The products put out by the electronic entertainment industry have grown increasingly complex, developing from the intuitive simplicity of Pong to software that often requires reading a 100-plus page manual just to understand the game. Because of this, today’s games typically come with a tutorial to show you by example how to play. My wife is notorious for skipping the tutorial, wanting to dive right in and figure things out as she goes. I take the opposite approach.

Not only do I always complete the tutorial, but I also frequently go back to the tutorial on games I have mastered and repeat it. I have found that doing so often reveals small details or techniques that I did not realize or simply forgot due to lack of use. Even when I do not learn anything new from completing the tutorial, the descriptions offered or the way the information is presented often trigger new strategies and possibilities that I had not previously considered. I have the same experience with continuing legal education (CLE).

Lawyers generally have three choices when it comes to earning their required CLE credits: 1) they can take a course outside their core practice area, 2) they can take programs that represent cutting-edge developments in their primary fields, or 3) they can participate in programs that cover basic principles in a field they know well – the CLE equivalent of a game tutorial. (For the record, the State Bar of Wisconsin through its PINNACLE® program is the largest provider of CLE in Wisconsin and offers a wide selection in all three categories.)

I advocate taking all kinds of courses. And for the same reasons I sometimes repeat the tutorial, I recommend that lawyers do not neglect category three – what I call “I know this” CLEs.

Lawyers trade in subtlety and nuance, and there is enormous ground to cover in mastering even the law’s narrowest of niches. I have found when taking I-know-this CLEs that the presenter might have a slightly different interpretation of a case, statute, or regulation that I had not before considered, or the presenter’s description might spark new possibilities in my mind. Moreover, newer lawyers often groan when a senior partner says: “The law is X, find me a case that says that” because often X is not the law; either the law has changed since the last time the senior partner examined the issue, or there is a salient difference in the facts between the partner’s past experience and the case at bar. Lawyers must constantly renew our understanding of even well-known principles if we are to maintain mastery.

So, I encourage lawyers to take I-know-this CLEs from time to time. You will often find that you learn something. Worst-case scenario: you will confirm that you do in fact know everything.

Lawyers must constantly renew our understanding of even well-known principles if we are to maintain mastery.