Elizabeth Warren’s law license problem

To practice in any jurisdiction, you need to be admitted to that jurisdiction. The Supreme Court is one such "jurisdiction," although it's really just the one court.

The article cites a half-dozen Supreme Court cases she was "Of Counsel" on, listing her Harvard Law School office address as an address. This is clearly not a case of unlicensed practice of law, so clear it makes me question the legitimacy of the qualifications of the moron who wrote the article.

In fact, if he really is a "professor" at Cornell Law, no doubt he is familiar with many professors at Cornell - I can think of a few by name - who have done the exact same thing as Warren, since Cornell attracts professors from all over the country (world, in fact).

 

Right. And since the former is actually the case, she broke no rules. It would be ridiculous and unprecedented to consider the latter as the correct interpretation of what it means to "establish" an office for the practice of law.

Use some common sense. What did the sign on the door say? Was this "office" listed in the yellow pages? Did she handle any cases in the Massachusetts state courts? Was this her primary, or even a significant, source of income as compared to the income from the law school? Did those fees even go to her, or did they go to the school? Did she have a secretary? Who paid the secretary? Was this an office building, or a law school? What resources (westlaw, books, computers, etc) did she use? The answer to every single one of these questions will point to the fact that this was not an office established for the purpose of practicing law.

Is this how you admit you were wrong and are totally embarrassed for starting the thread without doing your homework, without actually admitting it?

 

You mean like this?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_5

RULE 5. ADMISSION TO THE BAR

1. To qualify for admission to the Bar of this Court, an applicant must have been admitted to practice in the highest court of a State, Commonwealth, Territory or Possession, or the District of Columbia for a period of at least three years immediately before the date of application; must not have been the subject of any adverse disciplinary action pronounced or in effect during that 3 year period; and must appear to the Court to be of good moral and professional character.


So it sounds as if she has to be licensed somewhere in the US. And she wasn't.


So...?

"Of Counsel" does seem to be the key wording here.

 

The article itself says she was admitted to practice in U.S. Supreme Court. That means she met their requirements, period. It sounds like she did so on the basis of either a Texas or NJ license.

Do you know what "Of Counsel" means, or would you like me to explain that?

 

I see you immediately move to the position of personal attack. I am not a lawyer, so the article from law professor Jacobson you feel somehow is suppose to embarrass me? Yeah, whatever Dan, we will see how this plays out.

 

So she can work in Massachusetts for the Supreme Court with a NJ license? OK, I didn't know that.

I was hoping you would explain that. I'm not the attorney here. You are. And as one, you could probably provide a great deal of clarity to this issue but your posts seem more confrontational rather than informational. I guess you have a dog in this fight that I don't know about.

 

Dude. You need a cup of "Pow Wow Chow". Or maybe some of the earlier version, before Fauxahontas lifted the recipe from a French restaurant, and made it Injun.

Do as she says, not as she does. Like a good lemming. Just a coincidence by the squaw, btw ...........

 

And Tribe does? Did you even read the article- Tribe- a law professor like Warren- said that he didn't believe that Warren had done anything wrong.

Face it - you believe Jacobson because Jacobson is saying what you want to believe.

 

I already posted the article which explained the reasoning- quoting Lawrence Tribe:

Fried tells Lawyers Weekly he doesn’t know whether he needs a license to practice law in Massachusetts in order to file Supreme Court briefs, but Tribe says Jacobson is plain wrong.

“The fact that Charles and I happen to be licensed in Massachusetts is immaterial. That wasn’t the reason I could practice in the U.S. Supreme Court. I was an inactive member of the California bar as well, which was all that was needed,” Tribe says.

Tribe adds that Warren fully met all of the Supreme Court’s requirements for filing briefs and petitions with that court.

“This was not and could not be a violation of any Massachusetts rule,” Tribe says. “In fact, any state rule that interfered with a federal filing would be null and void under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution. Elizabeth complied with all applicable federal rules.”

 

Yep, when she lies about being a Native American, yeah, she smells with corruption. Why do you think Jacobson said anything in the first place?

 

Practicing Law for years, at a Supreme Court level, without a License......

....."No Big Deal"......Elizabeth Runs-With-Lies Warren is a Democrat.....its all good....this isnt even newsworthy...
.
.

 

It's not judgment as much as hope.

 

Warren had clients other than Supreme Court cases. Did you read the article ?

 

She may have been a "family counsel", or was contracted for legal expertise and writing. Having clients doesn't always mean that you go to trial or that you are providing specific legal counsel. Many attorneys are asked to provide legal writing for websites, blogs, magazines, or even act as SMEs to writers, directors, or educational facilities.

If she was licensed to the Supreme Court, I'm not sure what the problem is here. Where else do you guys want her to be licensed?

I get the Native American thing because that is clear cut funny, but what is going on? I don't try to keep up with Massachusetts at all.

 

Except that another law professor brought it up and accused her of practicing law without a license in Massachusetts.

I dislike Warren because she is the one that fed the "you didn't build that" bull(*)(*)(*)(*) to Obama, then she lies about being Native American, and now this.

 

I can't dislike any blonde haired, blue eyed Aryan looking woman who claims to be a Native American. That (*)(*)(*)(*)'s amusing. People who are funny...they are hard to dislike.

That said, the man writing the article may have been mistaken about her activities in Massachusetts--or not. I don't care enough to investigate this overmuch myself. I just know that you can be family counsel on a case and not be the attorney of record. That gives the appearance--maybe--of practicing law in a state without actually being the attorney who is licensed and representing them in that state. OR, perhaps he did not know that she had met the requirement of the Supreme Court? Who can say?

This could be a misunderstanding on both sides.

I'll give you an example--and again, not familiar with her activities in Massachusetts--our managing partner is kind of famous and is frequently asked to be on a legal team in other states. He is not licensed in all of those states (I won't go into states like Wisconsin who are friendly to outside attorneys, but...) but he is able to weigh in and provide strategy on those cases. To the outsider this might look like he's practicing law because what he is doing is something that is case contributive, but in fact he is not the attorney of record and is not beholden to all the ethical constraints of the attorney of record.

I don't know the details and this aspect isn't as funny as the Native American thing so I just zone out, but my thought is that this is just a misunderstanding.

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...ren-been-practicing-law-without-a-license.php
This clears a lot up, unfortunately for Warren.

 

Since she decided to run as a Democrat.

 

Leftys dont care if their elected officials tell lies....

Just look at the left handed messiah..... They still love him.

 

Good lord Mello....this is somehow about Brown???? You're better than that.

 

Ouch, good post.

 

Yes. So good that leftist will pretend it does not exist.

 

You dont have a clue. There is no such thing as a license to practice in the US Supreme Court. We can all see where the comedy and idiocy is coming from.

 

Perhaps, we're mixing terms here, but are you saying that any old attorney that wants to can just enter a notice of appearance and head on in?

Every single federal court has different criteria to be admitted for that state, some more stringent than others and some more loose. I won't even pretend to know what Massachusett's criteria is, but it is possible to live in one state and be able to appear in federal or supreme court in another. Perhaps she was licensed in say, New York, and met the Mass criteria by having the correct number of sponsors and classes?

I am trying not to allow my brain to absorb too much about someone living in Massachusetts. I like to forget that state exists.

 

No, Im saying there is no such thing as a license to practice in the US Supreme Court. Something they made up, likely to try and cover the fact that she has no license from any state, which are the ONLY ones to issue law licenses. .