Fauxcahontas Warren practicing Law in Mass last 10 years without license...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Frickin' Amazing!!! The hag will do and say anything for the Progressive/Liberal agenda. No morals and no ethics!

Read about the lying sack of stuff here... (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/elizabeth-warrens-law-license-problem/)

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Lieawatha - were you also the first attorney to breastfeed while practicing law without a license in Massachusetts? THAT could be a slogan worthy of your campaign

One comment from readers. There are 26 pages of similar...

[Midtowner]

It doesn't appear she was practicing in any Massachusetts courts, so while she was practicing law, it's possibly not UPL if she's simply officed in Cambridge and did all of her actual representation and legal work in other jurisdictions where she actually was licensed. The purpose of the rule is to prevent unqualified lawyers from holding out as being competent and thereby damaging the public and its confidence in the courts. I don't see how that could have possibly happened here.

[Midtowner]

And here's something from someone much smarter than myself on the subject:


UPDATE (2:15 PM): Here’s a good comment on Jacobson’s post from a Massachusetts lawyer, Edward Wiest:

If the work in question was confined to consulting with admitted counsel (e.g., attorneys for asbestos insurers), as long as Prof. Warren did not file a sole appearance for a client, nor provide services to “laypersons”, she would likely be within the safe harbor of ABA Model Rule 5.5 (c)(1), as adopted in the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Responsibility (permitting non-Massachusetts lawyers to provide “legal” services “undertaken in association with a lawyer who is admitted to practice in this jurisdiction and who actively participates in the matter”.) Furthermore, _if_ Professor Warren’s work were limited to consultative services in the form of providing or guiding research and writing for trial/appellate/amici counsel, it would be little different from that of a “law student intern” permitted to assist an admitted attorney under ABA Model Rule 5.3, Comment [1], as adopted in Massachusetts.
IIRC, the scope of the activities of Haavaad law professors as more or less permanent consultants to one or several law firms (notwithstanding Harvard’s prohibition of its law faculty holding “of counsel” positions on law firm letterhead) has always been a source of bemusement/irritation to people inside and outside the Law School. If (for whatever reason), Professor Warren had ceased to be a member of any state bar, she should have received credit for her assistance to counsel of record by footnote (as customary for “nonlawyers”), rather than through “of counsel” credit on the cover of the brief (I doubt she would care as long as the checks cleared). I would hope that the limited resources I contribute to the Massachusetts bar disciplinary system would be directed to more serious threats to the public than this.

http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/does-elizabeth-warren-have-a-law-license-problem/

Then from another site:



UPDATE: One of my readers, a lawyer, writes in:

The post indicates that this is a federal case. You do not need to be licensed to practice law in Massachusetts to practice law in federal courts located in Massachusetts or anywhere else. Federal courts decide who can practice before them, and individual states can’t tell federal courts that an attorney cannot practice before them. It’s that whole supremacy clause thing. Constitution 101 and all that.

It is really well established that a federal district court can admit an attorney to practice before it even if the attorney is not licensed in that state. You most certainly do not need to be licensed in the state where a federal court of appeals sits to appear before the federal court of appeals. I am clearly practicing law when I argue before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. It does not matter that I am not licensed in Ohio.

The blurb also mentions taking the case to the US Supreme Court. I have submitted an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court on a case that originated in West Virginia state courts even though I am not licensed to practice there. I was not practicing law without a license when I did so because I was admitted to practice before the Supreme Court.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Another veteran lawyer writes in to Campaign Spot:

I have practiced law for 30 years. Your correspondent is correct that a federal court can permit an attorney from a state outside the state wherein the federal court sits to appear before that court. The practice is called “pro hac vice,” which is Latin for “for this occasion.” Here are the pro hac vice requirements for the District Court of Mass, which would be the relevant court in this case.

However, this does not conclude the issue. There would still need to be an attorney licensed in Mass. who moved for Ms. Warren to be admitted pro hac vice for the case at hand. Such a document would have to be in the docket of the case as to which she was representing her client. If Ms. Warren simply filed pleadings without first being admitted to the court pro hac vice, she would be implicitly representing to the court that she was, in fact, licensed to practice in Mass., and if she was not so licensed, she would have violated the court’s rules, and, in effect, have committed a fraud upon the court.

The second lawyer didn't read the facts very closely. It appears that the federal court was in New York where she was licensed in New Jersey. So long as that District's Local Rules allow for admission or pro hac vice admission, she'd be fine. You wouldn't need to file a pro hac vice appearance in a Massachusetts federal court to practice in one in New York. It's admitted in the article that she was licensed in New Jersey until her resignation a couple of weeks ago.

