Elizabeth Warren’s law license problem

Harvard listed Warren as an "American Indian" bc Warren said she was. Now Warren is caught practicing law without a license. The LIB are trying to spin anything to claim it wasn't so. How do you get paid over $200,000 in three years by doing nothing?

 

Ask Romney. Evidently he did it at Bain for 3 years and got way more.

 

Because he had ownership in Bain.

 

So he shouldn't talk about it? Got it...just like Obama, right? We shouldn't talk about his lies either right? What an amazing world that would be for you wouldn't it?

 

Its pretty much a repeat of the original article.

Now has any of these fine attorney's claiming that they 'are certain' that Warren is practicing without a license filed a complaint with the Bar?

Or do they just want to Blog(whine) about it?

So far all I have seen are opinions by those who say she has been practicising without a license(her opponents) and those who who say she may have been acting perfectly within the law- Tribe and others.

Certainly there is no concensus except among those who are certain that she is the Anti-Christ incarnate and a Democrat to boot.

 

She hasn't been 'caught' doing anything- she has been accused of practiciing law without a license. And other lawyers disagree

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.”


The easy answer would be to file a complaint with the Bar association- but apparently no one wants to do that. Guess they are willing to Blog but not actually take any action. Like a modern day town gossip.

 

I got it from Warren's mouth. She has publicly stated that she did NOT act in any role as a 'lawyer' yet she was paid over $200,000 grand over three years. What was she doing that was worth that much money? She flat out lied in her Harvard application. She called herself an "American Indian" and actually this lie aided her in getting a job at Harvard. When she decided to go into politics she stopped using the "American Indian" lie.

 

If Warren say's she's native American, and say's she doesn't need a law license, that should be good enough for every one.

 

Well, it ads the fact that there is no such thing as a "license to practice in federal courts and the Supreme Court" as Warren's office claims she has. IF she has a license in Texas or NJ, she probably hasnt yet mentioned them, because then she has the problem of her office in Mass and her absence of an office in TX or NJ.

 

I'll bite- where has Warren's office said that the has a licence to practice in federal courts and the Supreme Court?

 

Are you being literal? I think you know what they are referring to, something like this: http://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/admission/default.asp

 

Again, I asked a specific question of you regarding the federal criminal courts system. I'll make it easier. Can someone in New York be hired to perform on a federal case in Los Angeles or DC if all the stars align? Or are you saying it is impossible to be admitted in federal court in another state from your practice if you meet the licensing standards (and some state federal districts do happen to call it "licensing")?

 

Only a state can grant a license to be "licensed to practice in this District". And that would be a LICENSE to practice in that state that issued the license.

 

NO. The star alignment is irrelevant. They can only perform on the federal case if they have a law license. Not an imaginary license to practice in federal courts but instead a real law license which only comes from the States who issue ALL law licenses. AND you must not only meet the licensing standards but must also actually procure said license.

 

The federal courts allow practice by anyone who is admitted to the federal court in question. Admittance (or license) in the federal court - be it District Court, Circuit Court, or the Supreme Court, usually requires having a valid law license somewhere (anywhere) in the U.S., as well as other qualifications.

How it's germane to this conversation is that Warren was admitted to practice in the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as several federal courts, and therefore it did not matter that she did not have a Massachusetts law license, because she only needed to be admitted in the courts in which she occasionally handled cases.

 

Larry Tribe is a reliable leftwad tool. His opinion here includes no portion of actual law.

 

Too bad she also established an office in Massachusetts which violates the law. You cannot legally establish your law office within a state without being licensed to practice law in that state.

 

You're quibbling again because that was not the implication of this accusation. She may be licensed in another state, to another bar, and can then apply for a federal license, ie "licensed to practice in this District" and not necessarily be a practicing attorney in that state. Some states make it quite easy to do, others do not.

The fact is that as an attorney you know that being admitted to federal courts is an entirely different process than being able to practice law within a state, so I don't know why you are pulling this right now.

Now, I'm not saying that this is the case here because I don't know if she is has a license elsewhere, but you said the BullsLawDan was wrong and he is not. Federal courts are different than state courts.

 

Here we go...

It depends upon what you mean by "office". We have an office in Washington DC for when we appear in federal courts within the district or meet with federal agents. In her case, from what others have said on here, the office was at the school where she taught. This is not illegal.

 

Again, how do you know that her license isn't in another state?

 

And a LICENSE is required for admission.

There are no such licenses.

???? No, she still needs a license and only a state can issue said licenses. Its quite possible she was "admitted" under a false assertion that she was licensed to practice law in some state. And if she does have a license in some other state, ODD that neither she or her office is willing to state that she does.

 

Now you are just repeating what we've said only refusing to call a "license" what many federal courts call a license. So I'm guessing at this point we're all done here and in agreement that if she has a law license issued through respect of any bar then what she did isn't illegal, yes?

 

Show me even one.

Well, their is that issue of having a license in some other state while practicing from a Mass. office

 

Of course you think that way. After all- Tribe has said something you don't agree with.

Considering we are talking about opinions being offered on nothing more than blogs....well i would say that Tribe is as credible as the authors of any of the other material.

 

Still waiting for you to show where Warren's office has claimed what you said:

Originally Posted by dixon76710
Well, it ads the fact that there is no such thing as a "license to practice in federal courts and the Supreme Court" as Warren's office claims she has. IF she has a license in Texas or NJ, she probably hasnt yet mentioned them, because then she has the problem of her office in Mass and her absence of an office in TX or NJ.

I'll bite- where has Warren's office said that the has a licence to practice in federal courts and the Supreme Court?