I donated to Scott Brown’s campaign in 2010 and I will be donating again shortly — furthermore, I find Elizabeth Warren loathsome. That being said, as an attorney, I can tell you that this claim has no merit.
As a licensed Texas attorney, she can work on cases in other states and appear on the pleadings without a signature block. She cannot sign the pleadings, however, without being admitted pro hac vice; nor can she stand up and speak to the Judge. Unless she did that, everything else is irrelevant. And sometimes lawyers do it anyway. There is no specific punishment for it, except that the Judge tells you: 1) to get local counsel; 2) file a pro hac vice application; or 3) sit down and shut up.
Federal Court lawyers can also practice in Federal Court only in States in which they are not licensed. That is why U.S. Trustees and U.S. Attorneys can practice in states where they are not licensed. They do so regularly.
I think it depends on state law. In many states the activities you mention would constitute the unauthorized practice of law, sanctionable by the state. There also may be a practical difference between “working on a case,” and entering an appearance. My understanding is that what Warren did in the Schlichtman case was enter an appearance, and without an active bar admission or a pro hac vice admission, that is unlawful.
If the political parties were reversed, do you think the lack of merit of the claim would in any way influence the media firestorm that would be burying the Republican candidate under 16 feet of concrete, 24 hours a day?
And they wouldn't stop with the Senate candidate either.
If the political affiliations were reversed, the media would be "investigating" every backer of the Republican, every business deal, every friendship, all the way back to the candidates high school years.
They would be asking "how did this person become a candidate?" and "who helped him get there?"
Not to mention "where did the money come from?" and "was any of that money earned by doing legal work without a proper license?"
The MSM would try as much as they could to make it sound like every Republican was involved with a massive cover up of this matter. They would try to tie it to the "culture of corruption" meme.
They would go to every single "client" of this bogus "attorney" and wave cash in front of them until they found one that was willing to file a legal malpractice lawsuit against the candidate on the grounds of misrepresentation of qualifications and practicing law without a license. They would offer to pay all legal costs in the action, and they would even come up with a Massachusetts attorney willing to take the case (if a Republican had done this, 75% of the attorneys in Massachusetts would be volunteering to take the case pro bono).