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/328356/elizabeth-warren-unlicensed-lawyer#

Also, Rule 5.5 and the rules of the individual district courts allow

--in short, what we have here is a very weak attempt at an October surprise.

[Soonerjeepman]

"safe harbor"..that's funny...in school that means you DIDN'T meet your test score requirements but got dang close! Good word for law..

[Wishboned]

I'm just laughing at Fauxcahontas and lieawatha.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

It doesn't appear she was practicing in any Massachusetts courts, so while she was practicing law, it's possibly not UPL if she's simply officed in Cambridge and did all of her actual representation and legal work in other jurisdictions where she actually was licensed. The purpose of the rule is to prevent unqualified lawyers from holding out as being competent and thereby damaging the public and its confidence in the courts. I don't see how that could have possibly happened here.

She represented Traveler's insurance in Mass on a Mass case. was of counsel on several others before the Mass. Supreme Court to my reading. She is a lying sack of goo.

I am sure that this was vetted well by Brown before bringing it up on the debates.


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.
As detailed below, there are at least two provisions of Massachusetts law Warren may have violated. First, on a regular and continuing basis she used her Cambridge office for the practice of law without being licensed in Massachusetts. Second, in addition to operating an office for the practice of law without being licensed in Massachusetts, Warren actually practiced law in Massachusetts without being licensed.
Warren refused to disclose (http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-01/metro/31499452_1_asbestos-case-asbestos-victims-travelers/2) the full extent of her private law practice when asked by The Boston Globe. If Warren denies that she has practiced law in Massachusetts without a license, Warren should disclose the full extent of her private law practice. The public has a right to assess whether Warren has failed to comply with the most basic requirement imposed on others, the need to become a member of the Bar of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in order to practice law in and from Massachusetts.


In addition, the author goes on to state that she is no longer a bar member in Texas, it lapsed, and appears to be only admitted in NJ now and for Federal courts. I am not aware of all the ins and outs of where you are admitted vs where you can practice so there may be loop holes that one can pass through and be legal. But it appears she worked and represented in Mass. without a license. As an Engineer, though not a PE, I know PEs can have one or several licenses and most states have reciprocal agreements. I don't know if that is the case in law. But I wouldn't be using term practicing without a license if that were not the case.

[KantoSooner]

Not a big fan, but it doesn't seem there's any substance to this. Lots of attorneys travel all over the place giving advice to clients. If you've got local counsel affiliated, it's simply not an issue.
*and, yes, that's a gross simplification. Sue me. It's about correct. Think of all the corporate counsel who spend half their lives either in jurisdictions in which they are not licensed or on airplanes going to or from.

[Midtowner]

She represented Traveler's insurance in Mass on a Mass case. was of counsel on several others before the Mass. Supreme Court to my reading. She is a lying sack of goo.

No, she was in a federal court. Federal courts have their own admissions practices. Did you read anything I posted? She's good to go if she's admitted somewhere in most cases.


I am sure that this was vetted well by Brown before bringing it up on the debates.

Has he done that? Might have jumped the gun if he had.


In addition, the author goes on to state that she is no longer a bar member in Texas, it lapsed, and appears to be only admitted in NJ now and for Federal courts. I am not aware of all the ins and outs of where you are admitted vs where you can practice so there may be loop holes that one can pass through and be legal. But it appears she worked and represented in Mass. without a license. As an Engineer, though not a PE, I know PEs can have one or several licenses and most states have reciprocal agreements. I don't know if that is the case in law. But I wouldn't be using term practicing without a license if that were not the case.

The law isn't like that at all. You can be admitted in the state, but that still means that you need to seek admission with each federal district or circuit court. You also have to specifically be admitted in a lot of tribal courts. You can practice in the federal courts so long as you're licensed somewhere. If, for example, she practiced in Massachusetts federal court while only being licensed in New Jersey, under Rule 5.5 of the Model Rules at least, she'd be a-ok. Phony issue. Move on.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Okay Mid:

Now Fauxcahontas/Lieawatha is trying to be for the "working man" (I wonder if she is related to Bob Mills furniture guys, you know, the workin' man's friend?). She screwed them over first by supporting an Insurance Company (Traveler's) to help them not pay benefits to injured people, now she represented LTV Steel to not pay into a fund to help employee benefits. Later she is on the campaign trail and slams LTV after taking their money... You may have clients, but you need to at least be consistent in your philosophy. I do not buy the "I'm a lawyer just doing my job" act...


Buscemi said even though Warren was helping LTV Steel, she was just doing her job and “acting like a lawyer.”
The disclosure of Warren’s involvement with the controversial steel company plan could damage her image as a champion for the working class and health coverage for all. She has repeatedly attacked her Republican opponent, U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, for trying to repeal Obama-care.
Warren’s work for LTV did not keep her from slamming the company 11 years later. In a 2006 PBS interview, she upbraided LTV for treating employees “like paper towels. You use them and you throw them away.”
Warren did not mention in the interview she was a paid lawyer for LTV.

