A lawyer’s legal education cannot end with passing thebar examination. It must continue for as long as he or shepractices, and there is no exemption from the need tolearn about changes in the law and to incorporate thosechanges into an ongoing practice.

Today we are overwhelmed by the offerings from dozensof continuing legal education providers. The State Bar ofTexas, the largest provider in ourstate, plans and presents courses tolive audiences, and video recordingsof these presentations are available tothose who choose to watch them inthe convenience of their hotel rooms,homes, and offices. Additionally, pro-grams are presented in vacation desti-nations and even on cruise ships. Itwasn’t always this way.

Before we partake of the smorgasbordof CLE offerings, let’s press the rewindbutton to 1961. Houston EndowmentInc. and the MD Anderson Founda-tion had donated $10,000 to theState Bar to create a fund to supportthe publishing of legal books for Texas lawyers. Under theleadership and cajoling of then-State Bar President PaulCarrington Sr., 39 lawyers from both sides of the docketwrote articles for the first publication titled, PersonalInjury Litigation in Texas. As indicated in the editor’s preface,the State Bar of Texas was in the forefront of providingservice to its members. This undertaking is consideredunique in the annals of “How To Do It” practice manualsnow available in the profession.

Among those sitting on the Legal Institutes Committee(soon to be renamed to the Committee on Continuing

Legal Education) at that time were Gordon Carpenter,who chaired the committee for 12 years, and GeneCavin, whose contributions were destined to become leg-endary. Cavin was a practitioner from Tyler who waselected to the board of directors of the State Bar. Whenthe board voted to employ a full-time director of CLE,Cavin resigned from the board and in 1963 was hired todevelop and oversee a program for the continuing education

of Texas lawyers. To paraphrase wordsfrom a well-known song, “this couldbe the start of something big!”

Around the country, lawyers weresearching for new ways to organizetheir practices for greater efficiencyand productivity. Those from Texasincluded Cullen Smith Jr., who laterbecame president of the State Bar in1978. Word spread and before long,many of these lawyers had connectedto share their ideas and experienceswith each other. Cavin found ways forthe State Bar CLE programs to featurethese lawyers and give their ideasgreater exposure. As a result, they

were joined by others who understood the benefits. Therecould never be enough programs or publications or oppor-tunities to satisfy the thirst. The natives clearly were rest-less. Change was in the wind.

Press the fast-forward button to move to the late 1960s.The most significant single hour of my law practice wasspent listening to Lee Turner, whose quotation openedthis article. Turner was a member of a two-lawyer defensefirm in Great Bend, Kansas, that had 28 non-lawyer staffmembers to support the practice. Turner and his partnerdelegated much of what had been customarily regarded as

616 Texas Bar Journal • July 2014 texasbar.com

“Education is to law practice as fertilizer is to agriculture.” —Lee Turner

WHEN YOU DRINK THE WATER,REMEMBER WHO DUG THE WELL

Recalling the early days of the State Bar’s CLE program.BY JAMES E. BRILL

Gene Cavin was hired in 1963 to develop a program forthe continuing education of Texas lawyers.

“practicing law.” Turner taught other lawyers that whenthese services were performed under the supervision of alawyer, it was not the unauthorized practice of law.Instead of hourly billing, fees were based on uniformcharges for standardized services regardless of the pedigreeof the person who renderedthose services. Clients easilyunderstood and favored these“fixed” fees, which were respon-sible for greater profits for thefirm. They also provided mean-ingful work for the firm’s non-legal personnel.

Turner’s presentation went by atlightning speed, and in a singlehour, he had described a newprofession—that of the legalassistant. Although quickly adop-ted by those “pioneers” who rec-ognized the potential benefits toall concerned, it took far longerthan one might imagine (approxi-mately 20 years) for the Ameri-can Bar Association to offermembership to legal assistants,and even longer for the now-universal acceptance ofthese dedicated professionals.

Fast-forward again to October 1971, when the State Barsent me to Salt Lake City, Utah, to attend a one-weekcourse covering administrative procedures for the lawyer’soffice—including timekeeping, billing, accounting, andeven a test for identifying qualified staff members. KlineD. Strong, a notable law scholar, had put together a pro-gram that was state-of-the-art for law practice manage-ment in America at that time.

