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.
They didn't. Her law license has never been "handed over." The record shows that Michelle Obama voluntarily took her law license to "inactive" status. This is not the loss of license, but a suspension with the option (though not the requirement) to reactivate the license later.
In Illinois, voluntary inactivations require an order of the court to commence the cancellation of malpractice insurance, annual licensing fees and the continuing education credits otherwise required by law.
Per Michelle Obama's record on the Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission website, "No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status. " See link below.
I am unable to find out why Michelle Obama's law license
was revoked by the court.
Should this be public information?
This lie has already been debunked many times on this forum. For example, in the following post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siouxcia
Her license was never 'revoked'. She volunatrily put it in 'inactive' status because she was not practicing law. In Illinois, an attorney who voluntarily puts their license in an 'inactive' status requires a court order to cancel malpractice insurance, annual licensing fees and the continuing education credits otherwise required by law.
I hold licenses to practice my profession in several states. In two of those states my licenses are 'inactive'. I'm not practicing in those states but may do so in the future. Inactivating my licenses, rather than just have them lapse will make the reinstating process less cumbersom. In addition, it's quite expensive to keep a license active. For professionals who are required to have licenses and who are not currently working in said profession or in a particular state this is a common practice.
It wasn't revoked by the court. She inactivated it. Many, many, many trained lawyers do this when they intend to make a living doing something other than practice law. When it's inactive, they don't have to pay the fees/dues associated with keeping it active.
Because it wasn't revoked by the court. She chose not to renew it. Big difference.
And yet the title of the thread in Bold still reads that it was revoked leaving those that don't bother looking in the thread to believe that it is true. That is one characteristic of this board that really bugs me... put out an out right lie for a thread title and stays there until it rolls off. Once debunked, I wash the thread title would indicate as much.
Information on the internet does not support that argument.
*L* Information on the Internet? Care to share what will no doubt be a credible source? What does it say that she did to have her license revoked? Have you read about "inactive status" for law licenses in Illinois? Have you done your own research?
As has been stated by several others, her law license was not revoked. She voluntarily placed it on inactive status.
Placing a license on inactive status is also common for real estate brokers. The fees associated with maintaining a license are very high, and if one is not actively selling real estate, there's no sense in paying all those fees and taking all those classes.
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.
