argue that merging these two educational requirements could dilute the specific objectives of governmental ethics training by prioritizing legal perspectives over public accountability.