Genuflectimus non ad principem sed ad Principem Pacis!
Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. (Isaiah 49:1 KJV)
Posted on 10/01/2012 3:42:37 PM PDT by Libloather
Is tonight the night Elizabeth Warren’s law license problem goes mainstream?
Posted by William A. Jacobson
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 5:20pm
Despite a Drudge link, huge linkage everywhere in the conservative blogosphere, and defensiveness in the left-legal blogosphere, Elizabeth Warren’s law license problem has not broken into the mainstream media.
**SNIP**
There was a huge development today, as reported by Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbart.com, Warren Law License Controversy Could Surface in Debate. The Board of Bar Overseers General Counsel no longer is giving public comment, and there are questions as to how the BBO can proceed now that the General Counsel offered his “personal” opinion:
Breitbart spoke with Fredrickson on Monday, who refused to comment in an official capacity as General Counsel of the BBO, saying only that “my personal comment is that I will not be commenting further about this matter in a personal capacity.”
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...
Who can do that? Anyone?
My guess is that their is legally little they can do because of the statute of limitations. As a result the medial will report on it and then sweep it under the rug.
What statute of limitations?
Is that why Granny Warren resigned her law license in NJ Sept 12, 2012?
They would have sanctioned her in NJ???????
In any case, I suspect there wouldn't be any action taken by anyone in the Mass. bar association or the state government because the statute of limitation probably would apply in that case. But if someone had hired Elizabeth Warren to represent them and they ended up losing the case, they could very well take legal action against her for professional misconduct or even fraud (which tends to have a pretty long statute of limitations).
Is this debate going to be streaming on line? I so a link would be nice.
Here we go....
Hope the students aren’t a factor.
Maybe it’s the night Barack and Michelle’s law license problems go mainstream also. What a night this could be!
Good first question: Do you think you’re an Indian?
“I have a native American background.”
This shouldn’t/doesn’t bother most libs.
They have no problem with someone wearing or claiming to have earned a Silver Star and make up a phony war record, so what is the problem with someone pretending to be a lawyer? Or a doctor? Or a cop? Or a president ....etc...
Brown: “The fact that she won’t release her records speaks volumes.”
Warren: “I’m proud of my family...”
Or an American?
***********
Educated guess:
(1) At the least -->>any other member of the Bar in good standing... at the very least....
(2)At best -->>>> any aforementioned member of the Bar or any legitimate client of the attorney named in the complaint...
faux law, faux squaw...guffaw
Yes, for those of us who have cut the cable (umbilical) to the mainstream media, live links are helpful...
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121001/CCOLBARKER/121009994/-1/NEWS06
ping for excellent graphic.
LOL!
The general rule is that a state bar an attorney is admitted to may sanction, including disbarment, the attorney for conduct that reflects poorly on the attorney's fitness, regardless of where the conduct takes place.
Warren's supporters seem to have backed off the "its Federal Court so its OK" defense. There seems to be a lot of confusion about that issue. I am licensed in state courts in Texas, and in the local United States District Court, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The 5th Circuit is head quartered in New Orleans, but I have not practiced law without a license, in Louisiana, by filing motions, or briefs, with the 5th Circuit. Even if I appeared for oral arguments before the 5th Circuit, in New Orleans, I would not be practicing law without a license in Louisiana, because I would be in front of a Federal tribunal. That is the "Federal Court" exception Warren's supporters were making so much noise about a few days ago.
But that does not mean that if Tulane School of Law went nuts and made me a professor, that I could move to Louisiana, stay there for decades, practice law, and never get licensed in Louisiana. It is possible that if all of my law practice was representing illiterate first offenders, whose only legal issue was an appeal of a criminal conviction, before Federal Circuit Courts, or the Supreme Court, that I could argue that every single action I took, and piece of advice I gave, was covered by the "Federal Courts" exception, and that I was not practicing law in Louisiana without a license.
But Warren's clients were multi-billion dollar corporations, who had numerous, intertwined, legal issues. These corporations have in house legal departments, and outside law firms, apart from Warren (look at the signature pages that have been posted -- each one I saw had additional law firms). How could Warren advise them on the case she was hired on, without also advising them on other pending cases, in Federal Courts that she is not admitted to, or in state, or foreign courts, or cases yet to filed? Since Warren is a bankruptcy "expert" how could she advise her clients on the case she was hired on, without also advising them about how to best position themselves if the case was lost on appeal? All of that would, in my opinion, constitute the practice of law, and would not fall under the "Federal Court" exception.
Well, I can think of one way Warren could have not been practicing law without a license in Massachusetts. What if she really didn't do anything substantive? What if her corporate clients didn't want her legal advice and counsel, but just wanted the cachet of "Harvard Law School" on the signature page of their brief, and the political cover that having a leading lefty professor endorse their position would give the court hearing the appeal, so they just paid her to sign off on briefs that someone else had written? That might get Warren off the hook legally, but it would be politically disastrous.
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.