Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: hoosiermama

http://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=677676558

It appears Mrs. Obama did pass (and worked at Sidley Austin on marketing/intellectual property in 1993 according to wikipedia).

That database shows voluntary and court ordered inactive status at the same time, so that contradiction shows an issue. I’ll look for what the court ordered thing is about, but since there’s apparently no public record of discipline or pending proceedings, I doubt I can find out. Probably conflict of interest or malpractice insurance criteria issues, where she either had to voluntarily go inactive, or face some problems, I don’t know.

Barack Obama is still listed as active on the following site, but the database looks a couple months out of date:

http://www.martindale.com/Barack-H-Obama/916766-lawyer.htm

Education Harvard University, J.D., Columbia University, B.A.

Admitted 1991

ISLN 900781740

both sites have lawyer search engines, iardc.org shows Obama as voluntarily inactive, no court ordered issues.


239 posted on 12/31/2008 6:41:13 PM PST by nominal (Christus dominus. Christus veritas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies ]


To: hoosiermama

probably nothing to this...SOP

https://www.iardc.org/rule770inactivestatus.html

Prior to November 1, 1999, former Supreme Court Rule 770 provided for a proceeding in the Court for any voluntary transfer to inactive status, whether because of some incapacitating condition or solely as a matter of the lawyer’s preference because the lawyer would not be practicing law.

The current registration rules provide a procedure for lawyers on Court-ordered inactive status under former Supreme Court Rule 770 who might wish to register. Whatever registration status the lawyer wishes to assume (active, inactive, or retired), the lawyer must first file a motion with the Supreme Court for restoration to active status under Rule 759. The motion process is necessary to screen for those who transferred due to circumstances that require some review of present fitness, and the motions will be contested only in such cases. In all other cases, the ARDC will consent to the transfer, and when a consent is submitted, the Supreme Court typically allows the motion within a few weeks of when it is filed.


240 posted on 12/31/2008 7:21:48 PM PST by nominal (Christus dominus. Christus veritas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson