A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Missouri panel hears clash over making implicit‑bias CLE optional for attorneys

January 21, 2026 | 2026 Legislature MO, Missouri


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Missouri panel hears clash over making implicit‑bias CLE optional for attorneys
Representative Keithley sponsored House Bill 2,086 and told the Judiciary Committee the measure would remove the mandatory status of the elimination‑of‑bias continuing legal education (CLE) hour so attorneys may select CLEs that are most useful to their practice. He said many CLEs are valuable but that some ‘‘are largely a distraction’’ and at times have veered into political advocacy rather than practice‑focused instruction.

Representative Keithley said the bill does not ban elimination‑of‑bias offerings but would treat them like other elective CLEs, preserving the total 15‑hour CLE requirement while restoring flexibility for attorneys. He said attorneys can be trusted to choose useful courses and that market demand will sustain valuable training.

Representative Smith and other committee members strongly opposed the change. Representative Smith argued it would be a step backward for professional development and recounted client‑service examples showing why cultural competency and implicit‑bias training matter. Representative Smith said such training can change courtroom outcomes when prosecutors or defenders better understand client perspectives.

Sharon Goway Jones, testifying for the State Conference of the NAACP, opposed HB 2086 and gave job‑specific examples of effective implicit‑bias training, including a seminar on the history of redlining that helps city attorneys and planners understand zoning impacts and a class on how mesothelioma cases differ for female clients. She said those trainings are often practice‑relevant rather than politically driven.

Proponents and opponents differed on whether the required hour primarily improves legal competence across all practice areas or imposes a one‑size‑fits‑all mandate that reduces flexibility. The committee concluded public testimony on HB 2086 after hearing advocates on both sides; no vote was recorded during the hearing.

The committee is expected to decide next procedural steps at a later meeting.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee