On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Advanced Compliance and Ethics Workshop 2017

Select a Location:

Please note that "ethics" in the program title refers to the “Compliance and Ethics Program” used in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations. It does not specifically refer to legal ethics. Please check the credit calculator to the right for credit information for your jurisdiction.

Having an effective compliance and ethics program is essential to companies of all types.  Such programs are a necessary tool to manage the substantial risks posed by employee and third party misconduct.  Compliance and ethics programs also help mitigate the harm from violations when they occur.  Companies that achieve success in this realm minimize the likelihood of devastating criminal and regulatory sanctions and reap the rewards of employee loyalty and customer and shareholder trust. 

In this Workshop, you will learn about leading compliance and ethics practices from faculty drawn from major corporations, law firms, academia, and the government. Our distinguished faculty will provide you with the tools you need to advance your program and further your professional development.

You will learn:

  • Use the new legal standards and guidance to enhance your program
  • Design and conduct effective compliance risk assessments
  • Create a risk-based training and communications strategy
  • Develop tools to structure your program with independence, reach and clout
  • Structure effective systems to receive, investigate, manage and escalate allegations
  • Perform effective compliance audits and assessments
  • Effectively report to the Board and senior management

This Workshop is designed specifically for experienced compliance officers, human resources professionals, in-house and law firm attorneys working in the compliance field and staff responsible for compliance program management.

Lecture Topics  [Total time 10:21:20]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • The Elements and Characteristics of an Effective Compliance and Ethics Program* [00:12:31]
    Rebecca Walker
  • Recent Compliance Developments and What to Expect in 2017 and Beyond [00:59:28]
    Paul E. McGreal
  • Compliance Program Structure and Oversight [01:02:41]
    Sean R. Coutain, Andrew McBride
  • Compliance Risk Assessment: Understanding and Mitigating Your Compliance Risks [01:02:00]
    Monica Reinmiller, David Wong, Darek Kochman, CPA, CFE
  • The Government’s Perspective on Effective C&E Programs* [00:42:35]
    Erin Schneider
  • Compliance Codes, Training and Communication [00:59:52]
    Ravi Inthiran, Melissa Allain
  • Enhancing Compliance Reporting Procedures and Conducting Investigations [01:03:48]
    Sam Pailca, Pamela R. Davis
  • Conflicts of Interest, Corruption and Compliance Risks [01:01:25]
    Brian J. Bartow, Jay C. Mumford
  • Creating, Measuring and Maintaining a Culture of Compliance [01:00:40]
    Laura Fragomeni, Lewis Zirogiannis
  • Global Compliance Programs [01:14:20]
    Daniel Seltzer, Heather Axe
  • Compliance Program Auditing, Metrics and Assessment [01:02:00]
    Alan W. Gibson, Kathleen Collins

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • The Evolution of the Law of Corporate Compliance in the United States: A Brief Overview (August 2017)
    Rebecca Walker
  • An Overview of Corporate Compliance and Ethics Programs
    Paul E. McGreal
  • Due Diligence in Hiring and Promotions: Implementation and Management (2017)
    Amii L. Barnard-Bahn
  • Reporting to the Board on the Compliance and Ethics Program, Compliance & Ethics Professional (June 2014)
    Rebecca Walker, Jeffrey M. Kaplan
  • Extending the Reach of Your Program: Compliance and Ethics Liaisons, Compliance & Ethics Professional (December 2014)
    Rebecca Walker
  • ECI Executive Summary, Principles and Practices of High-Quality Ethics & Compliance Programs: Report of ECI’s Blue Ribbon Panel
    Matthew B. Pachman
  • “Asking a Good Question,” Conflict of Interest Blog (December 17, 2016), http://conflictofinterestblog.com/ 2016/12/asking-a-good-question.html
    Jeffrey M. Kaplan
  • U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section, Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs
    Hui Chen
  • Ethics and Compliance Communications Matrix
    Jeffrey M. Kaplan
  • “Selected Articles on Training and Communications,” Conflict of Interest Blog, www.conflictofinterestblog.com
    Jeffrey M. Kaplan
  • Ethics Resource Center, Encouraging Employee Reporting Through Procedural Justice (2013)
    Jacqueline E. Brevard
  • Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 2017 Mid-Year FCPA Update (July 10, 2017)
    Michael S. Diamant
  • Marsh & McLennan Companies, Anti-Corruption Program Summary
    Michael Sevi
  • Strengthening a Culture of Integrity, Compliance & Ethics Professional (February 2017)
    Steven Priest
  • A Commitment to Integrity, Compliance & Ethics Professional (April 2017)
    Steven Priest
  • Talking the Talk, Compliance & Ethics Professional (June 2017)
    Steven Priest
  • Walking the Talk, Compliance & Ethics Professional (August 2017)
    Steven Priest
  • Courage to Hold People Accountable, Compliance & Ethics Professional
    Steven Priest
  • Beyond the Sentencing Guidelines: Governing Directives, Guidelines and Standards from Around the World (2017)
    Rebecca Walker
  • Using Data Science to Create an Early Warning and Monitoring System for Compliance Risks: A Pragmatic Approach for Legal and Compliance Professionals (August 28, 2017)
    Alan W. Gibson

Presentation Material


  • The Elements and Characteristics of an Effective Compliance and Ethics Program _Power Point
    Rebecca Walker
  • Recent Compliance Developments and What to Expect in 2017 and Beyond_Power Point
    Paul E. McGreal
  • Compliance Program Structure and Oversight_Power Point
    Sean R. Coutain, Andrew McBride
  • Compliance analyticsand reporting solution_Handout
    Darek Kochman, CPA, CFE
  • Compliance analyticsand reporting solution_Handout
    Darek Kochman, CPA, CFE
  • Compliance Risk Assessment: Understanding and Mitigating Your Compliance Risks_Power Point
    Darek Kochman, CPA, CFE, Monica Reinmiller, David Wong
  • Compliance Codes, Training and Communication_Power Point
    Melissa Allain, Ravi Inthiran
  • Enhancing Compliance Reporting Procedures and Conducting Investigations_Power Point
    Pamela R. Davis, Sam Pailca
  • Conflicts of Interest, Corruption and Compliance Risks_Power Point
    Jay C. Mumford
  • Global Compliance Programs_Power Point
    Heather Axe, Daniel Seltzer
  • Compliance Program Auditing, Metrics and Assessment_Power Point
    Kathleen Collins, Alan W. Gibson
Chairperson(s)
Rebecca Walker ~ Kaplan & Walker LLP
Speaker(s)
Heather Axe ~ Associate General Counsel, Korn Ferry
Brian J. Bartow ~ General Counsel & Chief Compliance Officer, California State Teachers Retirement System
Kathleen Collins ~ Chief Compliance & Regulatory Counsel, ServiceLink
Sean R. Coutain ~ Deputy Chief Compliance Officer, Snapchat, Inc.
Pamela R. Davis ~ Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Laura Fragomeni ~ Vice President, US eCommerce Regulatory Compliance, Walmart Global eCommerce
Alan W. Gibson ~ Assistant General Counsel, Office of Legal Compliance, Microsoft
Ravi Inthiran ~ Acting Chief Compliance Officer, Zenefits
Darek Kochman, CPA, CFE ~ Manager - Compliance Analytics, KPMG LLP
Andrew McBride ~ Senior Compliance Professional,
Paul E. McGreal ~ Professor of Law, Creighton University School of Law
Jay C. Mumford ~ Global Compliance Manager, Corporate Compliance Department, Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.
Sam Pailca ~ Senior Attorney, Office of Legal Compliance, Investigations, Office of the General Counsel, Microsoft Corporation
Monica Reinmiller ~ Compliance Counsel, T-Mobile
Erin Schneider ~ Associate Regional Director, Enforcement, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Dan Seltzer ~ Managing Director-Legal, Senior Director, Anticorruption Government Compliance Officer, Accenture
David Wong ~ Director, Global Compliance and Ethics, McKesson Corp
Lewis Zirogiannis ~ Chief Compliance Officer & Executive Regulatory Counsel, GE Digital
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Please note that "ethics" in the program title refers to the “Compliance and Ethics Program” used in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations. It does not specifically refer to legal ethics. Please check the credit calculator to the right for credit information for your jurisdiction.

Having an effective compliance and ethics program is essential to companies of all types.    Such programs are a necessary tool to manage the substantial risks posed by employee and third party misconduct.  Compliance and ethics programs also help mitigate the harm from violations when they occur.  Companies that achieve success in this realm minimize the likelihood of devastating criminal and regulatory sanctions and reap the rewards of employee loyalty and customer and shareholder trust. 

In this Workshop, you will learn about leading compliance and ethics practices from faculty drawn from major corporations, law firms, academia, and the government. Our distinguished faculty will provide you with the tools you need to advance your program and further your professional development.

You Will Learn:

  • Use the new legal standards and guidance to enhance your program
  • Design and conduct effective compliance risk assessments
  • Create a risk-based training and communications strategy
  • Develop tools to structure your program with independence, reach and clout
  • Structure effective systems to receive, investigate, manage and escalate allegations
  • Perform effective compliance audits and assessments
  • Effectively report to the Board and senior management

Special Features
Luncheon Speaker: Hui Chen, Compliance Counsel Expert, U.S. Department of Justice (New York Only) 

This Workshop is designed specifically for experienced compliance officers, human resources professionals, in-house and law firm attorneys working in the compliance field and staff responsible for compliance program management.

Lecture Topics [Total time 10:10:45]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • The Elements and Characteristics of an Effective Compliance and Ethics Program* [00:12:43]
    Jeffrey M. Kaplan
  • Recent Compliance Developments and What to Expect in 2017 and Beyond [00:57:22]
    Joseph E. Murphy
  • Compliance Program Structure and Oversight [01:00:36]
    Rachel L. Gerstein, Stephen C. King
  • Compliance Risk Assessment: Understanding and Mitigating Your Compliance Risks [00:59:45]
    Lauren A. Ferrari, Matthew Pachman
  • The Government’s Perspective on Effective C&E Programs* [00:43:37]
    Hui Chen
  • Compliance Codes, Training and Communication [00:59:18]
    Brian J. Fields, Jack W. Radke
  • Enhancing Compliance Reporting Procedures and Conducting Investigations [01:01:54]
    Jacqueline E. Brevard, JD/LLM, Rachael Honig
  • Conflicts of Interest, Corruption and Compliance Risks [01:00:13]
    Michael S. Diamant, Michael Sevi
  • Creating, Measuring and Maintaining a Culture of Compliance [01:00:55]
    Steven Priest, Joel Katz
  • Global Compliance Programs [01:13:11]
    Kathleen E. Roth, Lee D. Augsburger
  • Compliance Program Auditing, Metrics and Assessment [01:01:12]
    Stacey Babson-Smith, Jeffrey M. Kaplan

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • The Evolution of the Law of Corporate Compliance in the United States: A Brief Overview (August 2017)
    Rebecca Walker
  • An Overview of Corporate Compliance and Ethics Programs
    Paul E. McGreal
  • Due Diligence in Hiring and Promotions: Implementation and Management (2017)
    Amii L. Barnard-Bahn
  • Reporting to the Board on the Compliance and Ethics Program, Compliance & Ethics Professional (June 2014)
    Rebecca Walker, Jeffrey M. Kaplan
  • Extending the Reach of Your Program: Compliance and Ethics Liaisons, Compliance & Ethics Professional (December 2014)
    Rebecca Walker
  • ECI Executive Summary, Principles and Practices of High-Quality Ethics & Compliance Programs: Report of ECI’s Blue Ribbon Panel
    Matthew B. Pachman
  • “Asking a Good Question,” Conflict of Interest Blog (December 17, 2016), http://conflictofinterestblog.com/ 2016/12/asking-a-good-question.html
    Jeffrey M. Kaplan
  • U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section, Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs
    Hui Chen
  • Ethics and Compliance Communications Matrix
    Jeffrey M. Kaplan
  • “Selected Articles on Training and Communications,” Conflict of Interest Blog, www.conflictofinterestblog.com
    Jeffrey M. Kaplan
  • Ethics Resource Center, Encouraging Employee Reporting Through Procedural Justice (2013)
    Jacqueline E. Brevard
  • Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 2017 Mid-Year FCPA Update (July 10, 2017)
    Michael S. Diamant
  • Marsh & McLennan Companies, Anti-Corruption Program Summary
    Michael Sevi
  • Strengthening a Culture of Integrity, Compliance & Ethics Professional (February 2017)
    Steven Priest
  • A Commitment to Integrity, Compliance & Ethics Professional (April 2017)
    Steven Priest
  • Talking the Talk, Compliance & Ethics Professional (June 2017)
    Steven Priest
  • Walking the Talk, Compliance & Ethics Professional (August 2017)
    Steven Priest
  • Courage to Hold People Accountable, Compliance & Ethics Professional
    Steven Priest
  • Beyond the Sentencing Guidelines: Governing Directives, Guidelines and Standards from Around the World (2017)
    Rebecca Walker
  • Using Data Science to Create an Early Warning and Monitoring System for Compliance Risks: A Pragmatic Approach for Legal and Compliance Professionals (August 28, 2017)
    Alan W. Gibson

Presentation Material


  • The Elements and Characteristics of an Effective Compliance and Ethics Program_ Power Point
    Jeffrey M. Kaplan
  • Recent Compliance Developments and What to Expect in 2017 and Beyond_ Power Point
    Joseph E. Murphy, Jeffrey M. Kaplan
  • Compliance Program Structure and Oversight_ Power Point
    Rachel L. Gerstein, Stephen C. King
  • Compliance Risk Assessment: Understanding and Mitigating Your Compliance Risks_ Power Point
    Lauren A. Ferrari, Matthew Pachman
  • The Government’s Perspective on Effective C&E Programs_ Power Point
    Hui Chen
  • Compliance Codes, Training and Communication_ Power Point
    Brian J. Fields, Jack W. Radke
  • Enhancing Compliance Reporting Procedures and Conducting Investigations_ Power Point
    Jacqueline E. Brevard, JD/LLM, Rachael Honig
  • Conflicts of Interest, Corruption and Compliance Risks_ Power Point
    Michael S. Diamant, Michael Sevi
  • Creating A Speak-Up Culture_Article
    Joel Katz
  • 10 Reasons Why a Strong Compliance-HR Partnership Will Improve Your Compliance Program_Article
    Joel Katz
  • Creating, Measuring and Maintaining a Culture of Compliance_ Power Point
    Joel Katz, Steven Priest
  • Global Compliance Programs_ Power Point 1
    Lee D. Augsburger
  • Global Compliance Programs_ Power Point 2
    Kathleen E. Roth
  • Compliance Program Auditing, Metrics and Assessment_ Power Point 1
    Jeffrey M. Kaplan
  • Compliance Program Auditing, Metrics and Assessment_ Power Point 2
    Stacey Babson-Smith
Co-Chair(s)
Jeffrey M. Kaplan ~ Kaplan & Walker LLP
Speaker(s)
Lee D. Augsburger ~ SVP, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer , Prudential Financial
Stacey Babson-Smith ~ Vice-President, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer, Terex Corporation
Jacqueline E. Brevard, JD/LLM ~ Senior Advisor, GEC Risk Advisory LLC
Hui Chen ~ Independent Ethics & Compliance Consultant, Former Compliance Counsel Expert, U.S. Department of Justice (Former)
Michael S. Diamant ~ Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Lauren A. Ferrari ~ Global Compliance Excellence Lead, Nokia
Brian J. Fields ~ Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer, Structure Tone
Rachel L. Gerstein ~ Senior Compliance Counsel and Executive Director, E&C Training & Communications, Avon Products, Inc.
Rachael Honig ~ Corporate Counsel, Litigation, Celgene Corporation
Joel Katz ~ Senior Vice-President, Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer, CA Technologies
Stephen C. King ~ Senior Vice-President, Counsel, Investigations, Mastercard
Joseph E. Murphy ~ Senior Advisor, Compliance Strategists, LLC
Matthew Pachman ~ Chief Risk & Compliance Officer, FTI Consulting, Inc.
Steven Priest ~ President, Integrity Insight International, LLC
Jack W. Radke ~ Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer, Owens-Illinois
Kathleen E. Roth ~ General Counsel - Compliance & International, Bridgestone Americas Holding
Michael Sevi ~ Deputy Chief Compliance Officer, Marsh & McLennan Companies
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.