Skip to comments.Mass Lawyers Weekly readers want investigation of Elizabeth Warren license problem
Posted on 09/30/2012 5:37:25 AM PDT by Libloather
Mass Lawyers Weekly readers want investigation of Elizabeth Warren license problem
Posted by William A. Jacobson
Friday, September 28, 2012 at 7:42pm
Mass Lawyers Weekly ran a reader poll today regarding the following question:
Should U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren be investigated for possibly practicing law without a license?
I heard about the poll in an email just after 1:30 p.m. today. I did not publicize the poll because while online polls are not scientific, I also didnt want someone to say that the results were skewed by me publicizing the poll.
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...
This is indicative of a far, far deeper issue, and is more representative of the exact type of corrosion liberalism poses to the fabric of this country, especially what we have seen in the last four years.
What happened when the bailouts took place, legal contracts were just tossed aside, especially for the prime investors of GM and Chrysler. The message to anyone who signs a contract was: Your signature on a contract means nothing, unless the government decides in that particular instance that it does.
Here, if everyone looks the other way (as it appears will happen) the message is “You cannot practice law without a license in a given environment unless the situation, which can change at the whim of the government at any time, allows it.”
I went fishing in Massachusetts. A game warden asked to see my fishing license. It was from Texas. He gave me a $100 fine for not having a Massachusetts license. Fish are more important then lawyers in Massachusetts.
Come now. Being from Texas, I would expect you to understand that there are many places where fish are FAR more important than Lawyers, and that is as it should be...:)
(With my humble apologies to any Freepers practicing honest law out there!)
This does kinda open up the front door and ask the question if anyone really needs a license to practice law. We might as well call it the “Warren door”. We could get rid of law school and all the rest of these fancy school shops, and just let regular people shuffle through the court system.
It isn’t just Massachusetts, though, that has that approach to conceal carry.
THAT is a travesty, though. They make conceal carry so damn difficult that many people who are licensed to do so, don’t. (As they obviously intend)
Sure I can carry. But I can’t go here with it. I can’t go there with it. It is almost as if there should be an iPhone app tied into a huge, constantly changing database to warn you based on your satellite location or something.
Or something. People should be able to carry openly, everywhere, in every state, period.
I always refer to folks from Mass as Massholes, to their faces, all except you of course. :)
The reason why this is so important is because the Bar of a State does not have jurisdiction over a non-member like they do over a member. When a lawyer has a law license in another State and that person wants to talk to a judge in a State in which they are not licensed, they must have a Lawyer in their State vouch for them and, in fact, be responsibile for them. Its called pro hoc viche:
Further, the Massachussetts Legislature has codified its rule on this:
Probably had something to do with the state’s refusal to allow a ballot amendment against homosexual marriage to be on the ballot, even though it had the requisite number of signatures and was in on time.
This they did on technicality and political hatchet work.
Not all of us in Massachusetts are lemmings, if you please.
Too many are, but many are not.
I believe the old saying in Texas is.....
“Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish, and his lawn will never get mowed because he’s out fishing all the time.”
She dont need no stinkin license. Shes one of the liberal, democrat, elites and can do what she wants. Licenses,rules, laws and regulations are for the common folk and Conservatives.
No. There is a reason why you need a license from the state you are practicing in. Each of the states has their own laws. Thus, the Attorney needs to prove competent knowledge of the laws specific to the state they are practicing in via passing that states bar exam.
There are two parts to passing a states bar exam. One part is general law that covers the legal concepts common to all states. The second part is an exam devoted to the specific state an Attorney wishes to practice in.
Te audire no possum. Musa sapientum fixa est in aure.
Check my profile for a brief explanation.I lifted the term from Howie Carr,a local Boston talk host and columnist who's outstanding...and very funny.
I assume by that you mean that there's no way Liawatha can win.The only way I can respond is to ask: have you ever been to Massachusetts?
The Massachusetts Bar sometimes “waives in” lawyers licensed in other states. Harvard faculty might be extended that courtesy. Let’s avoid “Fire, Ready, Aim.”
Boston Globe poll? .......Please.
Boston Globe poll? .......Please.
“No. There is a reason why you need a license from the state you are practicing in. Each of the states has their own laws. Thus, the Attorney needs to prove competent knowledge of the laws specific to the state they are practicing in via passing that states bar exam.”
nope. nope. Attorney needs to show s/he can remember 1500 stupid little rules at the same time on one particular day. After that, the laws change constantly and have to be looked at every time.
“There are two parts to passing a states bar exam. One part is general law that covers the legal concepts common to all states. The second part is an exam devoted to the specific state an Attorney wishes to practice in.”
Yep true, at the moment, but did you know there is a move afoot to have a universal bar exam???????????