Posted on 03/08/2005 6:13:08 AM PST by MurryMom
Thomas B. Griffith, President Bush's nominee for the federal appeals court in Washington, has been practicing law in Utah without a state law license for the past four years, according to Utah state officials.
Under Utah law, Griffith's only option for obtaining the state license was to take and pass the state bar exam, an arduous test that lawyers try to take only once. He applied to sit for the exam, but never took it, Utah bar officials confirm.
Utah State Bar rules require all lawyers practicing law in the state to have a Utah law license. There is no general exception for general counsels or corporate counsels. Lawyers who practice only federal law or whose work is solely administrative can avoid the requirement in some cases.
Griffith discovered in November 2001, a year after he joined Brigham Young, that his District law license had lapsed several years earlier, in 1998, for failure to pay his dues. He immediately paid his dues and renewed his D.C. license, Nowacki said. But for the first year in Utah, he was advising Brigham Young, a Mormon university in Provo, without a current law license from any state.
A lawyer who specializes in legal ethics said Griffith's two licensing lapses should disqualify him from a lifetime appointment to one of the nation's most important federal benches, second only to the Supreme Court.
"This moves it for me from the realm of negligence to the realm of willfulness," said Mark Foster, a Zuckerman Spaeder attorney who represents lawyers in ethics matters. "People who thumb their noses at the rules of the bar shouldn't be judges."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Oh the HORROR! Practicing law without a Utah license - WE'RE DOOMED!
(so I say, big deal. what about the millions of lawyers who practice law without morals or ethics?)
An article from the Washington Post citing Mark Foster of Zuckerman Spader, a Washington DC firm which lists the American Civil Liberties Union as a client doesn't like one of President Bush's nominees. What a surprise.
More from the article: "The Utah State Bar advised him that to the extent his duties as general counsel involved legal advice, he ought to closely associate himself with a Utah bar member," Justice spokewman John Nowaci said. "It has been Mr. Griffith's practice to closely associate himself with a Utah bar member when giving legal advice."
Good heavens! I haven't seen your nick around here in ages. Is it just me? Damn, you have longevity.
This fella Griffith doesn't seem to be another one of Bush's "God's gifts to humanity" does he? Nope, just another Republican Party political hack trying to litter the Washington landscape with his sorry carcass.
Sheesh.
Congressman Billybob
Practicing law without a license is not acceptable. It is not clear from this story that he was practicing law. What did he do for BYU, and did it fall under the administrative practice only exception? If not he needs to withdraw his name.
Did you learn that response from the liberals? What is it, do as I say not as I do? Not having a law license is a very big deal.
Uh does the SARCASM tag always have to be posted?
He was an in-house counsel for BYU. Unless he was appearing in court, he didn't need to be licensed.
It is possible that his name was placed on pleadings filed by the university, and that would be a violation, even if he didn't actually show up in court.
Actually, I have some sympathy for him. For a time, I was working in two places at the same time. I assumed that the staff at my firm had renewed my bar membership, but they hadn't, and I didn't know it until after it had lapsed. I don't think my name appeared on any filings during that period of a couple of months, so there was no technical violation. But I can see how this would happen, particularly if you are not with a firm, and not going to court a lot.
"This moves it for me from the realm of negligence to the realm of willfulness," said Mark Foster, a Zuckerman Spaeder attorney who represents lawyers in ethics matters. "People who thumb their noses at the rules of the bar shouldn't be judges."
At least they found a completely unbiased ethics professor to give his opinion.
read the post about him associating with a member of the bar whenever he gave advice. You dont understand this so cool your jets on the criticism. You have fallen for the MSM left technique of distortion. They only hope to get people to accept their version of the facts.... without knowledge and without the true context. You have to assume that the nominee was utter fool to believe this trash. You believe this only because they put it in a paper.
bar membership has to be renewed each year. it isn't that he was practicing law without a license, as in, never taken the bar exam, never gone to law school etc. This is an administrative oversight, as ladylawyer has pointed out. You need current bar membership to litigate, meaning your name appears on pleadings, which is different from advising. this is not the huge deal that it is being made out to be.
We need the best men and women lawyers on our courts. I have to think we can do better than this fellow.
This is only an issue because it is a conservative nominee and a Bush appointee.
exactly. this guy should be crucified over a largely administrative error/oversight, but the bubbaloon actively PERJURED himself, but no biggie, his law license should have been left intact.
fyi
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.