Elizabeth Warren- NO MASS LAW LICENSE

[CrusaderFrank]

I suspect a Red Herring

Warren is a Law School Professor and I imagine she knows what the limitations are in terms of when you need a license and when you don't. Maintaining a state license when you are not currently practicing does not make much sense

But go at it right wingers....Beat this dead horse

Let us know if anything comes of it. Let me know if you find Obama's Social Security Card while you are at it

What if she got legal advice from the same people who told her she was part Indian?

 

[Zander]

She's a Fake Indian, Fake attorney, Fake consumer advocate, Liberal- don't judge her by her actions!! judge her by the way she "feels" .....

 

[Lovebears65]

If there is any merit to this claim I'm sure the media will jump on it. I think I'll reserve condemnation until after I see all the facts.

hahaha. yeah right.. The liberal media is famous of not reporting things that are important..

 

[Ravi]

Where has she been practicing law?

If you are not an active lawyer there is no need to maintain a license

Here are the details...

Maintained private law practice at Cambridge office for over a decade but not licensed in Massachusetts

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.

1. Warren Is Not Licensed To Practice Law In Massachusetts

Warren is not licensed to practice law in Massachusetts. Warren’s name does not turn up on a search of the Board of Bar Overseers attorney search website (searches just by last name or using Elizabeth Herring also do not turn up any relevant entries).

2. Warren Used Her Cambridge Office as Her Law Office

Regardless of where she was admitted, Warren consistently since the late 1990s has held herself out as having her professional address for legal representation at her Harvard Law School office in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Warren was listed as “Of Counsel” on Travelers’ Supreme Court Brief, listing her Harvard Law School office as her office address:

She used her Cambridge address as her address in multiple legal cases and briefs.

It doesn't sound as if she was practicing MASS law, but federal law. So Scott Brown perhaps doesn't know what he's talking about. And if that is so, this will be seen as a vicious attack on her character by him and he will surely go down in flames for it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If there is any merit to this claim I'm sure the media will jump on it. I think I'll reserve condemnation until after I see all the facts.

Do you honestly think the liberal media will "jump on it"?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If there is any merit to this claim I'm sure the media will jump on it. I think I'll reserve condemnation until after I see all the facts.

"If there is any merit to this claim I'm sure the media will jump on it."

 

[Zander]

Where has she been practicing law?

If you are not an active lawyer there is no need to maintain a license

Here are the details...

Maintained private law practice at Cambridge office for over a decade but not licensed in Massachusetts

2. Warren Used Her Cambridge Office as Her Law Office

Regardless of where she was admitted, Warren consistently since the late 1990s has held herself out as having her professional address for legal representation at her Harvard Law School office in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Warren was listed as “Of Counsel” on Travelers’ Supreme Court Brief, listing her Harvard Law School office as her office address:

She used her Cambridge address as her address in multiple legal cases and briefs.

It doesn't sound as if she was practicing MASS law, but federal law. So Scott Brown perhaps doesn't know what he's talking about. And if that is so, this will be seen as a vicious attack on her character by him and he will surely go down in flames for it.

Yeah!! Just like Scott Walker did for exposing all those union thugs!! Yeah!!! ...oh wait..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If there is any merit to this claim I'm sure the media will jump on it. I think I'll reserve condemnation until after I see all the facts.

That's hilarious!

 

[rightwinger]

I believe she has a valid license, just not for mass.

Which means it is a felony for her to practice law out of an office located at Cambridge, MA... PERIOD.

I am not a law expert. But from what I've read, it is legal to give council, and to practice federal cases out of that office. Now if she were taking on mass. cases, that would be illegal.

I am not a legal expert, but I do watch Judge Judy every day

No harm....no foul

Beat this dead horse Conservatives...Lets see how many threads you can start?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, Elizabeth Warren Did Not Engage in the Unauthorized Practice of Law

At Legal In.sur.rec.tion, Professor Jacobson contends that Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Senate candidate, liberal firebrand, and Harvard law professor, has engaged or appears to have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in the state of Massachusetts. In support, Professor Jacobson points to numerous briefs either filed by Ms. Warren or with her listed as being “of counsel” in various federal courts around the country in which her office address is listed as being in Massachusetts. As Ms. Warren is not, and does not appear to have ever been, licensed to practice law in Massachusetts, but instead appears to have been licensed only in New Jersey and/or Texas at all pertinent times, Professor Jacobson argues that Ms. Warren’s actions constituted the unauthorized practice of law in violation of Massachusetts law.

In making his arguments, Professor Jacobson makes a fatal error by assuming that merely preparing legal briefs in (seemingly non-Massachusetts) federal cases or providing advice on federal law while located in Massachusetts and maintaining a primary office in Massachusetts constitutes the “practice of law in Massachusetts.” Although he cites several cases for this proposition, these cases do not go nearly as far as Professor Jacobson assumes, as they each involve cases wholly within the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts courts, specifically Massachusetts real estate transactions and Massachusetts probate matters.

He further errs in deeming “on point” a 1976 case in which the Massachusetts state bar issued an ethics opinion prohibiting a law firm from listing a “Boston Office” address on its letterhead where the firm lacked any Massachusetts-admitted attorneys but instead sought to claim that a Massachusetts firm with which it had a relationship falling short of an “associate” or “partnership” relationship constituted its “Boston Office.” This case, however, is not “on point,” as it is not an unauthorized practice of law case but is instead a misleading communications case in which the firm was prohibited from “holding itself out to the public” as having a Massachusetts office. Jacobson incorrectly assumes that merely listing an office location in a court filing, rather than a communication “to the public” constitutes “holding oneself out to the public” as being licensed in the jurisdiction in which one’s office is located.

But most importantly, Professor Jacobson ignores Massachusetts Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5(d), which states that:

“A lawyer admitted in another United States jurisdiction, and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal services in this jurisdiction that…are services that the lawyer is authorized to provide by federal law or other law of this jurisdiction.”

The Official Comments to Rule 5.5(d) further elaborate to make explicit that 5.5(d) permits even “systematic and continuous presence in [Massachusetts] for the practice of law as well as provide legal services on a temporary basis.”

As the cases to which Professor Jacobson has drawn our attention are entirely cases from the federal courts, and indeed appear to be cases lying even outside the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts federal courts, and as there seems to be no allegation that Professor Warren was unauthorized to appear in those cases, the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct appear to explicitly exempt Professor Warren’s actions in those cases from the prohibitions on the unauthorized practice of law.

She did nothing illegal based on the rules. She's still a fraud though.

 

[AmyNation]

If there is any merit to this claim I'm sure the media will jump on it. I think I'll reserve condemnation until after I see all the facts.

Do you honestly think the liberal media will "jump on it"?

Yes, because I don't buy into the "great media conspiracy". She's running neck and neck with Brown, any dirt on illegal activity on either of them would make great ratings for someone.

 

[Ravi]

Here are the details...

Maintained private law practice at Cambridge office for over a decade but not licensed in Massachusetts

She used her Cambridge address as her address in multiple legal cases and briefs.

It doesn't sound as if she was practicing MASS law, but federal law. So Scott Brown perhaps doesn't know what he's talking about. And if that is so, this will be seen as a vicious attack on her character by him and he will surely go down in flames for it.

Yeah!! Just like Scott Walker did for exposing all those union thugs!! Yeah!!! ...oh wait..

This is Mass!

 

[Zander]

Which means it is a felony for her to practice law out of an office located at Cambridge, MA... PERIOD.

I am not a law expert. But from what I've read, it is legal to give council, and to practice federal cases out of that office. Now if she were taking on mass. cases, that would be illegal.

I am not a legal expert, but I do watch Judge Judy every day

No harm....no foul

Beat this dead horse Conservatives...Lets see how many threads you can start?

One thread will do.

Elizabeth Warren is a liar and a hypocrite. She pretended to be an Indian to get a tenured position at Harvard.

She pretended to be licensed as an attorney in the state of Mass. to increase her prestige and pad her resume.

She is a perfect liberal- she holds everyone else to high standards while exempting herself from any at all.....

 

[bobcollum]

If there is any merit to this claim I'm sure the media will jump on it. I think I'll reserve condemnation until after I see all the facts.

"If there is any merit to this claim I'm sure the media will jump on it."

Are those smilies laid out in some secret code?

 

[Conservative]

Which means it is a felony for her to practice law out of an office located at Cambridge, MA... PERIOD.

I am not a law expert. But from what I've read, it is legal to give council, and to practice federal cases out of that office. Now if she were taking on mass. cases, that would be illegal.

I am not a legal expert, but I do watch Judge Judy every day

No harm....no foul

Beat this dead horse Conservatives...Lets see how many threads you can start?

How many 'Romney's tan' threads are there?

 

[Ravi]

She pretended to be licensed as an attorney in the state of Mass. to increase her prestige and pad her resume.

Link?

 

[Zander]

It doesn't sound as if she was practicing MASS law, but federal law. So Scott Brown perhaps doesn't know what he's talking about. And if that is so, this will be seen as a vicious attack on her character by him and he will surely go down in flames for it.

Yeah!! Just like Scott Walker did for exposing all those union thugs!! Yeah!!! ...oh wait..

This is Mass!

I have a huge family in Massachusetts, I know the politics of the region very well. Bay State voters value "independent" Scott Walker. He is very popular.

He is going to win another term, easily. Elizabeth Fauxahontas Warren can then go back under whatever shit hole she crawled out of....She's a joke!!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No, Elizabeth Warren Did Not Engage in the Unauthorized Practice of Law

At Legal In.sur.rec.tion, Professor Jacobson contends that Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Senate candidate, liberal firebrand, and Harvard law professor, has engaged or appears to have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in the state of Massachusetts. In support, Professor Jacobson points to numerous briefs either filed by Ms. Warren or with her listed as being “of counsel” in various federal courts around the country in which her office address is listed as being in Massachusetts. As Ms. Warren is not, and does not appear to have ever been, licensed to practice law in Massachusetts, but instead appears to have been licensed only in New Jersey and/or Texas at all pertinent times, Professor Jacobson argues that Ms. Warren’s actions constituted the unauthorized practice of law in violation of Massachusetts law.

