Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does anyone else find it very interesting that Brown attacks Warren on a personal level because he cannot debate her on actual issues? Where are the threads that discuss the differences between the two candidates on the issues?
Warren Maintained private law practice at Cambridge office for over a decade but not licensed in Massachusetts
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.
There are certain dispensations that many bar associations grant. Further, if the case was in front of the supreme court, why would it matter that she was licensed in MA?
As long as you have a valid license in any state / territory, and you're a member of the supreme court bar...
Does anyone else find it very interesting that Brown attacks Warren on a personal level because he cannot debate her on actual issues? Where are the threads that discuss the differences between the two candidates on the issues?
It certainly calls into question her honesy and integrity.
Of course that's kind of redundant since she's a politician and we know all of them lie like bad rugs.
It certainly calls into question her honesy and integrity.
Of course that's kind of redundant since she's a politician and we know all of them lie like bad rugs.
Seems to me that this law license red herring has been debunked already. One of the admirable things about Warren is that she is not a career politician and her stances on the issues are what make her a much more desirable candidate for the average citizen.
Seems to me that this law license red herring has been debunked already. One of the admirable things about Warren is that she is not a career politician and her stances on the issues are what make her a much more desirable candidate for the average citizen.
Warren has done a considerable amount of legal work in recent years, and has been well paid for it.
She was paid a fee by Travelers Insurance Company, to cite just one example, that was in the low six figures.
So we are not talking about a casual, borderline situation. Warren indisputably is practicing law, and by her own repeated assertion, she is doing so in Massachusetts.
The Massachusetts Rules of Professional Responsibility treat this subject as the rules do in most states....
Rule 5.5 addresses the unauthorized practice of law. Rule 5.5 (b) sets out the basic prohibition on practicing law in Massachusetts without a Massachusetts license:
(b) A lawyer who is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction shall not:
(1) except as authorized by these Rules or other law, establish an office or other systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law; or
(2) hold out to the public or otherwise represent that the lawyer is admitted to practice law in this jurisdiction.
Emphasis added. On the undisputed facts, Warren has violated this prohibition. She admittedly is not licensed in Massachusetts, and yet she has established a law office in Massachusetts–one which she has referenced on any number of appellate briefs, and in which she has earned a large amount of money.
What are you doing fooling around here on City-Data? You need to report that stuff QUICK. Here is the phone number for the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers: (617) 728-8700.
Seems to me that this law license red herring has been debunked already. One of the admirable things about Warren is that she is not a career politician and her stances on the issues are what make her a much more desirable candidate for the average citizen.
Well hell, if the MA bar and the rules say she's in the clear and didn't do anything naughty then Brown had better apologize and back off this real quick or else he's the one very much in the wrong.
Well hell, if the MA bar and the rules say she's in the clear and didn't do anything naughty then Brown had better apologize and back off this real quick or else he's the one very much in the wrong.
Soon after my original post, Elizabeth Warren’s law license problem, Mark Thompson at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen wrote a post taking an opposite view, No, Elizabeth Warren Did Not Engage in the Unauthorized Practice of Law.
That post by Thompson was cited far and wide, including at Memeorandum as well as at friendly conservative blogs which wanted to present the case for Warren to provide balance.
In light of my post this morning that Warren represented a Massachusetts client in Massachusetts on an issue related to Massachusetts law, Thompson has concluded in a new post today:
Professor Jacobson has uncovered this morning a case in which Elizabeth Warren entered an appearance in a federal appellate court as a representative of a Massachusetts client in a case that appears to have clearly implicated Massachusetts law. Although this is still a federal appellate court, because we’re dealing with a Massachusetts client and issues of Massachusetts law, this looks really, really bad for Professor Warren. With this bombshell, I would no longer view the case against her as weak.
Thompson also has updated his original post:
UPDATE 4 9/27: Professor Jacobson has uncovered new facts that I view as a gamechanger. Although I stand by my above analysis as applied to the facts known at the time, Professor Jacobson’s discovery this morning answers my objections to his arguments.
Making progress.
More to come. Update: Thompson emails, for attribution:
Professor Jacobson:
I couldn’t figure out how to leave this as a comment at your site, but I wanted to let you know ASAP that I concede that your discovery this morning answers all of my arguments and is a gamechanger. Your diligence in investigating this matter is commendable.
Regards,
Mark Thompson
Prof Jacobson, on his blog Legal Insurrection, is in line for an Ethics Hero award with his tenacity regarding Elizabeth Warren’s dubious qualifications to engage in the practice of law in Massachusetts. The overwhelming reaction by his colleagues in legal academia, and mine in the legal ethics community, has been to airily dismiss his arguments as trivial, far-fetched and thinly disguised political warfare, since Jacobson is an unapologetic conservative blogger (and a distinguished one.) Meanwhile, the mainstream media has, I think it is fair to say, completely ignored the story….
The rude brush off Prof. Jacobson is getting in this wagon-circling exercise is wrong in every way, and does injustice to every person and institution involved, including the Massachusetts legal establishment, the legal profession, ethical lawyers (which, believe it or not, the vast majority of them are), Senator Brown, the U.S. Senate, Massachusetts voters, and the American public….
Does anyone else find it very interesting that Brown attacks Warren on a personal level because he cannot debate her on actual issues? Where are the threads that discuss the differences between the two candidates on the issues?
I watched their debate and he destroyed her. Warren is a fraud. She should be arrested for practicing law without a license. She did not get her dream job because she was inflating the salaries of her staff and got caught.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