The course concluded with the introduction and demon-stration of substantive systems for probate, divorce, andcorporations. Returning to Houston, I assembled six or socolleagues to collect and incorporate their Texas versionsof the proper forms, letters, and procedures for the pro-

bate of a will and the administra-tion of an estate. The combinationof those systems, coupled withthe work product of half a dozenlawyers, led to the publication ofthe 1972 Texas Probate System,the first manual of its kind to bepublished by any state bar associ-ation, laying out a system widelyadopted by bar associations frommore than a dozen states. Themost recent edition was pub-lished in March 2014.

Technology has become so pow-erful, so flexible, and so widespreadthat it would seem egotistical forlawyers to claim any credit for itsimpact on the practice of law. Touchthe button to arrive in Boston inthe fall of 1973, when manual

typewriters were in widespread use in law offices, and theaverage lawyer believed that a regular electric typewriterwas an automatic typewriter. At that meeting of theInternational Word Processing Association, a New Yorklawyer, Bernard Sternin, took the microphone to describethe practicality of an automatic typewriter and the benefitsof placing the responsibility for its operation in the handsof one person while another person performed the admin-istrative tasks for the practice. What an eye-opener. For thosewho dared to follow, this device meant greater efficiencyand more productivity. The times, they were a-changin’.

texasbar.com/tbj Vol. 77, No. 7 • Texas Bar Journal 617

About 550 turned out for the “Salvation for the Solo Practitioner and the Small Law Firm”institute held in 1976 in Dallas. The event was sponsored by the PEER Committee of theState Bar.

At a skills course in San Antonio in 1972, Judge Joe Spurlock of Fort Worth acts as medicalwitness, Jack Hebdon of San Antonio as judge, F.C. Meyer Jr. of San Antonio as defenselawyer, and Richard Tinsman of San Antonio as attorney for the plaintiff.

At that meeting of the InternationalWord Processing Association,

a New York lawyer, Bernard Sternin,took the microphone to describe the

practicality of an automatic typewriterand the benefits of placing the respon-sibility for its operation in the handsof one person while another personperformed the administrative tasks

for the practice. What an eye-opener.For those who dared to follow,

this device meant greater efficiencyand more productivity. The times,

they were a-changin’.

618 Texas Bar Journal • July 2014 texasbar.com

In order to participate in the movement, a lawyer neededa machine. IBM responded, and for $150 per month, onecould rent a Mag Card Selectric Typewriter with its “golfball” printer head and purchase magnetic cards for $1each. Because one card could hold only a single page oftext, the cost of storage was equal to $1 per page. To topit off, the machines had no video screen and a computercrash happened only when the cards were dropped andtheir correct order could not be replicated.

And then there was J. Harris Morgan, a solo practitioner“from the metropolitan community of Greenville, Texas,”whose contacts with Turner, Strong, Sternin, and othersconcerned with the economics of law practice broughtthem to participate in CLE programs in Texas. With hisportfolio of oversized posters, Morgan extolled the virtuesof “Six Systems For the Lawyer’s Office,” “How To DraftBills That Clients Rush To Pay,” the findings from “TheMissouri Motivational Survey,” “Romancing Fees Intothe Twenty-First Century,” and even Maslow’s “Hierar-chy of Needs” as it related to law practice. Morgan deliv-ered his message with the fervor of an itinerant tentrevivalist, but then he slowed down to close his lecturesby exhorting his audience to “Begin. The Rest Is Easy.”Rightly so, Morgan was regarded as the Billy Graham oflegal economics.

We come now to a Saturday in February of 1974 at theShamrock Hotel in Houston, where 750 Texas lawyersregistered for a program titled “Salvation For the SoloPractitioner,” featuring Morgan’s “Six Systems” andBernie Sternin’s “What You Need To Know About WordProcessing.” Then-State Bar President Leroy Jeffersopened the program with a rousing defense of the Texasminimum fee schedule, which was being challenged bythe Federal Trade Commission. At the time, it was saidto be the largest audience to ever have attended a CLEprogram in Texas, and it confirmed the increasingdemand for practical programs to help lawyers becomemore efficient.

