Elizabeth-the-Cherokee Warren has a problem

[dayman]

Hhhmmmmm.

 

That sounds familiar.

 

Tax releases anyone.

 

.

 

lol...do you people ever consider just pretending you are on the "other side" and then evaluating the things you say to see if they are not asinine?

[/dev/null]

lol...do you people ever consider just pretending you are on the "other side" and then evaluating the things you say to see if they are not asinine?

Pot meet kettle

[Nanker]

It'll be interesting to see what he posts when New Jersey responds to his written request for the information about the status of her NJ law license prior to her withdrawal on 9/11/12. By doing that, she falls behind the curtain of public view as they only list the barrister's current status.

 

What is she hiding?

[3rdnlng]

It'll be interesting to see what he posts when New Jersey responds to his written request for the information about the status of her NJ law license prior to her withdrawal on 9/11/12. By doing that, she falls behind the curtain of public view as they only list the barrister's current status.

 

What is she hiding?

 

I think she is sullying her Cherokee heritage.

[Doc]

Gotta love limousine liberals.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

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.

one more time, the cases listed in the article are federal, so she can participate as pro hac vice.

Edited September 26, 2012 by In-A-Gadda-Levitre

[DC Tom]

one more time, the cases listed in the article are federal, so she can participate as pro hac vice.

 

Yes, I understand that. But the blog post implies that she's violating MA law by practicing without a license.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Yes, I understand that. But the blog post implies that she's violating MA law by practicing without a license.

 

the general counsel for the Boston Board of Bar Overseers doesn't see it that way

 

Rule 5.5 of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct states that an attorney cannot, without a license to practice in Massachusetts, “establish an office or other systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law.” It also states an attorney cannot, without a license, “hold out to the public or otherwise represent that the lawyer is admitted to practice law in this jurisdiction.”

 

Michael Fredrickson, general counsel for the BBO, says he does not believe a law professor would be considered to have “a continuous presence” or “an office practicing law.”

“If they actually practice here – as some part-time law professors at some of the smaller schools do – they might,” Fredrickson says. “But being a professor at one of the large schools, their office is a professor’s office, and the fact that they tend to dabble in the practice of law doesn’t run afoul of our rule. I don’t think Elizabeth Warren would fall within that, such that she would have to register here.”

[Nanker]

The blogger followed up with him on that and made it clear that he was only offering his personal interpretation of the rules. But we all know how the final ruling will come down. No doubt it'll be the biggest victory for the Indians since Little Bighorn.

[/dev/null]

No doubt it'll be the biggest victory for the Indians since Little Bighorn.

 

Wow, has it really been that long since Cleveland won anything?

[DC Tom]

the general counsel for the Boston Board of Bar Overseers doesn't see it that way

 

THE BLOG POST implied it.

 

I'm not saying Warren did anything wrong. I'm saying the BLOG POST IMPLIED SHE DID. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm criticizing the blog post, you !@#$ing half-wit.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

THE BLOG POST implied it.

 

I'm not saying Warren did anything wrong. I'm saying the BLOG POST IMPLIED SHE DID. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm criticizing the blog post, you !@#$ing half-wit.

 

I realize that, u idiot.

 

Question: is !@#$ing half-wit trademark pending?

[DC Tom]

I realize that, u idiot.

 

Then stop !@#$ing arguing with me.

 

Question: is !@#$ing half-wit trademark pending?

 

Nope. Licensed under GPL v3.0, so feel free to use it.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

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.

Then stop !@#$ing arguing with me.

 

the reprise of pro hac vice was based on the bolded quote, I wrongly assumed you bought into part of the blog post, but later I was really arguing with Mr Jacobson, not you...

[Koko78]

one more time, the cases listed in the article are federal, so she can participate as pro hac vice.

 

The real question is whether she's admitted to practice law before the US District Court for the District of Massachussets.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Umm, I beg to differ. pro hace vice says that, if there's an MA licensed attorney on the docket, another attorney (that she-devil ) can appear before the federal court in MA, regardless if that person is licensed in MA or not.

 

The real issue is probably whether she's allowed to use her law school address to practice law. That being the cases she is doing real work on, which given the detail in jacobson's post, wasn't a lot.

 

I don't mean to infer that Edubya didn't do much work for Travelers, etc. More about it wasn't a lot of cases she'd worked on, in the years he pulled data for.

 

Based on the personal opinion from the GC of the Boston bar, it might appear that the answer is - what she is using her office for is probably ok for now, as long as she doesn't take a caseload.

[Nanker]

Wow, has it really been that long since Cleveland won anything?

 

Well, they didn't get off the schnide last week, did they?