Do we know for sure that this is true? My wife is an attorney and she says that every brief or legal document filed has to have your bar license number on it and if these didn't appear the other side would balk.
The only way she could practice law without a license in her state would be if she was associated with another attorney with the proper license.
I trust Front Page Mag, but just wondering if we have other sources to confirm this. It is totally outrageous if true.
This was discovered and researched by William Jacobson, Professor at Cornell Law School.
Background and documentation here:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/elizabeth-warrens-law-license-problem/
.
I was a paralegal before I retired and MA courts do require the BBO (Board of Bar Overseers) number on filings; I don't think other states do, at least not all other states. Anyone know in which state the relevant suits were filed? Though one of the radio talk shows in Boston called the BBO and were told that since Warren is a law professor and was only doing it part-time, it was all A-OK, though the law as written makes no such exceptions. Of course, they may have gotten this answer from the receptionist for all I know! ;-)
The only way she could practice law without a license in her state would be if she was associated with another attorney with the proper license.
If her license in NJ (or Texas?) were current, maybe the "legitimate" lead attorney could file a Motion Pro Hac Vice" to admit her for a particular case, though I never heard of this with the subject attorney not residing or practicing in the state where he or she was licensed. I don't even know if it's possible. (I've only heard of this where a longstanding client of an attorney in one state gets involved in an action in another state and wants his "own" lawyer). You'd think if it were that simple though, she'd have said something.