The momentum to educate Texas lawyers has not alwaysbeen forward or easy. At one time or another, even theprogressive lawyers on the State Bar CLE Committeewere reluctant to spend money on new programs. Forexample, a proposal for a program estimated to cost about$500 was rejected as being too expensive and too risky.

But Cavin persevered. His first response to any proposalwas yes, no matter how harebrained. He encouraged can-did discussion, and, as a result, a bad idea could die grace-fully, an average idea could be developed into somethinguseful, and a great idea could result in courses and man-uals. It was his willingness to listen, his enthusiasticencouragement, and his unflinching support that moti-vated the volunteers to devote so much time and effort todeveloping and presenting cutting-edge programs that,when successful, were expanded into publications andmultiple presentations in other venues.

By 1975, the CLE Committee had been handpicked toinclude members whose first response to any idea, likeCavin’s, was yes. During this time, certification of spe-cialists was in its infancy. Even though real estate had notyet been recognized as an area for specialty designation,the committee recruited University of Houston law pro-fessor John Mixon to plan and to present the bar’s firstadvanced course. He led the audience from the contractfor the purchase of property through the closing, financ-ing, and completion of its development. From this beginninghas come the plethora of advanced courses that is theenvy of CLE providers everywhere. CLE in Texas wasnever the same.

J. Harris Morgan of Greenville discusses law office economics and the use of minimumfees at a 1971 meeting of the Austin Junior Bar.

But Cavin persevered. His first response to any proposal was yes, no matter howharebrained. He encouraged candid discussion, and, as a result, a bad idea could diegracefully, an average idea could be developed into something useful, and a great ideacould result in courses and manuals.

texasbar.com/tbj Vol. 77, No. 7 • Texas Bar Journal 619

From baby steps to the cornucopia oftoday’s CLE availability, the publica-tions, course offerings, and other serv-ices have multiplied many times over.Although the benefits of other people’sexperiences were so great and by them-selves could have been expected tomotivate attendance, the members ofthe bar felt it necessary to vote toimpose requirements for annual mini-mum CLE. Those who attain not onlythe annual minimum of 15 hours butwho also obtain twice as much trainingare eligible for membership in theCollege of the State Bar of Texas to recog-nize their dedication to self-improvement.

While Cavin presided over and guidedthe Texas program for almost 20 years,he also had contemporaneous service aspresident of the Association for Contin-uing Legal Education, the nationalorganization for CLE leaders in state andspecialty bar associations and other non-profits. Cavin’s legacy continues inTexas through his philosophy of excel-lence and service that he instilled involunteers, bar staff, and the lawyerswho were privileged to work closelywith him.

Press the button once again, and wereturn to the present. Today, TexasBar-CLE continues in the great traditionstarted back in 1963, producing inform-ative and engaging materials, offeringannually more than 95 live seminars, 60 video replaycourses, 160 webcasts, and 1,900 online classes.

We are taught that to do great things, we should stand onthe shoulders of giants. Certainly there are other giantsfrom other times, but these—Lee Turner, Kline Strong,Bernie Sternin, Harris Morgan, and Gene Cavin—werethe giants of their time who provided strong shoulders onwhich to stand and from which the State Bar’s CLE hasgrown, improved, and been made available in so manyformats to so many of us.

It is said that the past is the prologue to the future. Andwhat a past we have had. There have been so many newideas and so much improvement in the traditional tried-and-true. In thinking about the future, one thing is cer-tain: Things will change. I believe the changes will bring

enhancements not even imaginable to the wisest of the“futurists.” If this prediction is even partially accurate,the best of law practice and continuing legal education isyet to come. Wouldn’t the early participants love to bearound to watch?

They are all gone now—Turner, Strong, Sternin, Mor-gan, and Cavin—but their contributions live on. We nowdrink the water. Let us always remember who dug thewell. TBJ

JAMES E. BRILLis a 1957 University of Texas School of Law graduate and a solo practitioner from Hous-ton whose practice emphasizes probate, estate planning, and real estate. He has beenthe principal author of every edition of the Texas Probate System and is a recipient of thePresidents’ Award from the State Bar of Texas.

The cover of a 1974 brochure for a solo/small firm course co-sponsored by the PEER Committee of the State Bar ofTexas and the Houston Bar Association.