HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Elizabeth Warren practice...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 11:58 AM

Elizabeth Warren practiced law without a license?

Please tell me this is not true. Only sources I could find were Freep and Breitbart, and I'm not inclined to believe either one.

Does someone have the full context from what she said on the radio?

91 replies, 11570 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 91 replies Author Time Post
Reply Elizabeth Warren practiced law without a license? (Original post)
Arkana Sep 2012 OP
R. Daneel Olivaw Sep 2012 #1
Hutzpa Sep 2012 #2
bemildred Sep 2012 #3
Arkana Sep 2012 #12
bemildred Sep 2012 #13
Jeff In Milwaukee Sep 2012 #14
onenote Sep 2012 #27
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #31
dbackjon Sep 2012 #4
Proud Liberal Dem Sep 2012 #5
Orangepeel Sep 2012 #6
JDPriestly Sep 2012 #36
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #41
JDPriestly Sep 2012 #50
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #53
Mass Sep 2012 #7
Orangepeel Sep 2012 #9
JDPriestly Sep 2012 #37
CreekDog Sep 2012 #58
TroyD Sep 2012 #61
bigdarryl Sep 2012 #8
csziggy Sep 2012 #10
JDPriestly Sep 2012 #38
csziggy Sep 2012 #40
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #43
Lint Head Sep 2012 #11
MnAttorney Sep 2012 #15
justiceischeap Sep 2012 #16
Arkana Sep 2012 #17
tallahasseedem Sep 2012 #25
left on green only Sep 2012 #30
sweetapogee Sep 2012 #32
thevoiceofreason Sep 2012 #33
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #39
thevoiceofreason Sep 2012 #46
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #57
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #44
thevoiceofreason Sep 2012 #47
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #51
Hassin Bin Sober Sep 2012 #34
cecilfirefox Sep 2012 #69
pnwmom Sep 2012 #74
musiclawyer Sep 2012 #18
buzzman Sep 2012 #19
kestrel91316 Sep 2012 #20
UCmeNdc Sep 2012 #21
Berkshire Boy Sep 2012 #22
wutang77 Sep 2012 #23
Berkshire Boy Sep 2012 #29
thevoiceofreason Sep 2012 #24
DURHAM D Sep 2012 #26
GreenStormCloud Oct 2012 #90
DURHAM D Oct 2012 #91
patrice Sep 2012 #28
CreekDog Sep 2012 #59
patrice Sep 2012 #62
louis-t Sep 2012 #79
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #35
Gothmog Sep 2012 #42
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #48
Gothmog Sep 2012 #45
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #49
Gothmog Sep 2012 #52
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #55
Justice Sep 2012 #54
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #56
TroyD Sep 2012 #60
DesertRat Sep 2012 #63
TroyD Sep 2012 #64
DesertRat Sep 2012 #67
Samantha Sep 2012 #65
doccraig67 Sep 2012 #66
MjolnirTime Sep 2012 #68
Arkana Sep 2012 #71
DesertRat Sep 2012 #70
pintobean Sep 2012 #72
pnwmom Sep 2012 #76
DesertRat Sep 2012 #82
yellowcanine Sep 2012 #73
pnwmom Sep 2012 #75
yellowcanine Sep 2012 #78
pnwmom Sep 2012 #80
yellowcanine Sep 2012 #81
Arkana Sep 2012 #83
yellowcanine Sep 2012 #84
bkkyosemite Sep 2012 #77
TroyD Sep 2012 #85
thevoiceofreason Sep 2012 #86
Justice Sep 2012 #88
Arkana Sep 2012 #87
stevend56 Sep 2012 #89

Response to Arkana (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:03 PM

1. Until it comes from a real source then I'll wait to read about it.

FR and Breitbart? Really?

On edit, that sounds completely fishy...something that has a grain of truth to it like Obama's words being taken out of context.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:14 PM

2. Really?

Free republic and Breitbart?

Utter BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:24 PM

3. Why are you asking us? Is this the place for that sort of bullshit? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #3)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:56 PM

12. I'm asking because I saw it somewhere and I'd rather know what REALLY happened.

Thanks for your condescension.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Reply #12)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:59 PM

13. Ms Warren is a law PROFESSOR, has been since the 80s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Reply #12)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:00 PM

14. I agree with you...

It may be complete bullshit, but if you're surrounded by Republicans (I live in Waukesha County, Wisconsin) you hear this crap on a daily basis. Having the FACTS would be helpful.

Please, DU, stop bashing people who bring this to our attention. Responding to smears is important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #14)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:07 PM

27. +1 We can't fight back if we don't know what we're fighting

I don't understand why some people here think that its harmful for us to see what the other side is claiming and try to develop appropriate responses. Its not like the claims aren't going to be made if we all put on blinders or stick our heads in the sand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #27)


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:29 PM

4. This is where it is coming from

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/elizabeth-warrens-law-license-problem/

No clue on the site, but it is making the internet rounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:32 PM

5. Sounds like the right-wing smear machine kicking into full gear

after last week's debate. I don't know what the truth of the matter is (nor have I heard anything about this at all, actually) but I can't imagine a bright woman like Warren doing this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:34 PM

6. This allegation is gaining right wing blogosphere traction

So it is better to get ahead of it.

The claim, such that it is, seems to be that her mailing address is in Massachusetts and she's not admitted to the Massachusetts bar (although she is admitted to the bars of other states).

I can't say whether or not there was paperwork she should have filed but didn't, and maybe I watch too many lawyer shows on TV, but I'm skeptical that this was really a proble and no opposing counsel ever mentioned it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orangepeel (Reply #6)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 03:28 PM

36. Law professors don't practice law. They teach it. They don't need to be members of the bar

of the state in which they teach.

John Choon Yoo has taught at California law schools off and on since 1993 but as far as I can tell is not listed on the California Bar website as either an active or inactive member of the state Bar.

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/php-programs/faculty/facultyProfile.php?facID=235

He served as a clerk to a Supreme Court Justice so he presumably passed a bar exam somewhere.

He and Elizabeth Warren may be members of the American Bar Association.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #36)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #41)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 04:15 PM

50. Thanks. But some law professors do not practice law.

And if she belongs to a bar association in her federal district, that may suffice to permit her to practice before the Supreme Court and make her a member of the federal bar if she needs to be a member to satisfy the requirements of her federal district. Do you agree with me on that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #50)


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:46 PM

7. Nothing to do with what she said on TV

Legal Insurrection claims they asked they asked MA authorities if she was licensed to practice law, and that they were told NO.

Let's just hope she answers quickly and decisively.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #7)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:51 PM

9. They claim they asked if she was admitted to the MA bar and were told no

Which may or may not be true and may or may not be a problem. But to lay ears, it sounds qualitatively different than "practiced law without a license"

Agree on the quickly and decisively

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orangepeel (Reply #9)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 03:29 PM

37. Teaching law and practicing law are two very different things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #7)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 05:13 PM

58. It was answered elsewhere in the thread

Practically right above ypur post.

And she doesnt need to answer every false charge leveled at her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #58)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 05:48 PM

61. 'And she doesnt need to answer every false charge leveled at her.'

I'm not sure whether she does or she doesn't, but we'll have to see what the Brown strategy is for the next month. Clearly Brown feels that he is losing because as the articles all say today, he has dropped the Mr. Nice Guy routine and is going on the attack on 2 issues now:

1. He is not letting up on the Native American issue, and along with his prejudiced remark on Thursday that Warren doesn't look Native American, he released a new attack ad about it today

2. And now there are rumors and reports all over Twitter about Warren not practicing with a law license

I'm not sure if he's receiving strategic advice from Rove or what, but he's clearly decided to go nuclear on Warren in an attempt to bring down her numbers before November 6.

We need to monitor how this is playing out amongst the public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:50 PM

8. I thiugh rethugs hated lawyers so whats the problem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:54 PM

10. Has she practiced law in Massachusetts?

From her Wikipedia bio, it seems that she was a practicing attorney in New Jersey early in her career but for most of her life she has taught law in New Jersey, Texas, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. I doubt that you have to be admitted to the bar or licensed in order to teach law.

Warren and her husband moved to New Jersey for his work, where she decided to become a stay-at-home mom after becoming pregnant with their first child. After her daughter turned two, Warren enrolled at the Rutgers School of Law–Newark. She worked as a summer associate at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. Shortly before her graduation in 1976, Warren became pregnant with her second child, and began to work as a lawyer from home, writing wills and doing real estate closings.

<SNIP>

Throughout the late 1970s and the 1980s and 1990s, Warren taught law at several universities throughout the country, while researching issues related to bankruptcy and middle-class personal finance. Warren taught at the Rutgers School of Law–Newark from 1977-1978, the University of Houston Law Center from 1978–1983, and the University of Texas School of Law from 1981-1987, in addition to teaching at theUniversity of Michigan as a visiting professor in 1985 and as a research associate at the University of Texas at Austin from 1983-1987.

She joined the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1987, becoming a tenured professor. She began teaching at Harvard Law School in 1992 as a visiting professor, and began a permanent position as Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law in 1995.

In 1995 Warren was asked to advise the National Bankruptcy Review Commission. She helped to draft the commission's report and worked for several years to oppose legislation intended to severely restrict the right of consumers to file for bankruptcy. Warren and others opposing the legislation were not successful; in 2005 Congress passed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

From November 2006 to November 2010, Warren was a member of the FDIC Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion. She is a member of the National Bankruptcy Conference, an independent organization which advises the U.S. Congress on bankruptcy law. She is a former Vice-President of the American Law Institute and a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren


One of the accusations against President Obama is that he has not maintained his law license, and that Michelle Obama has also suspended hers for "questionable reasons". Snopes has a very good article about why they have no reason to keep their licenses active. Many of the same factors could apply to Elizabeth Warren. See: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.asp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #10)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 03:33 PM

38. Who wants to pay bar dues if they don't have to. In California I think they are

a minimum of about $410 per year for active lawyers. Who needs it if you aren't practicing law?

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/AboutUs/News/ThisYearsNewsReleases/201220.aspx

It's $125 for inactive members of the Bar. Quite a bother to renew when you are not practicing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #38)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 03:40 PM

40. Exactly! Professors such as Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama

Do not need a law license.

Heck, my sister was a professor at a medical school and she did not have a medical degree or medical license! My Dad was a licensed engineer but once he retired he only kept his license active for a few more years, then he let it go inactive since it wasn't worth his time to renew it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to csziggy (Reply #40)


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 12:54 PM

11. This website has only been in operation for a month. It was obviously set up as political

propaganda for right leaning college students. I think College Insurrection and Legal Insurrection are nothing more than fronts for right wing propaganda posing as fact because it has the words College and Legal in the name. Also, Warren is titled Professor of Law not lawyer in the documents. To teach in a particular state it doesn't matter which state you are licensed in as long as you are not practicing law. Now consulting as a legal expert is a different matter. All you have to be is competent enough to advise based on the employment requirements of the firm you are working for. I doubt Elizabeth Warren would act as a lawyer in a state she is not certified as a lawyer. Breitbart is dead and so are his ideas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:13 PM

15. I'm a practicing attorney

There are several major holes in this article. First, while it says she worked out of MA, it fails to state where the cases were venued. In most state and federal cases out of state attorneys can be admitted pro hac vice on motion from an attorney licensed in the jurisdiction provided the attorney is licensed somewhere else. This is very standard. I am only licensed in two states, but have litigated cases in over half a dozen. I guarantee you I was acting within accordance of local law each time. Given the high profile cases Ms. Warren litigated, I would imagine she was admitted pro hac vice.

In short, at best, this is a very misleading article. At worst, it is a deliberate misrepresentation of known facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MnAttorney (Reply #15)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:19 PM

16. Welcome to DU and thanks for the info.

I can't imagine she'd have gotten this far in her campaign if she'd broken the law by practicing law without a license. But, of course, logic defies those that are making the claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MnAttorney (Reply #15)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:23 PM

17. Thanks. I figured it was Breitbart just making shit up again--just wanted to be sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MnAttorney (Reply #15)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:04 PM

25. Thank you MnAttorney for your response...

and welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MnAttorney (Reply #15)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:16 PM

30. Welcome to DU and thanks for taking the time to address this question for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MnAttorney (Reply #15)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 03:01 PM

32. The key question...

Is it legal in MA to practice law without being a member of the MA bar? That simple yes or no question seems to be what will bring this nonsense to an end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sweetapogee (Reply #32)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 03:08 PM

33. You cannot practice law in MA courts without a MA bar card.

But look at the federal rule:

"A lawyer applying for admission to the bar of (any particular United States District) Court must be licensed to practice law by the licensing authority of one of the fifty states, DC, or a US Territory . . . ."

So, she could have been (and probably was) licensed in Texas and/or New Jersey (at the least) when she was licensed to practice in various federal courts. Once licensed in federal courts, you retain that license - period - so long as you pay the dues (if any). Note the big cases that Jacobson the conservative hater cites are all federal - but he hasn't looked into her federal admissions.

There is no here here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thevoiceofreason (Reply #33)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #39)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 03:57 PM

46. But most courts, as here in Texas,

Will limit the number of times you can appear pro hac - that is why they note it is up to the individual court. I have been in one case in Mass. Filed my pro hac, and the court asked if I intended to practice there regularly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thevoiceofreason (Reply #46)


Response to sweetapogee (Reply #32)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #44)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 03:58 PM

47. I think we are saying the same thing

We are just saying it differently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thevoiceofreason (Reply #47)


Response to MnAttorney (Reply #15)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 03:12 PM

34. I figured as much. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MnAttorney (Reply #15)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 01:50 AM

69. Hey, MnAttorney!! I'm a student at Washburn Law! Quick, give me a tip! ;)

Also, welcome to DU! \O/!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MnAttorney (Reply #15)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 04:24 PM

74. Welcome to DU, MnAttorney! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:29 PM

18. You can't practice law and be a judge ; you can practice law and teach school

But you don't have to practice law to teach. This is real base nonsense.

But do not let it gain traction. Fight fire with fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:31 PM

19. hey, bachmann practiced law without a brain

this is last minute smearing because she is surging in the polls

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:42 PM

20. One need not have a current bar card to TEACH law. More RW BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:46 PM

21. Elizabeth Warren needs to get ahead of this before it becomes a fact

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 01:57 PM

22. Right Wing Noise Machine

The tightie righties are burning up the twittershpere with this bogus story trying to get traction with it. There needs to be a pithy response from a top-tweeter that we can re-tweet to take the wind out of their sails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berkshire Boy (Reply #22)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:02 PM

23. Just the fact that our political discourse has come down to twitter,

 

makes me sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wutang77 (Reply #23)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:13 PM

29. Me too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:04 PM

24. Accusations/article written by William A. Jacobson

From Wiki: "William A. Jacobson is an American lawyer, professor, and conservative blogger."

He's a right wing securities law professor at Cornell, Harvard Law Grad in 1984.

He probably was on the wrong side of a case or two against her.

You do not have to be licensed in the state in which you live, so long as you don't pracitce law there regularly. Most states allow limited pro hac vice appearances.

He says she used the Massachusetts address on her briefing - again fine - what I would like to see in full disclosure is what came next on the signature block: Her Bar Number. Especially if it is a Federal District Court Bar Number (like for the Southern District of New York - the hotbed of bankruptcy/securities litigation). See, if she maintained one/many federal disctrict court bar number(s), she can practice in any of those federa court(s) in which she is licensed. Since the crazies are saying that most of her work was bankruptcy/securities related, and much of that litigation is federal, then it is probable that there is nothing going on here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:04 PM

26. While on the subject of candidates...

I want to know if Mitt took the bar?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #26)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 11:26 PM

90. He is a businessman, not a lawyer. Why should he take the bar? N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #90)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 11:34 PM

91. I didn't ask if he "should".

I asked if he did.

What a lovely and timely response.

Who threw up in your Wheaties?

Edit: Nevermind - I see you came from the gungeon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 02:08 PM

28. Why don't you google it & read several sources & decide for yourself? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #28)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 05:19 PM

59. Concerned posters rarely google beforehand

Not casting aspersions on the OP, just making an observation about these kind of posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #59)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 06:17 PM

62. +1 & b..b..but! I LIKE asparagus!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #62)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 05:36 PM

79. "It's a very nice vegetable!"

Ne-e-e-ver mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Original post)


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 03:47 PM

42. Above the Law (legal blog) has good answer to these charges

My kids have hooked me on Above the Law which is a legal blog. This blog has a good defense for Professsor Warren on this issue http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/does-elizabeth-warren-have-a-law-license-problem/

Here’s a good comment on Jacobson’s post from a Massachusetts lawyer, Edward Wiest:
If the work in question was confined to consulting with admitted counsel (e.g., attorneys for asbestos insurers), as long as Prof. Warren did not file a sole appearance for a client, nor provide services to “laypersons”, she would likely be within the safe harbor of ABA Model Rule 5.5 (c)(1), as adopted in the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Responsibility (permitting non-Massachusetts lawyers to provide “legal” services “undertaken in association with a lawyer who is admitted to practice in this jurisdiction and who actively participates in the matter”.) Furthermore, _if_ Professor Warren’s work were limited to consultative services in the form of providing or guiding research and writing for trial/appellate/amici counsel, it would be little different from that of a “law student intern” permitted to assist an admitted attorney under ABA Model Rule 5.3, Comment , as adopted in Massachusetts.

IIRC, the scope of the activities of Haavaad law professors as more or less permanent consultants to one or several law firms (notwithstanding Harvard’s prohibition of its law faculty holding “of counsel” positions on law firm letterhead) has always been a source of bemusement/irritation to people inside and outside the Law School. If (for whatever reason), Professor Warren had ceased to be a member of any state bar, she should have received credit for her assistance to counsel of record by footnote (as customary for “nonlawyers”), rather than through “of counsel” credit on the cover of the brief (I doubt she would care as long as the checks cleared). I would hope that the limited resources I contribute to the Massachusetts bar disciplinary system would be directed to more serious threats to the public than this.blockquote]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #42)


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 03:54 PM

45. The National Review Online also has a good defense to these charges.

Being a law professor does not require one to be licensed in that state. Participating in various federal court lawsuits is allowed so long as the court admitted Prof. Warren. Here are some good explanations from the National Review Online (which not normally a good source for defending a Democrat). http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/328356/elizabeth-warren-unlicensed-lawyer#

One of my readers, a lawyer, writes in:

The post indicates that this is a federal case. You do not need to be licensed to practice law in Massachusetts to practice law in federal courts located in Massachusetts or anywhere else. Federal courts decide who can practice before them, and individual states can’t tell federal courts that an attorney cannot practice before them. It’s that whole supremacy clause thing. Constitution 101 and all that.

It is really well established that a federal district court can admit an attorney to practice before it even if the attorney is not licensed in that state. You most certainly do not need to be licensed in the state where a federal court of appeals sits to appear before the federal court of appeals. I am clearly practicing law when I argue before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. It does not matter that I am not licensed in Ohio.

The blurb also mentions taking the case to the US Supreme Court. I have submitted an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court on a case that originated in West Virginia state courts even though I am not licensed to practice there. I was not practicing law without a license when I did so because I was admitted to practice before the Supreme Court.
Here is another good explanation from this article
ANOTHER UPDATE: Another veteran lawyer writes in to Campaign Spot:

I have practiced law for 30 years. Your correspondent is correct that a federal court can permit an attorney from a state outside the state wherein the federal court sits to appear before that court. The practice is called “pro hac vice,” which is Latin for “for this occasion.” Here are the pro hac vice requirements for the District Court of Mass, which would be the relevant court in this case.

However, this does not conclude the issue. There would still need to be an attorney licensed in Mass. who moved for Ms. Warren to be admitted pro hac vice for the case at hand. Such a document would have to be in the docket of the case as to which she was representing her client. If Ms. Warren simply filed pleadings without first being admitted to the court pro hac vice, she would be implicitly representing to the court that she was, in fact, licensed to practice in Mass., and if she was not so licensed, she would have violated the court’s rules, and, in effect, have committed a fraud upon the court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #45)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #49)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 04:18 PM

52. I am a transactional attorney

I am not a litigator and do not practice in federal court. I agree with your analysis.

This is an issue that may confuse laypersons but will not last long before the fact checkers and the experts. When I read the OP, I was not worried because most law professors consult on the side and there is no issue as to unauthorized practice of law. I expect that Jack Balkan's website and the Vokhol websites will be discussing this issue before long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #52)


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 04:31 PM

54. The Cornell professor left out an important point which changes everything.

http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2012/09/no-elizabeth-warren-did-not-engage-in-the-unauthorized-practice-of-law/



"But most importantly, Professor Jacobson ignores Massachusetts Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5(d), which states that:

“A lawyer admitted in another United States jurisdiction, and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal services in this jurisdiction that…are services that the lawyer is authorized to provide by federal law or other law of this jurisdiction.”

The Official Comments to Rule 5.5(d) further elaborate to make explicit that 5.5(d) permits even “systematic and continuous presence in for the practice of law as well as provide legal services on a temporary basis.”

As the cases to which Professor Jacobson has drawn our attention are entirely cases from the federal courts, and indeed appear to be cases lying even outside the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts federal courts, and as there seems to be no allegation that Professor Warren was unauthorized to appear in those cases, the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct appear to explicitly exempt Professor Warren’s actions in those cases from the prohibitions on the unauthorized practice of law."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Justice (Reply #54)


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 05:22 PM

60. Looks like Karl Rove/Scott Brown is going all out to take her down

I am so sick of this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TroyD (Reply #60)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 06:55 PM

63. Ron Christie is spreading this all over twitter too

They see Warren ahead and now they're determined to take her down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DesertRat (Reply #63)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 06:59 PM

64. Does Warren have the documentation she needs to refute the charge?

Can she show that she didn't need a law license to argue before the Supreme Court since she was qualified to do that and that she didn't practice with the MA bar?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TroyD (Reply #64)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 12:54 AM

67. How would I know?

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 07:29 PM

65. She has a law degree from Rutgers

"Born in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Elizabeth Warren became the first member of her family to graduate from college, eventually earning her law degree from Rutgers. After spending time as a law professor at Harvard University, Warren was selected to lead the National Bankruptcy Review Commission. In 2008, she served as head the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Warren launched her campaign for Senate in 2011.

***

"Elizabeth and her husband moved to New Jersey, where Warren worked in public schools, helping children with disabilities. During this time, Warren gave birth to two children, daughter Amelia and son Alex. The day her first child turned 2, she headed to graduate school for law at Rutgers University. She earned her J.D. in 1976, and practiced law out of her living room."

http://www.biography.com/people/elizabeth-warren-20670753

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 08:00 PM

66. Article in business week. Warren has liscence

Warren, who successfully argued the asbestos case before the Supreme Court, said in a statement Monday that she never claimed that she had a law license in Massachusetts or "hung out a shingle" there.

Warren has a license to practice in federal courts and the Supreme Court and never broke any laws, according to her campaign.

"This is a distraction from the real issues," spokeswoman Julie Edwards said.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-warren-and-law-license-2012-9#ixzz27R1fIbq8


However, as this story continues to unfold, here’s an important point to consider :

The post indicates that this is a federal case. You do not need to be licensed to practice law in Massachusetts to practice law in federal courts located in Massachusetts or anywhere else. Federal courts decide who can practice before them, and individual states can’t tell federal courts that an attorney cannot practice before them. It’s that whole supremacy clause thing. Constitution 101 and all that.

It is really well established that a federal district court can admit an attorney to practice before it even if the attorney is not licensed in that state. You most certainly do not need to be licensed in the state where a federal court of appeals sits to appear before the federal court of appeals. I am clearly practicing law when I argue before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. It does not matter that I am not licensed in Ohio.

The blurb also mentions taking the case to the US Supreme Court. I have submitted an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court on a case that originated in West Virginia state courts even though I am not licensed to practice there. I was not practicing law without a license when I did so because I was admitted to practice before the Supreme Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 01:22 AM

68. way to get fishhooked, sucker

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MjolnirTime (Reply #68)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 10:40 AM

71. Thanks for your insightful and well-written contribution.

Truly you are a credit to this forum and all its posters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to DesertRat (Reply #70)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:17 PM

72. He has updated that today

UPDATE 4 9/27: Professor Jacobson has uncovered new facts that I view as a gamechanger. Although I stand by my above analysis as applied to the facts known at the time, Professor Jacobson’s discovery this morning answers my objections to his arguments.


I don't know anything about the law. If this means anything, the media will cover it. If and when they do, I guess we'll see if it has any effect on the race. My gut tells me it's nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DesertRat (Reply #70)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 04:37 PM

76. I thought that was excellent -- until I got to the "game-changer" update today.

What did you think about that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #76)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 08:08 PM

82. I just saw that game-changer update

I don't know what to think. I guess we'll have to see what the legal minds have to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 04:18 PM

73. Provocative statement with a question mark? I call BS on your Fox News tactic.

This type of "debate" doesn't belong in DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #73)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 04:27 PM

75. I call BS on your reaction to the poster.


The poster had a question and was hoping to get an answer that was favorable for Warren. Many of us are in contact with Rethugs in our day to day lives and it's good to have answers ready for questions like this when they come up.

The poster wasn't trying to be provocative and it's fine to ask questions like this on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #75)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 04:59 PM

78. Then why use the Fox tactic of making a statement and inserting a question mark?

Ask a real question if you want an answer, such as,

What is the source of the claim that Elizabeth Warren practiced law without a license?

Much less Fox Newsy that way and it is a real question which can be answered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #78)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 06:58 PM

80. Unlike you, I don't watch Faux enough to know that's a tactic of theirs.

And maybe the poster didn't either. I wouldn't suspect the motives of someone with as many posts as you have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #80)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 08:02 PM

81. Ok that is a cheap shot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #73)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 08:27 PM

83. With all due respect, bite me.

If I'd had a source other than Freep or Breitbart I would have posted it.

I saw it on another political website and wanted to know what the actual story was, since I figured it was bullshit. Thanks for jumping down my throat though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Reply #83)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 08:53 PM

84. Nice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 04:49 PM

77. Thank you to all who contributed their knowledge

to this thread. It has been very imformative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkana (Original post)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:49 AM

85. Republicans are claiming this morning that they have 'new evidence' against Warren

Republicans are claiming that they have new evidence that Warren didn't have a law license:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/elizabeth-warren-defender-with-this-bombshell-i-would-no-longer-view-the-case-against-her-as-weak/

Could this have any traction?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TroyD (Reply #85)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 10:50 AM

86. Nope

The question remains - what work did she do on that case? If she did not participate on the matters in the case involving Mass. law, still no there there. I saw nothing mentioning that she was lead counsel - rather, she was brought in to a federal appeal to advise on bankruptcy related issues. It is most likely that she used her federal bankruptcy/securities law expertise to advise on those issues in that case.

Also, the key factor in every claim like this is: Why wasn't it raised by the lead counsel on the other side? You better believe that if I see a potential conflict of interest or other ethical shortcoming on the other side, I will bring it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thevoiceofreason (Reply #86)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 04:44 PM

88. I keep coming back to that point - why wasn't it raised by the other side at the time?

It is the first thing a litigator would do - check that people can appear. Particularly important as a device if you want to knock out lawyers on the other side of a case when you knew they were very good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TroyD (Reply #85)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 02:10 PM

87. They don't have squat. Something of this magnitude would have been found out back when she was first

being vetted for the CPB if it was real.

Legal Insurrection (as I have subsequently found out) is nothing more than a right-wing cesspit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TroyD (Reply #85)

Fri Sep 28, 2012, 04:54 PM

89. Is the Massachusetts bar taking action?

If not, then this story goes nowhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread