You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Opps. Elizabeth Warren May Be Going To The Big House - Not The Senate
- Thread starter pspr
- Start date
Quote from pspr:
I think she would need a Mass. license to use an office address in Mass. to practice law even for a federal case. But, she had other clients also.
You thought that the birther thing would get Obama out of office,that The SC would overturn Obamacare,that fast and furious would be Obamas watergate etc
Quote from hughb:
Traveler's was a federal case and she would not have been required to be licensed in Massachusetts for it.
There are two different requirements. One is to be a member of the Bar of the court in which you are appearing. Each federal district and appeals court have their own bar you must join if you appear there. Supreme Court as well.
There are also state requirements to be a member of the state's Bar Association to practice law in that state. The rules vary, but generally holding oneself out as a lawyer handling matters in the state would trigger the requirement. Occasional state court apearances would not, as you would get yourself admitted on motion to the judge for the purposes of that one case. But if you maintained an office in the state and held yourself out as practicing law, then you would need to be a Bar member.
This would be a matter for the state Bar Counsel to rule on. Clearly, they will say she didn't need a license, because she is a liberal democrat, and that is the way things work in Massachusetts. It would be interesting to know if the other faculty members who handled outside cases took such a casual attitude toward Bar membership though.
Do you think professors at the Harvard Medical School who treat patients take the position they don't have to comply with state licensing requirements for doctors? Doubtful.
From what I am seeing lawyers routinely practice law without a license in the state where they reside.
It seems the only time their feet gets held to the fire is when they are committing fraud or when they wish to litigate in state court.
Basically, with the internet... just everybody with an advice site is practicing law without a license. It would be odd if the state bar picked on out of state lawyers. In fairness to stock brokers and financial advisors... they seem to toe the line pretty well.
But.. Realtors (major league bad advice and heavy practicing of the law on the net, paralegals, some cpas, tax preparers (who are not enrolled agents) , sports agents, entertainment agents... you name it... everyone else is practicing law and then they say...
I am not a lawyer but...
It seems the only time their feet gets held to the fire is when they are committing fraud or when they wish to litigate in state court.
Basically, with the internet... just everybody with an advice site is practicing law without a license. It would be odd if the state bar picked on out of state lawyers. In fairness to stock brokers and financial advisors... they seem to toe the line pretty well.
But.. Realtors (major league bad advice and heavy practicing of the law on the net, paralegals, some cpas, tax preparers (who are not enrolled agents) , sports agents, entertainment agents... you name it... everyone else is practicing law and then they say...
I am not a lawyer but...
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
There are two different requirements. One is to be a member of the Bar of the court in which you are appearing. Each federal district and appeals court have their own bar you must join if you appear there. Supreme Court as well.
There are also state requirements to be a member of the state's Bar Association to practice law in that state. The rules vary, but generally holding oneself out as a lawyer handling matters in the state would trigger the requirement. Occasional state court apearances would not, as you would get yourself admitted on motion to the judge for the purposes of that one case. But if you maintained an office in the state and held yourself out as practicing law, then you would need to be a Bar member.
This would be a matter for the state Bar Counsel to rule on. Clearly, they will say she didn't need a license, because she is a liberal democrat, and that is the way things work in Massachusetts. It would be interesting to know if the other faculty members who handled outside cases took such a casual attitude toward Bar membership though.
Do you think professors at the Harvard Medical School who treat patients take the position they don't have to comply with state licensing requirements for doctors? Doubtful.
I might as well put out my shingle to practice law.
Section 41. Whoever has been so removed and continues thereafter to practice law or to receive any fee for his services as an attorney at law rendered after such removal, or who holds himself out, or who represents or advertises himself as an attorney or counsellor at law, or whoever, not having been lawfully admitted to practice as an attorney at law, represents himself to be an attorney or counsellor at law, or to be lawfully qualified to practice in the courts of the commonwealth, by means of a sign, business card, letter head or otherwise, or holds himself out or represents or advertises himself as having authority or power in behalf of persons who have claims for damages to procure settlements of such claims for damages either to person or property, or whoever, not being an attorney at law, solicits or procures from any such person or his representative, either for himself or another, the management or control of any such claim, or authority to adjust or bring suit to recover for the same, or solicits for himself or another from a person accused of crime or his representative the right to defend the accused person, shall be punished for a first offence by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, and for a subsequent offence by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year.
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIII/TitleI/Chapter221/Section41
Section 41. Whoever has been so removed and continues thereafter to practice law or to receive any fee for his services as an attorney at law rendered after such removal, or who holds himself out, or who represents or advertises himself as an attorney or counsellor at law, or whoever, not having been lawfully admitted to practice as an attorney at law, represents himself to be an attorney or counsellor at law, or to be lawfully qualified to practice in the courts of the commonwealth, by means of a sign, business card, letter head or otherwise, or holds himself out or represents or advertises himself as having authority or power in behalf of persons who have claims for damages to procure settlements of such claims for damages either to person or property, or whoever, not being an attorney at law, solicits or procures from any such person or his representative, either for himself or another, the management or control of any such claim, or authority to adjust or bring suit to recover for the same, or solicits for himself or another from a person accused of crime or his representative the right to defend the accused person, shall be punished for a first offence by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, and for a subsequent offence by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year.
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIII/TitleI/Chapter221/Section41
Just imagine what would happen if a Republican did any of the things that Warren is accused of doing. The news media would be screaming it across the headlines. Democrats would be demanding disbarment followed by a lynching, followed by a public beheading.
But since she's a democrat, anything Warren does will be excused.
But since she's a democrat, anything Warren does will be excused.
Okay. Elizabeth Warren is a professor at Harvard law school. Some guy on the internet says she isn't permitted to practice law in a case in which she is cited. She says that isn't the case. But the anti Warren crowd wants to rape her savagely before they lynch her. Or they want to lynch her and then rape her. pspr, what's the order of action for you? Rape first, or lynch first? Rape first! Okay! Are you going to ass fuck her until she bleeds, or will you just focus on the cunt's vagina? Lynch first, there's little blood. Lynch later, there's a lot of blood during the rape. Hmm.... What a predicament. What to do, what to do???
You guys are complete troglodytes. How dare a woman speak her mind that is not in accord with your mind. I'd tell you to recognize the 21st century that is with us, but you are still grappling with the 20th century. Warren is fighting to stop the banks from fucking you half asses up the ass. Oh my goodness, an outspoken woman! She'll threaten the order of things!
What are married to, mutes?
You guys are complete troglodytes. How dare a woman speak her mind that is not in accord with your mind. I'd tell you to recognize the 21st century that is with us, but you are still grappling with the 20th century. Warren is fighting to stop the banks from fucking you half asses up the ass. Oh my goodness, an outspoken woman! She'll threaten the order of things!
What are married to, mutes?