Elizabeth Warren’s law license problem

What is with this lying liberal wannabe politician? First she lies about being Native American, and now she has been practicing law in Massachusetts without a law license. She should be disbarred from ever practicing law like Clinton was.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/elizabeth-warrens-law-license-problem/

Warren attempted to deny her role, and referred to a Boston Globe article, but the Globe article supports Brown’s account. The Globe article indicated the representation was for a period of three years and Warren was paid $212,000. The case resulted in a Supreme Court victory for Travelers arising out of a bankruptcy case in New York.

Whatever the political implications of the exchange, Warren’s representation of Travelers raises another big potential problem for Warren.

 

boy Brown wants to talk about anything but the issues....

 

Scott Brown would have made it an issue instead of running a campaign based on claiming Warren is a white women.

 

That's the classic Democrat cop out - if a Republican is busted, or even alleged to be hiding something (ex. Romney and his tax returns) it's front page news for weeks on end.

If a Democrat is busted, then "oh that's not a big issue".

 

So both of you liberals Mello and exotix have no concern of her practicing law without a license? Figures

 

But you are ok when Obama does it?

This is a very serious issue, not to mention against the law, too bad you can't be adult enough to realize that.

 

Since she is a Native-American she is exempt from foolish white man laws and their licenses which are printed on forked tongued paper.

 

So she claims, but yet, this is another one of her lies. There is only one truth of Elisabeth Warren, and that is she is a liar

 

Maybe- maybe not.

A law professor is accusing U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren of having practiced law without a license in Massachusetts.

The political rock was thrown by Cornell Law School’s William A. Jacobson on his blog LegalInsurrection.com. In a Sept. 24 post, he claims that, by serving of counsel on a U.S. Supreme Court case and helping write amicus briefs in several others, Warren was practicing law. And she was practicing law in Massachusetts, he says, because she listed her Harvard Law School address on her briefs.

Jacobson takes considerable pains to make his case, posting images of the cover pages of the Supreme Court briefs to show Warren’s Cambridge address, checking with the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers, and, among other things, quoting from Supreme Judicial Court decisions that discuss what practicing law means in Massachusetts.

He even notes that two of Warren’s prestigious colleagues at Harvard – Laurence H. Tribe and Charles Fried – are licensed to practice law in Massachusetts.

“Yet Warren, who was not and never was licensed to practice law in Massachusetts, has held her Cambridge office out to be her law office for the purpose of providing legal representation,” Jacobson blogs.

He counts two violations: operating a law office and practicing law without a license to do so in Massachusetts.

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.”


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.”

But Jacobson questions why the BBO hasn’t launched a full investigation.

“The rules do not provide any exception for law professors or part-time law professors,” Jacobson says. “If they’re maintaining an office for the practice of law, they have to have a license.”

Jacobson says he has not filed a formal complaint with the BBO.

“I published my findings of fact and conclusions of law,” he says, “and if the Board of Bar Overseers wants to address it, they are aware of it.”

****
The author finds the time to blog and accuse Warren but not the time to file a complaint with the Bar?

LOL

 

I guess the $200K+ she got in fees is also a joke to you. Maybe she will start practicing medicine, because she surely has the ability to push her liberal drugs with no concern from the electorate.

Are you saying he is like Harry Reed?

 

He learned from that boy in the white house.

 

well arent you?

 

You couldn't make this (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

Fauxcohontas worked with a lawyer named Tribe?

 

What I was pointing out was that legal minds disagree whether there may have been a violation or not based upon the information presented. And if two attorney's based in Massachusetts are disagreeing, what makes you the judge to determine that Warren is guilty?

What I was also pointing out is the proper thing to do in my mind would be to file a complaint with the Bar rather than just put it on a Blog.

I don't know- are you saying the author is a two faced mealy mouth politically motivated jerk? If so, yes, I think he is like Harry Reid.

I despise Harry Reid.

 

Hmmm no boys that I know of in the white house. A couple of girls but no boys. You are confused.

 

She did nothing wrong.

 

She did nothing wrong.

 

Well at least we have one thing to agree on.

What makes me believe Jacobson that wrote the blog is, he has no dog in this hunt, and being a law professor like Warren, I believe they are like doctors and rarely turn on their own.

 

The article is almost comically idiotic.

She is licensed to practice in U.S. Supreme Court. Handling a half-dozen cases over matter of years is hardly having an office for a "practice". Moreover, the fact that she's admitted in Supreme Court means she was licensed to handle the cases she handled.

 

Question is has she ever practiced law off of the reservation?

 

Is there a separate license needed to deal with filings before the Supreme Court that are separate from State licenses?

 

The fat lady has not sung, it is not over by a long stretch.

I like this person's response:

She has an office in Massachusetts from which she wrote briefs. That office address appears on numerous briefs, filed in federal court (as you correctly note). If the interpretation of the rule is to turn on the term "establish" and whether the office from which she obviously practiced law was "established" for the sole or primary purpose of practicing law (rather than teaching law), then perhaps the "guy who's in charge of actually making decisions" about the rules is right.

If, however, Warren's writing briefs, providing advice to clients, and preparing for argument before federal courts -- for which she was compensated over $200,000 over the course of a few years -- from an office in Massachusetts should be considered the establishment of an office for the practice of law, then she broke the rules.

 

Not hardly. She has an office in Massachusetts from which she wrote briefs. That office address appears on numerous briefs, filed in federal court. If the interpretation of the rule is to turn on the term "establish" and whether the office from which she obviously practiced law was "established" for the sole or primary purpose of practicing law (rather than teaching law), then perhaps the "guy who's in charge of actually making decisions" about the rules is right.

If, however, Warren's writing briefs, providing advice to clients, and preparing for argument before federal courts -- for which she was compensated over $200,000 over the course of a few years -- from an office in Massachusetts should be considered the establishment of an office for the practice of law, then she broke the rules.