We need to hire Paul Hogan to find out if she's even a real woman...
Posted on 09/24/2012 6:33:15 AM PDT by kristinn
Maintained private law practice at Cambridge office for over a decade but not licensed in Massachusetts
The debate last Thursday night between Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren covered ground mostly known to voters.
But there was one subject most people watching probably did not know about, Elizabeth Warren’s private legal representation of The Travelers Insurance Company in an asbestos-related case.
Brown brought the point up late in the debate, and hammered it: (video)
Warren attempted to deny her role, and referred to a Boston Globe article, but the Globe article supports Brown’s account. The Globe article indicated the representation was for a period of three years and Warren was paid $212,000. The case resulted in a Supreme Court victory for Travelers arising out of a bankruptcy case in New York.
Whatever the political implications of the exchange, Warren’s representation of Travelers raises another big potential problem for Warren.
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 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.
1. Warren Is Not Licensed To Practice Law In Massachusetts
Warren is not licensed to practice law in Massachusetts. Warren’s name does not turn up on a search of the Board of Bar Overseers attorney search website (searches just by last name or using Elizabeth Herring also do not turn up any relevant entries).
SNIP
bump
this is actually not as clear cut as it may seem. a bunch of business law firms nationwide are taking the position that for business law, and drafting documents, contracts “deals” where corporations have presence in more than one state, you only need local counsel if you are going into court. most states have statute or rule allowing anyone with a law license to associate with local counsel and litigate where you need to upon application to a court and a court order.
We need to hire Paul Hogan to find out if she's even a real woman...
Nothing to see there(sarcasm), just your typical democrat candidate, lying and cheating their way into elective office. When you think you’ve seen it all, then there’s Elizabeth Warren.
ANOTHER democrap giving up their law license? (Like Barak and Michelle Obama BOTH did?)
These things must not be worth much
From what I understand (from several lawyer freinds) “giving up” your law license is what you do 2 seconds before they are about to take it away from you for some sort of misconduct.
Lawyers protecting other lawyers, by giving themselves an easy way out, when you are too slimy to even be a lawyer anymore.
A license is granted in the state...you don't have one just by having a law degree.
You cannot dispense legal advice for hire, to anyone, in public or private, inside or outside a courtroom without a license. At least in Texas you can't.
bfl
Warren isn’t squawlified to practice law in Massachusetts?
She didn’t have a license in Mass, so she can’t dispense legal advice for money in Mass without one, right?
If she can, then what’s the point of licensing attorneys? Just to decide who can be at the bar? (Double meaning intended?)
You are right. It is serious issue that should be a significant blow to her credibility and electability. Unfortunately, the voters of Massachusetts probably don’t give a damn. They elected a drunken murderer as Senator because he had the Kennedy name and that “D” next to his name. Why would they care about something like this since this Communist witch has a “D” next to her name.
Massachusetts ping
Hey, she's a dim and ENTITLED!
I'm sure Hussein would just say it was an "oversight", much like Sebelius' glaring violation of The Hatch Act.
Scott Brown is now running an anti-Lizzie ad that concludes with a press interview.
Reporter: “Is there anything else that we should know about, but don’t?”
Warren: “I don’t know. Who knows?”
This must be what she was referring to.
It seems that the author, Jacobson, is a Harvard educated lawyer himself(1984) and Cornell Law School professor, might he not know all of the possibly extenuating circumstances himself?
Yeah, but she is a Democrat, so it is no big deal.
Scott Brown should check her Idian name at the Bar.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Thieves, liars and criminals—just standard of operations for democrats. And they know the Republicans will do nothing to stop them.
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.