Judicial Officers

Yes — judges in Indiana are subject to separate continuing judicial education (CJE) requirements distinct from the general CLE obligations for attorneys.

These judicial duties are governed under Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 28, while general CLE is under Rule 29, and the two regimes overlap in approved credits but impose different minimums.

Details:

• Rule 29 expressly provides that attorneys who also serve as judges are governed by Rule 28 for education requirements.

Yes — Ohio imposes a separate continuing judicial education (CJE) requirement for judges under Gov. Jud. R. IV, distinct from the general CLE requirement for attorneys.

Judges (full-time, part-time, acting, and eligible retired) must complete 40 hours of education every two years, including 10 hours through the Ohio Judicial College, with 3 of those hours in judicial conduct.

Details

• The Ohio Judicial College provides courses satisfying the judicial component of the requirement.
• The 40-hour requirement

Yes — judges in Texas must comply with a distinct continuing judicial education (CJE) requirement under the Rules of Judicial Education, separate from the attorney MCLE requirement.

The CJE rules, promulgated by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals under Texas Government Code § 39.002 / § 56.006, establish mandatory instruction hours for judges and judicial officers.

Details

• In a judge’s first year on the bench, the requirement is 30 hours of approved instructional training; after the first

Yes — Nebraska imposes a separate continuing judicial branch education obligation for judges under Nebraska Supreme Court Rule § 1-503, in addition to the CLE requirements for attorneys.

Judges must complete a baseline of judicial education distinct from attorney MCLE, which applies to all active attorneys.

Details

• The Judicial Branch Education program is mandated by Rule § 1-503, which sets “required continuing judicial branch

Yes — Hawaii requires full-time state judges to undertake a separate judicial education obligation in addition to the usual attorney CLE regime.

In Hawaii, full-time state judges must participate in a judicial education program approved by the Committee on Judicial Education; those hours may also count toward the standard CLE requirement for attorneys. (RSCH Rule 22(h))

RSCH Rule 22(h) exempts full-time federal judges, magistrate judges, bankruptcy judges, U.S. Court of Federal Claims judges, and

No — judges in New Hampshire do not have a separate continuing education mandate distinct from the CLE rules for attorneys.

Under New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule 53, all active attorneys, including those serving as judges, must complete 12 credit hours annually (including 2 ethics), and no judicial-only CLE requirement is provided in rule or statute.

Details

• Rule 53 requires 720 minutes (12 hours) of continuing legal education per reporting year, including 120 minutes (2 hours)

No — judges in Tennessee do not have a separate CLE regime; they are generally exempt from the attorney CLE requirement while serving as judges.

Under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 21, the CLE requirement applies to attorneys, but Justices, Judges, and Magistrate Judges are exempt on the basis of their judicial continuing education or comparable programs.

Details

• Rule 21 lists as an exemption: “All Justices, Judges, and Magistrate Judges … shall not be subject to the

Yes — judges in South Carolina have a separate judicial continuing legal education requirement (Rule 504), distinct from the CLE requirement for attorneys (Rule 408).

Judicial members must complete at least 15 hours of approved judicial education each year, with a substance abuse / mental health credit required every two years.

Details

• Rule 504 (SCACR) defines “judge” broadly (Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, circuit court, family court, probate

Yes — judges in Michigan now have a separate continuing judicial education (CJE) requirement, even though attorneys in Michigan are not subject to mandatory CLE.

Michigan adopted rules establishing mandatory continuing judicial education for judicial officers effective January 1, 2024, as part of an administrative order by the Supreme Court.

Details

• Administrative Order No. 2021-7 sets forth mandatory continuing judicial education rules for all judicial officers in

No — judges in Maryland do not have a separate CLE requirement distinct from other legal education systems, because Maryland does not currently impose a mandatory CLE regimen for attorneys or judges.

Maryland maintains a Judicial Education program for judges, but it is not mandated by rule as a separate credit ceiling outside any broader CLE mandate.

Details

• Maryland’s Judicial Education (Judicial College) offers continuing education courses for judges and magistrates.
• As of

No — judges in New York do not have a separate CLE requirement; they comply under the same CLE rules that apply to attorneys.

Under New York’s CLE regulations, “attorneys, judges, in-house counsel” fall within the same continuing legal education program without distinct judicial-only mandatory credits.

Details

• New York attorneys (including those serving as judges) must complete 24 credit hours of accredited CLE in each biennial

No — Texas does not mandate a minimum number of in-person classroom CLE hours.

All required MCLE credit may be earned via accredited “live” (which includes live webinars) or pre-recorded/self-study formats, subject to Texas’ credit limits.

Details

• Texas requires active attorneys to complete 15 CLE credit hours each compliance year, including 3 hours in legal

No — judges in South Dakota have no separate or mandatory CLE requirement because South Dakota currently does not impose mandatory CLE on attorneys either.

Since there is no state CLE mandate, there is no parallel judicial-only continuing legal education obligation.

Details

• South Dakota is a “non-mandatory CLE” state — attorneys are not required to complete CLE to maintain their license.

Yes — judges in North Carolina have a separate continuing judicial education (CJE) requirement that is distinct from the CLE obligations for attorneys.

The North Carolina Supreme Court has adopted Rules of Continuing Judicial Education mandating specific education hours and types for judges, and judges are exempt from the State Bar’s CLE rule while serving on the bench.

Details

• Every judge in the trial division must, within the first year after appointment or election, attend an orientation or

No — judges in New Mexico are subject to the same CLE requirements as other licensed attorneys; there is no separate judicial-only continuing education mandate.

Under Rule 18-201 NMRA, judges, retired judges, and other judicial officers must complete the same CLE hours as active bar members.

Details

• Rule 18-201 specifies that all active bar members must complete 12 CLE hours annually, including 2 hours in

No — judges in Minnesota do not have a separate CLE requirement apart from the state’s attorney CLE system.

Judges, like all active attorneys, are subject to Minnesota’s mandatory CLE rules under the Board of Continuing Legal Education; there is no distinct judicial-only continuing education mandate.

Details

• Minnesota law imposes CLE on licensed attorneys — 45 approved credit hours every three years, including credits in

No – Rhode Island does not impose a separate CLE requirement for judges; full-time state or federal judges and magistrates who are not engaged in the practice of law are exempt from MCLE.
Judicial education is administered by the Judiciary’s Education Office, while standard MCLE obligations apply to attorneys who do not fall within this exemption.

Details:
– Full-time judges and magistrates who are not practicing law are expressly exempt from MCLE under Article IV of the Supreme Court Rules.
– The Rhode Island Judiciary’s Education Office runs judicial education and also oversees MCLE for attorneys, but the MCLE exemption removes full-time judges from the attorney reporting requirement.
– Judges who are not within the exemption (for example, not full-time or engaged in the practice of law) remain subject to MCLE as active practitioners.

Key Takeaway
Rhode Island has no separate judges-only CLE requirement; instead, full-time judges who are not practicing law are

No — Vermont does not impose a separate mandatory continuing education requirement exclusively for judges; judges (in most cases) are either exempt or covered under the same MCLE rules as attorneys.

Under Vermont’s MCLE framework, judges and inactive attorneys are not required to comply with the standard CLE obligations.

Details

• Vermont’s Mandatory Continuing Legal Education rules explicitly state that “attorneys on judicial and inactive status

No — judges in Colorado are not subject to a separate CLE system; they comply with the same continuing legal education requirements that govern registered lawyers.

Under Colorado law (C.R.C.P. 250 et seq.), every “registered lawyer and every judge” must complete 45 CLE credit hours per three-year compliance period (including at least seven hours of professional responsibility).

The CLE rules explicitly treat judges as part of the same regulated group for CLE reporting, accreditation, and compliance.

Key

Yes — Arizona does impose a separate continuing education requirement for judges, distinct from the attorney CLE regime.

Under Arizona law and court rules, judges (termed “judicial members”) are exempted from the State Bar’s mandatory CLE program and instead must satisfy judicial education through COJET (Council on Judicial Education and Training).

Meanwhile, active attorneys must complete 15 CLE hours per year under Rule 45, of which 3 hours must be in professional