[Gondring]

Though IANAL, it seems that voluntarily going to inactive status prior to 1999 was a Court-ordered procedure...do I have that right?

From RULE 770 INACTIVE STATUS info from the ARDC website:

Prior to November 1, 1999, former Supreme Court Rule 770 provided for a proceeding in the Court for any voluntary transfer to inactive status, whether because of some incapacitating condition or solely as a matter of the lawyer's preference because the lawyer would not be practicing law.

Let's be sure we're not being as bad as the MSM; let's check the target before pulling the trigger.

The hugh part is the tie-in with Hillary back in the early 90s, IMHO.

[ButThreeLeftsDo]

Thank you.....

[PistolPaknMama]

Prior to November 1, 1999, former Supreme Court Rule 770 provided for a proceeding in the Court for any voluntary transfer to inactive status,

This states, simply, that before 1999 SCR 770 required a proceeding if one voluntarily wished to transfer to inactive status. Admittedly I'm multitasking right now, but I don't follow what this has to do with anything. It says: if a lawyer says "I don't want to be a lawyer any longer", there is a proceeding for that. MO's status is "inactive" not "voluntarily inactive" (which there is no such thing). Again, the public record of a suspension can be negotiated. This I know for sure.

We're all entitled to our own opinion, which is based largely on our own experience. Mine is that these people smell to high heaven so about anything they do contributes to the stink factor. As I said before, nobody just throws away a Havard law degree after 3-4 years and goes to inactive status unless a) it was taken away or; b) something more lucrative came along.