Reply #66

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.