[Midtowner]

Okay Mid:

Now Fauxcahontas/Lieawatha is trying to be for the "working man" (I wonder if she is related to Bob Mills furniture guys, you know, the workin' man's friend?). She screwed them over first by supporting an Insurance Company (Traveler's) to help them not pay benefits to injured people, now she represented LTV Steel to not pay into a fund to help employee benefits. Later she is on the campaign trail and slams LTV after taking their money... You may have clients, but you need to at least be consistent in your philosophy. I do not buy the "I'm a lawyer just doing my job" act...

It'd actually be unethical to screen out clients who don't agree with your political philosophy unless you found their beliefs so repugnant that you couldn't in good conscience represent them. I represent rapists and thieves and drug users and worst of all, folks in the midst of divorce. Does that I think rape is hunky dory, that stealing is good and drugs are vitamins and that divorce is something to be taken lightly? Not at all. Everyone deserves representation and in Warren's case, when the company is paying $600/hour or so and pays dependably, you typically perform for numbers like that.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Now, this I don't understand. I as a SME consultant, would never choose work that was against my ethical or scientific beliefs. I mean, I would never say offer an opinion that some product caused a distracted work hazard and then offer an opinion on another case that another product that operated similaly was not a work distraction. I would expect that if someone researched my opinions in previous cases, they would see a similarity or consistency in opinions.

[KantoSooner]

That's one of the things law students have to learn in law school.

When you are an officer of the court, you are first and foremost bound to the process. Someone must step forward to represent even the most obnoxious clients (on defense, of course, you're not obligated to take on obnoxious suits) and the court demands that the attorney so charged do a good job.

Thus, you have a large number of ex-prosecutors working criminal defense after their days in the DA's office come to an end.

It's different than giving, say, an engineering opinion in a product liability case. You don't ever hear about a defense attorney being called on, 'Oh, you're defending an accused rapist now, but you prosecuted a rapist last year, you hypocrite!', because the lawyer's opinion and/or judgement is not supposed to be involved. He or she is merely responsible for building the best possible case for their client, given the facts in evidence and the legal questions posed.

[Midtowner]

Now, this I don't understand. I as a SME consultant, would never choose work that was against my ethical or scientific beliefs. I mean, I would never say offer an opinion that some product caused a distracted work hazard and then offer an opinion on another case that another product that operated similaly was not a work distraction. I would expect that if someone researched my opinions in previous cases, they would see a similarity or consistency in opinions.

As an attorney, you advocate in a situation where the parties have very material differences of opinion. It's very different from being an engineer.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Well, I understand all that. The blind obedience to the court, no matter how noble does place you all in a Catch 22 and the basis for derision from some people. I would not want to be in that situation, or as my morals would guide, I would selectively decline and suggest another colleague to take certain cases...

[cleller]

Well, I understand all that. The blind obedience to the court, no matter how noble does place you all in a Catch 22 and the basis for derision from some people. I would not want to be in that situation, or as my morals would guide, I would selectively decline and suggest another colleague to take certain cases...

That type of morals went out with Perry Mason. The good lawyers have been inundated by a bunch of dollar grabbers that don't feel the slightest twinge at lying right in the face of judges, juries, TV cameras, you name it.

Warren may not be of that ilk, though she acts the part of homespun advocate more than she really is. She could be the most honest person in the world, (except about her lineage) but she is still like nails on a chalkboard to me.

[KantoSooner]

It's part of what you take on when you become a lawyer. Believe it or don't, you actually do dedicate yourself to something higher than simply picking and choosing clients to bill.

You agree to do your best for whoever's representation you assume. and, in some cases, the court simply assigns you cases when no public defender is available. And, when the court does that, you can still decline, but you bettter have a pretty damn good reason if you intend on continuing to practice, successfully, in that jurisdiction.

You remember that thing about, "....if you can not afford an attorney, one will be provided for you."? You didn't think those guys grew on the magical attorney tree, did you? Many of them are not especially happy to be there, repressenting that dirtbag on that particular day. But, like the doctor who is working ER when the scumbag drugdealer is brought in with the bullet in his chest, they go ahead and do their duty.

[FaninAma]

Kanto, are you saying an attorney's allegiance is to the process of legal procedure and not to fairness or justice? If so, I agree with you. Precedent and procedure is the altar attorneys worship at because they are flexible principles and it allows them great latitude in the ways they interpret laws. There is a precedent to support any way an attorney wants to argue a case and their is a precedent to justify whichever way a judge wants to rule on a case.

