Over objections that the programming constitutes “indoctrination,” the Colorado Supreme Court on Thursday approved mandatory equity, diversity and inclusivity training for attorneys as a means of retaining diverse attorneys and recognizing systemic bias.

Colorado joins more than half a dozen other states that have a standalone requirement for EDI, as the training is known. It will become part of the 45 credit hours of continuing legal education (CLE) attorneys need to complete in a three-year period.

“The Supreme Court’s action in adopting this rule sends a powerful message to our colleagues who experience racism, sexism, and other forms of bias: We hear you, we know it happens, and as a profession we will not tolerate it,” said the Presidents Diversity Council, which includes the heads of the Hispanic, women’s, LGBT and other bar associations, in a statement.

The rule change now requires lawyers to fulfill two hours of EDI training per reporting period, as part of the larger seven-credit-hour category of “professional responsibility.” The EDI education should cover equal access to the legal system, representation of diverse populations, and the recognition or elimination of bias in the legal profession.

Earlier this month, the justices held a public hearing and received hundreds of pages of public comments on the change. The majority of attorneys weighing in were supportive of the EDI proposal. Some, however, felt proponents were trying to impose a particular ideology that had little bearing on professional development.

“[I]t’s wrong for the Court to use its rulemaking power to impose on Colorado attorneys a regimen of political indoctrination under the guise of continuing legal education,” wrote one attorney.

Requiring EDI in Colorado gained traction after the 2020 racial justice protests following the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. The Presidents Diversity Council threw its support behind the idea of EDI education.

“Though some may be hesitant or resistant to taking yet another ‘implicit bias’ training, EDI CLEs encompass so much more,” wrote Christine Hernández and Annie Martínez in December, the past presidents of the Colorado Hispanic Bar Association. “For example, a program on cultural competency could help you better connect and communicate with clients from different backgrounds so you can elicit the information you need to defend their case.”

A draft version of the policy contained additional stipulations about the content of EDI training, which described eliminating barriers facing marginalized groups, explicit bias and “understanding ingrained and systemic structural biases in society.” The Supreme Court justices omitted those provisions from the adopted rule.

For William Trachman, associate general counsel of the conservative Mountain States Legal Foundation, the changes made him more comfortable with the policy — albeit with some lingering skepticism.

“It’s good to see they were responsive to some of the concerns about viewpoint protection,” he said, referring to viewpoints that challenge the notion of implicit bias or that eschew the direct confrontation of disparities.

“The jury is still out, no pun intended, but certainly they realized they had significant exposure” to a legal challenge under the First Amendment, Trachman continued.

Hernández countered that the revisions still upheld the original vision of the EDI proposal, and disputed Trachman’s concern that EDI would force a viewpoint on attorneys.

“I don’t think any of the CLEs will be in that vein. It is about having open discussions about open discussions about these topics,” she said. “It’s not about pointing fingers at anybody. It’s about conversation, education and how to be better attorneys.”

This article has been updated to clarify the titles of the Colorado Hispanic Bar Association leaders.