HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Elizabeth Warren practice... » Reply #45

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 OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 91 replies Author Time 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
LineReply The National Review Online also has a good defense to these charges.
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
Please login to view edit histories.