Ego mos non exsisto decipio per vetus banana in pipio deceptio.
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 didn’t want someone to say that the results were skewed by me publicizing the poll.
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...
yeah that is a fair point. It is being admitted to the bar pro hac vice and generally you do it only when you will be in court and also you have to associate with local counsel
If she was waived in, she does have a license in Mass
Remember the Glob had Marsha winning.
Hey! We write in American around here! I don’t care about your possum’s septum, so save that fancy French talk for the restaurant!
If you get waived in, do you get issued a MA license rather than just practicing under your existing license?
yes, here anyway, you get “waived in” after you apply by completing an 80 page application and signing it in blood, sweat and tears, then you get issued a license IN ADDITION to your current state license and then you get the privilege of paying through the nose to get “waived in” like 12 to 15 hundred, and TO TOP IT ALL OFF, you get to comply with the new state’s continuing legal education requirements which also cost money and paperwork annually. It’s a joy.
My comment was answering the question of why there was a need to pass the bar for a particular state, nothing else.
Therefore, your “Fire, Ready, Aim.” comment was not unnecessary.
“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.”
Yep, yep, yep, an “Attorney needs to show s/he can remember 1500 stupid little rules at the same time on one particular day.” FOR THAT STATE. And once admitted to the bar to keep abreast of changing laws.
“Yep true, at the moment, but did you know there is a move afoot to have a universal bar exam???????????”
Yes, but that “move afoot”, is not the current law of the land, NOW, is it?
It’s not hard to prove who you are are or what you are allowed to do by law. We seem to have a number of Democrats with that problem.
ok bro have it your way
I suppose attorneys can’t read the law of the other state? well guess what, they do, each and every day. With corporations having multiple presences in multiple states, but hey, I really don’t care if you see it my way. Nonethless, various state licenses to practice law have a whole lot more to do with “protecting one’s job” just like a union than a lawyer’s fitness to practice in the state.
So, if you want me to say “why yes, I have seen the light and you are so right and I am wrong” there, I said it, but I don’t mean it. Are you happy now?
“I suppose attorneys can’t read the law of the other state….”
Now, where did I say that?
No need to be so defensive and testy. I was merely trying to clarify a point.
OK “Bro”?
you were not “clarifying” because the reason it is done is protectionism, not making sure the attorney in question knows the state law
Obviously you have some deep belief that an attorney’s requirement to be licensed by a particular state has nothing to do with knowing a particular state’s laws. It’s all some protectionism scam. Nothing to do with State’s rights, just some scam.
OK, believe what you want. I simply don’t care to discuss it with you anymore. I can see where this is heading.
Ego mos non exsisto decipio per vetus banana in pipio deceptio.
Google the whole phrase. It’s worth it.
Naw, I know when to stop with some on this forum, but thanks anyway for the cogent example.
btw I am not a “him”. And all that “civil law” means is that it is all written down. And any lawyer worth their salt would read the law and develop the facts and then apply the law to the facts before they decided whether they were taking the case. You do turn clients down, sometimes, if you don’t believe in their case. Give it up y’all.
I guess you support central authority over state sovreignty.
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.