In making his arguments, Professor Jacobson makes a fatal error by assuming that merely preparing legal briefs in (seemingly non-Massachusetts) federal cases or providing advice on federal law while located in Massachusetts and maintaining a primary office in Massachusetts constitutes the “practice of law in Massachusetts.” Although he cites several cases for this proposition, these cases do not go nearly as far as Professor Jacobson assumes, as they each involve cases wholly within the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts courts, specifically Massachusetts real estate transactions and Massachusetts probate matters.

He further errs in deeming “on point” a 1976 case in which the Massachusetts state bar issued an ethics opinion prohibiting a law firm from listing a “Boston Office” address on its letterhead where the firm lacked any Massachusetts-admitted attorneys but instead sought to claim that a Massachusetts firm with which it had a relationship falling short of an “associate” or “partnership” relationship constituted its “Boston Office.” This case, however, is not “on point,” as it is not an unauthorized practice of law case but is instead a misleading communications case in which the firm was prohibited from “holding itself out to the public” as having a Massachusetts office. Jacobson incorrectly assumes that merely listing an office location in a court filing, rather than a communication “to the public” constitutes “holding oneself out to the public” as being licensed in the jurisdiction in which one’s office is located.

But most importantly, Professor Jacobson ignores Massachusetts Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5(d), which states that:

“A lawyer admitted in another United States jurisdiction, and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal services in this jurisdiction that…are services that the lawyer is authorized to provide by federal law or other law of this jurisdiction.”

The Official Comments to Rule 5.5(d) further elaborate to make explicit that 5.5(d) permits even “systematic and continuous presence in [Massachusetts] for the practice of law as well as provide legal services on a temporary basis.”

As the cases to which Professor Jacobson has drawn our attention are entirely cases from the federal courts, and indeed appear to be cases lying even outside the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts federal courts, and as there seems to be no allegation that Professor Warren was unauthorized to appear in those cases, the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct appear to explicitly exempt Professor Warren’s actions in those cases from the prohibitions on the unauthorized practice of law.

She did nothing illegal based on the rules. She's still a fraud though.

FILING briefs is practicing law.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Elizabeth Lie-a-watha Warren, the fake Indian is also a fake attorney...big surprise!

Speaking to Boston's 96.9 FM radio program "Jim and Margery" on Monday, Democratic Senate challenger Elizabeth Warren admitted that she is not licensed to practice law in Massachusetts.

According to reports from listeners, she claimed that she does not maintain a law practice. She also "said that she gave up her New Jersey license because she could not keep up with the Continuing Education requirements," according to one listener who commented on Breitbart's Monday story, "Does Elizabeth Warren Have a Law License Problem?".

Ms. Warren's statement comes as a surprise to the many clients she's provided legal services to over the past decade, including the law firm of Simpson, Thacher, and Bartlett, which listed her as "of counsel" in the 2009 brief they submitted to the United States Supreme Court on behalf of their client, Travelers Insurance.

You're a liar by omission and by innuendo, Zander. I will repeat you are dishonest.

And, you don't have any idea as to what "of Counsel" means. Making you a dishonest ignoramus.

 

[Conservative]

Elizabeth Lie-a-watha Warren, the fake Indian is also a fake attorney...big surprise!

Speaking to Boston's 96.9 FM radio program "Jim and Margery" on Monday, Democratic Senate challenger Elizabeth Warren admitted that she is not licensed to practice law in Massachusetts.

According to reports from listeners, she claimed that she does not maintain a law practice. She also "said that she gave up her New Jersey license because she could not keep up with the Continuing Education requirements," according to one listener who commented on Breitbart's Monday story, "Does Elizabeth Warren Have a Law License Problem?".

Ms. Warren's statement comes as a surprise to the many clients she's provided legal services to over the past decade, including the law firm of Simpson, Thacher, and Bartlett, which listed her as "of counsel" in the 2009 brief they submitted to the United States Supreme Court on behalf of their client, Travelers Insurance.

You're a liar by omission and by innuendo, Zander. I will repeat you are dishonest.

And, you don't have any idea as to what "of Counsel" means. Making you a dishonest ignoramus.

I bet these guys do...

What does "Of Counsel" really mean?

It can mean a variety of things. Basically, any time the firm has hired a lawyer that does not fit squarely into the traditional partner or associate role. A few examples:


1. A non-equity partner. Basically an associate who they didn't like enough to make partner, but thought was useful enough to keep around. Too senior for the "associate" label. Some firms don't have non equity partners so they can't just call them partners.

2. A lawyer the firm consults with on an occasional basis. For example, many professors are "of counsel" at firms.

3. A semi-retired lawyer (often who retired from another firm) who wants to work on an occasional or part time basis.

4. A lawyer hired for a special purpose other than billing hours. Perhaps someone with certain political connections, etc. But not working enough for the firm to justify "partner" status.

So, of counsel means actively practicing law.