Michele Bachmann Watch, 8/10/08: You might not want to seek MB's legal counsel

[marmar]

from DumpMicheleBachmann blog:



New mystery: Bachmann not authorized to practice law?

Our latest mystery here at Dump Bachmann concerns whether or not Congresswoman Bachmann is currently authorized to practice law here in Minnesota.

I was checking in to read the "Daily Digest" of Minnesota politics at MPR's Polinaut website (and everyone should check in regularly to read that.) There I found the following claim in their regular "Daily Digest" post:

"GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann's law license is also not valid."

Interesting, right? But when you follow the link that Polinaut gives in support of the claim, you are taken to a Star Tribune website that describes DFL candidate Ashwin Madia's *renewal* of *his* law license. The only reference to Bachmann's law license is a featured comment by an unidentified author. The author of this comment claims that Bachmann is no longer authorized to practice law in Minnesota, and gives the following link in support of that claim:

http://www.mncourts.gov/lprb/lawyersearchdetails.aspx?mars=0179863

If you follow that link, you see this:

MINNESOTA LAWYER SEARCH:
LAWYER PUBLIC DISCIPLINE RECORD

Minnesota Lawyer Record of Public Discipline and/or Disability Information:
Lawyer License No.: 0179863
Full Licensed Name: MICHELE MARIE BACHMANN
City, State: STILLWATER, MN
Date Admitted to
Minnesota Bar: 12/19/1986
Authorized to Practice: NOT AUTHORIZED
Reason(s): CLE: RESTRICTED-VOLUNTARY
No Public Discipline on Record.
Home | New Search

The proprietor of the website that posted this information(www.mncourts.gov) is the Minnesota Judicial Branch.

Also on the Minnesota Judicial Branch's website is the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board and Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility. They are "responsible for oversight and administration of the Minnesota lawyer discipline system." Their site allows the public to search for lawyers licensed to practice in Minnesota to determine whether they have been publicly disciplined. All you have to do is enter the lawyer's name.

So I put in Michele Bachmann's name, and I see that "no, she has not been disciplined"--but yes, it is true that she is not authorized to practice law in Minnesota. Then I click on her name, to learn why she is not authorized to practice law in Minnesota: and I get the information that I reproduced above.

The part of that information that seems important to me is this:

Authorized to Practice: NOT AUTHORIZED
Reason(s): CLE: RESTRICTED-VOLUNTARY

The acronym CLE stands for "Continuing Legal Education." When I was in law--a looong time ago-- the states required that attorneys attend yearly seminars on law ("continuing legal education") to keep their authorization to practice law in good standing. It's a pain in the ass for many lawyers (in terms of scheduling and time off from work) but you had to do it. And failure to do so could result in suspension. It may be that the reason that Michele is not "authorized to practice" is that she has failed to fulfill her "continuing legal education" requirement. I don't know for sure that is the reason that the Minnesota Judicial Branch is telling people that she's not authorized to practice; that that is what the "CLE: RESTRICTED-VOLUNTARY" means.

But it's worth a phone call from either Michele or me to find out.

Next mystery: who sent that comment in to the Star Tribune, alleging that Michele is not authorized to practice law in Minnesota? Was it someone from Dump Bachmann? Was it some disgruntled employee or colleague? The comment wasn't signed.


http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/2008/08/new-mystery-bachmanns-license-to.html

[mwb970]

1. I'm torn between Bachmann and Mean Jean for the Katherine Harris Award.

Which is the most egregious female right-wing jerk in Congress? Or are there still others?

[marmar]

2. There are probably other lower-profile ones, but I think you picked the two finalists correctly.....

:dunce: :dunce:


Two of a kind.

[merh]

3. It appears that she has chosen to not get all the CLE hours

needed to keep her license current.

[gratuitous]

4. I don't know about Minnesota

But quite a number of lawyers in my state who no longer practice law go to "inactive" status. They pay an annual fee to remain in the Bar directory, but they have the notation (I) next to their names. Attorneys who go in for politics often let their active status lapse, because the various requirements, including continuing legal education, are too much to keep up with.

Verdict: Unless Michele Bachmann is holding herself out as an active, practicing attorney in Minnesota, this is probably not that big a deal, and not all that unusual as far as lawyers who have embarked on a non-law career.

[sharesunited]

5. Barack and Michelle, both lawyers, are currently not authorized in Illinois.

If you are not practicing because you are engaged in other professional pursuits (including holding or campaigning for political office), your status changes with the state bar until you return to the regular practice of law.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. Nothing sinister here.

If her license comes up "restricted, voluntary" it means she notified them that she wanted to be placed on restricted status because she wasn't practicing law and didn't want to attend CLE courses. This isn't unusual for a lawyer who has taken up another profession and has no reason to take the very expensive, very time-consuming, usually very boring, and mostly useless (if you aren't practicing law) CLE courses that are required to maintain a current license. It does mean you aren't authorized to practice law. But if you aren't practicing law anyway, that's not a problem. I did exactly the same thing when I got out of the business. If I ever want to get back into it I will simply make up 90 credits of CLEs (eww!).

Much as I dislike Michelle Bachmann, in this case she has done absolutely nothing wrong. If she'd just blown off her CLEs the restriction would be listed as "INvoluntary."