There are no absolute truths in the legal system.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I guess I will never be in the need for a court appointed attorney (heaven forbid). I will hire the best for the need I require. You gets what you pays for... Think Rusty Hardin and Roger Clemens.

[Midtowner]

Well, I understand all that. The blind obedience to the court, no matter how noble does place you all in a Catch 22 and the basis for derision from some people. I would not want to be in that situation, or as my morals would guide, I would selectively decline and suggest another colleague to take certain cases...

Again, I think you fundamentally do not understand the job we actually do. If we were the final arbiters of fact and were deciding something on a partisan (not talking political) basis, you'd have something. Our job is to prove or prevent the other side of the case from proving their case using evidence. We place evidence, facts, before the Court and we make sure that the other side doesn't place anything which is phony, questionable or doesn't adhere to our evidentiary code into evidence. Take a criminal case. The defendant may be guilty as hell. That defendant still needs representation. In this country, we've all agreed that unlike in other places, we want our criminal clients to be presumed innocent. We've all agreed that we want it to actually be pretty tough to convict someone.

Criminals in this country actually have a list of constitutional rights. We take those for granted, but those rights don't exist elsewhere--the right to confront their accusers, the right to a jury trial, the right to a speedy and public trial, the right to know what the state has as far as evidence, etc.


That type of morals went out with Perry Mason. The good lawyers have been inundated by a bunch of dollar grabbers that don't feel the slightest twinge at lying right in the face of judges, juries, TV cameras, you name it.

Warren may not be of that ilk, though she acts the part of homespun advocate more than she really is. She could be the most honest person in the world, (except about her lineage) but she is still like nails on a chalkboard to me.

I disagree with that. The number of attorneys I know who will knowingly lie to a judge or jury could probably be counted on one hand. Also, for the most part, they have awful reputations in the community, the judges know of these reputations as well. I won't defend it as the best way to settle disputes. It's just the best way invented so far.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Mid, what about what I said implied to you I don't get what lawyers do. I am fully aware of what they do. I have worked with many. I have friends that are lawyers (or at least used to be). I think we as a legal system in this country have gotten way to much into the rule of law rather than the intent of the law. I know, you'll have an arguement about protecting some right or such, which on the whole is not bad. But I hate people who try to draw the line so fine or get so close to the line that you are looking a molecular space between the line to see if someone's rights are being violated. Then again, if prosecuters weren't so much into winning and getting a "victory" we wouldn't have to have the nth degree of challenges and objections, etc.

The law should be understood by most, not confused by the process, IMO.

BTW, I am not speaking of those that practice family law, write wills and trusts, etc. These are needs that a civil society requires and I want good access to this type of lawyer. Unfortunately, you will likely not become the next John Edwards monetarywise with that type of practice.

[cleller]

I disagree with that. The number of attorneys I know who will knowingly lie to a judge or jury could probably be counted on one hand. Also, for the most part, they have awful reputations in the community, the judges know of these reputations as well.

I would have to guess that you have not been involved in many criminal trials, or jury trials, or not been practicing that long.

My wife is/was a trial attorney since 1987. She give me a look of incredulity when I repeated your statement.

[KantoSooner]

Kanto, are you saying an attorney's allegiance is to the process of legal procedure and not to fairness or justice? If so, I agree with you. Precedent and procedure is the alter attorneys worship at because they are flexible principles and it allows them great latitude in the ways they interpret laws. There is a precedent to support any way an attorney wants to argue a case and their is a precedent to justify whichever way a judge wants to rule on a case.

There are no absolute truths in the legal system.

It not the attorney's job to determine what is fair or just. It is his/her job to play a role in a system which is designed to find truth, fairly and justly and to resolve whatever issue is before it.
This is a hard concept for many law students to take on board and is not understood by a lot of the public. It has nothing to do with amorality among lawyers. To have a system in which attorney's prejudices came into play would fundamentally defeat the presumption of innocence.
Precedent and procedure are flexible, to some degree, and need to be as not every set of circumstances is exactly comparable to another. To try and impose ironclad rules would be to create great injustice in the service of an infantile need for perfect predictability. None of that speaks against either truth, justice or fairness.

Note: if you haven't already jumped to this, our present discussion shines some light on the idiocy of those who believe that there is one, carved in stone, immutable Constitutional answer for questions of government. In actuality, it's a flexible document, there's more than a bit of slop there and that's a good thing.

[KantoSooner]

THA,
check out European jurisprudence, particularly that of France if you are interested in legal systems that spend more time focused on the intent of the laws. There legislative debate, committee notes and discussions etc that led up to the drafting of the law are given equal status to the law itself.
I've long been a fan of the technique.