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
That's what Slick Willy did if I recall correctly.
"Your honor, I'm just a poor Indian squaw. Your modern ways frighten and confuse me. But one thing I do know is that fa from being an ignorant slut, Sandra Fluke has earned the right to free birth control, because when she's on her back, the meter is running."
An aside: Can you imagine the flack from publishing this article that Jacobson might take being at liberal Cornell Law School in liberal Ithaca in liberal New York. Ithaca is a notoriously liberal city, commie center NY, but that’s a redundancy.
Even if it is not October yet, this is a nice time for this to come out. I don’t see how she gets out of this one since normally Criminal charges will be pending soon.
I could see that for some other case, but she does not have a license to practice in her own state of residence. The article goes into detail over this.
The first offense in Massachusetts is a fine or up to 6 months in jail. The second offense is a fine or up to 1 year in jail. She has multiple offenses.
Different states have different laws especially procedural rules. Some state bars have reciprocity with others. My question is has she been admitted to any bar? Doesn’t seem bright enough to pass a bar in any state.
uh beagle, law school teaches you to read the law, sheesh, if you don’t do your research what kind of lawyer are you? just because you are licensed doesn’t mean you don’t have to read the constantly changing statutes
From the time she was a little girl her mother, grandmother and other family members told her she could practice law without a license. So there.
believe me, lawyers practice in more than one state all the time and don’t have trouble applying different rules, can you play poker and also hearts? Monopoly and Candy Land on the same day even? Memorization does a lawyer little good because the statutes are constantly changing and being reinterpreted by the courts.
oh well if she was associated with a firm, the waters are even murkier, they can consult with whomever they like in the pursuit of representing the client, some of them even have disbarred attorneys working at the firm as paralegals, sheesh
yeah he is probably even getting offers to rearrange his face
The Mass AG will get right on it. ha ha ha...sometimes I crack myself up.
Of course, if Scott Brown had so much as a parking ticket from his college days the media would be treating it like a major felony.
in house counsel perhaps, however if she was doing anything pertaining to Mass, even if she did not go to court, it is still practicing law.
There are states that require local counsel be retained EVEN IF you have in house counsel.
She was not in house.
like I said, it’s murky water
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.