Nanker Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 (edited) She's not licensed in the State of MA to practice law! If you've got a law license- you didn't do that. http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/elizabeth-warrens-law-license-problem/ Seriously... WTF? Edited September 24, 2012 by Nanker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 (edited) She's fine she's authorized to participate in the bankruptcy case and did so "temporarily" from her office in Mass....what systematic presence did she have as holding herself out to practice in Mass? I don't see anything in here that shows she was truly setting up shop in Mass and holding herself out that way or handling matters of Mass law... Edited September 24, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 She's fine she's authorized to participate in the bankruptcy case and did so "temporarily" from her office in Mass....what systematic presence did she have as holding herself out to practice in Mass? I don't see anything in here that shows she was truly setting up shop in Mass and holding herself out that way or handling matters of Mass law... Yes, but...do you actually know the relevant MA law? I don't...for all we know, there's some sort of reciprocity between MA and NJ that makes the whole story irrelevant (I doubt it - there's not even reciprocity between NJ and NY, according to my sister who practiced in NJ two years ago. Don't see why there would be between NJ and MA). As I dimly recall, that particular site is a politically unbiased legal blog, and I'm willing to defer to it with a LARGE grain of salt until someone points me to the applicable laws and regulations...and I start caring enough to read them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 As I dimly recall, that particular site is a politically unbiased legal blog, and I'm willing to defer to it with a LARGE grain of salt until someone points me to the applicable laws and regulations...and I start caring enough to read them. Bad news, Prof. Jacobson's site is one that I eagerly check 2 - 3 times a day (for the past two years) He is a conservative, but to those skeptics, he does always document his posts with varying links from other law professor sites and offers a clear, concise facts to all of his opinions. Disclaimer: he does seem to have some type of Moby Dick obsession with the Brown/Warren race......................lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Yes, but...do you actually know the relevant MA law? I don't...for all we know, there's some sort of reciprocity between MA and NJ that makes the whole story irrelevant (I doubt it - there's not even reciprocity between NJ and NY, according to my sister who practiced in NJ two years ago. Don't see why there would be between NJ and MA). As I dimly recall, that particular site is a politically unbiased legal blog, and I'm willing to defer to it with a LARGE grain of salt until someone points me to the applicable laws and regulations...and I start caring enough to read them. W/ out showing she represented anyone in Mass or in matters of Mass law, and while admitting the ABA is rule isn't really modernized to the internet age, and glossing over the "temporary" provision...it's really just a op-ed piece slanted against her...plain and simple. The fact is at most it's an academic type argument you would find on a professional responsibility essay in law school....he's writing about not having all the info on her practice and even insinuating she wasn't licensed at all for a period of time she was practicing....to read this as "one guy argues there's a chance she could be subject to discipline" is fine but to read this as "she was definitely engaged in the unauthorized practice of law" is foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Does anyone know if she can practice Tribal Law "for as long as the grass grows and the rivers may flow"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 W/ out showing she represented anyone in Mass or in matters of Mass law, and while admitting the ABA is rule isn't really modernized to the internet age, and glossing over the "temporary" provision...it's really just a op-ed piece slanted against her...plain and simple. The fact is at most it's an academic type argument you would find on a professional responsibility essay in law school....he's writing about not having all the info on her practice and even insinuating she wasn't licensed at all for a period of time she was practicing....to read this as "one guy argues there's a chance she could be subject to discipline" is fine but to read this as "she was definitely engaged in the unauthorized practice of law" is foolish. And further...much like I'd rely on the IRS to determine if Romney committed tax fraud, I'd sooner rely on the Mass. State Bar or equivalent to determine Warren's licensing status rather than a blog post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 And further...much like I'd rely on the IRS to determine if Romney committed tax fraud, I'd sooner rely on the Mass. State Bar or equivalent to determine Warren's licensing status rather than a blog post. I agree just discussing. She won't be disciplined by the bar anyway everyone knows that, certainly not before November. This is just a political op-ed. In any event all lawyers fear falling into some ethics trap so ears and eyes light up when this stuff is talked about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 I agree just discussing. She won't be disciplined by the bar anyway everyone knows that, certainly not before November. This is just a political op-ed. In any event all lawyers fear falling into some ethics trap so ears and eyes light up when this stuff is talked about. Not the ones I know. They seem to actively embrace the possibility. Of course, they're in real estate law. In DC. I don't think it's possible to be more corrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Yes, but...do you actually know the relevant MA law? I don't...for all we know, there's some sort of reciprocity between MA and NJ that makes the whole story irrelevant (I doubt it - there's not even reciprocity between NJ and NY, according to my sister who practiced in NJ two years ago. Don't see why there would be between NJ and MA). As I dimly recall, that particular site is a politically unbiased legal blog, and I'm willing to defer to it with a LARGE grain of salt until someone points me to the applicable laws and regulations...and I start caring enough to read them. if she's trying a federal case, which all the cases that Mr. Jacobson cited were, she doesn't need a Mass license to appear before a federal court. The so called “pro hac vice,” Latin for “for this occasion”, allows an attorney from another state to appear, as long as there's another attorney with an MA license in the docket for the case. Here's the applicable statute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 (edited) It all goes toward character and what they did when they didn't think anyone would ever look into what they were doing. I see a pattern of activity that she believes she can skirt the rules and get away with it because of her affiliation and the populist ideology that she preaches. If she were on the other side with her opponent using a fake minority heritage claim to help bump up hiring brownie points at Hahhhvadd and now violating the spirit if not the letter of the law, she would be harping on these every minute until 6 November and/or demanding that her opponent drop out of the race. Just to note: CT's own Susan Byciewicz (?) had her own flap about this law license stuff and it did not turn out pretty for her. I watched the debate live on WBZ-4 last week. That was the first question from moderator Jon Keller. Is character important? Brown emphatically said yes w/o specifically referencing Warren's Native American claim. Ms. Warren obfuscated and never really answered it. This is someone who's going to be in the upper house of congress for 6 years. People don't want duplicity, and that's why Scott Brown has gotten so many endorsements from lifelong big-name party Democrats. Edited September 24, 2012 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted September 24, 2012 Author Share Posted September 24, 2012 if she's trying a federal case, which all the cases that Mr. Jacobson cited were, she doesn't need a Mass license to appear before a federal court. The so called “pro hac vice,” Latin for “for this occasion”, allows an attorney from another state to appear, as long as there's another attorney with an MA license in the docket for the case. Here's the applicable statute. I believe the blog's author said as much. Actually, I was more interested in the video from the debate where Brown was nailing Liz about not working for the little guy in the asbestos law suit. She took over $200k from Travelers to represent them against the plaintiffs who are asbestosis and mesothelioma patients/victims. I thought he was effective in that assertion and that she was a weasel. The blog claims that the Boston Globe article that she cited does not support her claim in the debate, rather it supports Brown's argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Ok, but your post only questions if she was licensed to practice law, not about Brown's issue. and I can't see anywhere in that article where he concedes they're federal cases and maybe she's got a possible out. He talks a lot about her practicing law out of her MA office, and that might not be totally legal, I have no info either way. Seems like she could use that office as an address if she only worked pro hac vice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted September 25, 2012 Author Share Posted September 25, 2012 Right. But hopefully people clicked the link and saw the video. Looks like she's a regular coal miner's daughter too in addition to being Cherokee. She's looking more and more like a real "man of the people". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Right. But hopefully people clicked the link and saw the video. Looks like she's a regular coal miner's daughter too in addition to being Cherokee. She's looking more and more like a real "man of the people". So thus far Chief Running For Senate has dubious claims to her ethnic heiritage, is practising law without a license, and is quite the hypocrit. But c'mon dude, I seriously doubt that she is a real man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Right. But hopefully people clicked the link and saw the video. Looks like she's a regular coal miner's daughter too in addition to being Cherokee. She's looking more and more like a real "man of the people". She's been laying into Brown for the vote to continue oil subsidies, which he says is about the only thing keeping prices from rising to $6-$8 per gallon (you know... just a less than where Obama's energy secretary wants them) rather than the already outrageous $4. Privately, I think we ought to tell the world that if we don't gets cheaper oil, they don't gets food from the world's breadbasket. They get to cartel energy and reduce supply for a while to put the squeeze on, maybe we should do the same. But... I guess that's being uncompassionate. Wouldn't want to remind anyone how important we are, or starve the people who want to kill us, so we'll keep delivering free government wheat, corn and rice to all and sundry. [/rant] Anywho. Helping Big Polluting Corporation BAD. Unless they give you boatloads of cash so they don't have to fund union pensions. That should go over well with her core constituency. Not that it's going to stop the people who'll bend over backwards to explain this and/or the Yellow Dog Democrats who populate Massachusetts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 She's not licensed in the State of MA to practice law! If you've got a law license- you didn't do that. http://legalinsurrec...icense-problem/ Seriously... WTF? Not that I want to stick up for this idiot, but practicing law before a federal court is not the same thing as practicing law before a state court. I only skimmed the latter half of the article, but nothing I saw suggested she was practicing law in a Massachussets state court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Not that I want to stick up for this idiot, but practicing law before a federal court is not the same thing as practicing law before a state court. I only skimmed the latter half of the article, but nothing I saw suggested she was practicing law in a Massachussets state court. Except the whole "She's practicing law in Massachusetts without a license" tone of the post. That does kind-of suggest that maybe she was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Except the whole "She's practicing law in Massachusetts without a license" tone of the post. That does kind-of suggest that maybe she was. It basically said "she won't release every detail of everything she did so we don't know"...then it fixates on the fact that she listed her office *gasp* where she was and cites part of the ethics codes that says not offices in state w/ out going into great detail on all the exceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 It basically said "she won't release every detail of everything she did so we don't know"... Hhhmmmmm. That sounds familiar. Tax releases anyone. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts