So if your attorney friend is correct she has been practicing her "sham" illegally for quite some time.
Posted on 09/26/2012 4:39:38 PM PDT by Libloather
Has Elizabeth Warren Been Practicing Law Without A License?
Posted on September 25, 2012 by John Hinderaker
**SNIP**
This section is one that frequently applies to my own law practice. I provide legal services in jurisdictions where I am not admitted to practice all the time, under the pro hac vice rules of the local state and federal courts. Under those rules, I can apply to practice in the courts of other states, including Massachusetts, as long as I am licensed and in good standing in Minnesota, and agree to abide by the ethics rules of those states. But you can’t practice under pro hac rules in the state where you reside, and no one claims that this exception applies to Elizabeth Warren’s practice in Massachusetts. So the question is, what “federal law or other law of this jurisdiction” would allow Warren to practice law in Massachusetts, even though she doesn’t have a Massachusetts law license? Neither she nor her supporters have suggested any such law that might apply.
Maybe someone eventually will come up with a plausible theory on which Elizabeth Warren has not been practicing law illegally in Massachusetts for some years, but so far no one has advanced any such theory. Criminal penalties apply, I believe, to the unauthorized practice of law in Massachusetts, as in other states. Meanwhile, Massachusetts Democrats may be looking back longingly on the days when Marsha Coakley was their Senate candidate.
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
Smells like a felony.
If she’s a consultant for a firm and/or attoney, she’s not practicing.
Only applies to registered Democrats....
She has been practicing law without a license with no RESERVATION.
She’ll say her office was sovereign Indian land and so does not fall under the Commonwealth of Massachusetts laws.
Got bad news for ya...as is the case with the United States of America,the Commonwealth of Massachusetts lacks an Attorney General that can find crimes committed by Rats.
Did she provide a bill for legal advice? If so, she practiced law without a licence.
Hey, Coakley looked like she ordered a hit on that reporter. There is a type of Democrat in Mass who likes the Coakley style, but she’s washed up. So is Fauxahontas.
Nothing to worry about. Holder has claimed jurisdiction and he will act on it if he determines there was any malfeasance. Now move along.
If I'm not mistaken, she was listed as the "attorney of record" on at least one lawsuit. I'll try to find a cite on that.
There was a thread on this the other day. My friend who is a lawyer (and a lib, BTW) saw the notices of the cases she was involved in in MA, and said the problem for her is that she listed her Harvard office on the court document on the case. If she was merely listed within the offices of the lawyers that she was assisting, it would be ok; but, listing her office w/o a MA license is a no-no.
She’s a Cherokee Kennedy hybrid; criminal laws don’t apply. But are there any civil remedies available to those she nonlawyerly scalped in court? There must be some lowly shyster in the state willing to call her on it if there were wampum to be made. And Brown is enough of a Mass. pol to know how to parade her victims.
Paleface Lizzy caught red-handed again.
Elizabeth Warren’s law license problemExcerpt. Full article at: Legal Insurrection article
Posted by William A. Jacobson
Monday, September 24, 2012 at 7:37amMaintained private law practice at Cambridge office for over a decade but not licensed in Massachusetts
The debate last Thursday night between Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren covered ground mostly known to voters.
But there was one subject most people watching probably did not know about, Elizabeth Warren’s private legal representation of The Travelers Insurance Company in an asbestos-related case.
Brown brought the point up late in the debate, and hammered it:
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.
Warren represented not just Travelers, but numerous other companies starting in the late 1990s working out of and using her Harvard Law School office in Cambridge, which she listed as her office of record on briefs filed with various courts. Warren, however, never has been licensed to practice law in Massachusetts.
So if your attorney friend is correct she has been practicing her "sham" illegally for quite some time.
Isn’t expecting a professional liberal to be licensed some sort of discrimination or racism?
Has she been a “for profit” using a “not for profit” office at Harvard?
Need the tax records.
She argued in MA state court. As a resident and “expert” from Harvard, the court can waive the license requirement, which I assume they did. So as much as I dislike her, this is a red herring.
For the answer, cue the little girl from ALIENS =
"Affirmative!"
Last time I checked practicing Law without a license is against the law. But what does she or her supporters care? They are DemocRATS and the law does not apply to them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.