Image 01 Image 03

2002 – Elizabeth Warren charged $675 per hour as special legal consultant

2002 – Elizabeth Warren charged $675 per hour as special legal consultant

Elizabeth Warren and her supporters have mounted  an argument that what she did at her office in Cambridge for private litigants was not the practice of law.

Warren herself, when confronted by a reporter after it was revealed she had no Massachusetts law license, claimed she was not practicing law. Her campaign later clarified that she was not practicing law “in Massachusetts” when she practiced law at her Cambridge office.  Warren denies ever appearing in a Court located in Massachusetts.

That defense is becoming more and more comical as more facts come out showing that as far back as 1995 Warren used her Cambridge office to render legal services for which she was paid at least hundreds of thousands of dollars. Warren still refused to disclose the full extent of her legal practice, pretending that all she did was write a few briefs.

Yet Warren’s legal practice from her Cambridge office clearly went beyond merely appearing as “Of counsel” or Counsel on Briefs.

New documents uncovered from the 2001 bankruptcy of GAF reveal that Warren was hired as a Special Legal Consultant to the Asbestos Claimant’s Committee. It’s not clear what that Committee did (i.e., were the “claimants” individuals or corporate entities), but what is clear is that Warren rendered legal services and advice.

Warren made five requests for compensation for services rendered May 2002 through January 2003, totalling $14,175, for “Professional Legal Services” which were described in detail in billing records attached to the requests, and included consultation and review of various motions.

Warren made the following or substantially identical representations to the Court in each of the fee applications (emphasis mine):

Professor Warren has maintained detailed records of the time spent in the rendition of professional services for the Committee during the Application Period. Attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference is a true and correct copy of the monthly billing statement prepared for the services rendered in this case by Professor Warren (the “Billing Statement”). The Billing Statement is in the same form regularly used by Professor Warren to bill her clients for services rendered and includes the date that the services were rendered, a detailed, contemporaneous narrative description of the services, the amount of time spent for each service.

The documents, including the Orders approving the compensation, are embedded below and were pulled from the PACER electronic court docket. A name search for Warren in the PACER system would not reveal these records, since Warren was not counsel of record and did not enter an appearance.

The services do not list the location at which Warren rendered the services, but it almost certainly was at her Cambridge office, as the services were rendered in relatively small increments over a several month period of time.

This was, by Warren’s standards, a small matter. She would earn $212,000 for representing Travelers a few years laters, and unknown fees in the many other cases she handled from her Cambridge office.

This type of special retention, however, is significant because it highlights that Warren’s brief writing likely is the tip of the iceberg of her law practice.  Only Warren knows the extent of her private law practice, and she refuses to make a full disclosure.

The issue is not just whether Warren was the champion of the poor, as she claims, but whether she practiced law from her Cambridge office without having the necessary Massachusetts attorney license required when one maintains an “office for the practice of law” or maintains any other “systematic and continuous presence in [Massachusetts] for the practice of law.”

Update 9-27-2012:  Elizabeth Warren defender: “With this bombshell, I would no longer view the case against her as weak”

GAF Bankruptcy – Elizabeth Warren Fee Applications


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


If a plumber or botany professor permanently resident in the state sent even one bill for “Professional Legal Services” for these kinds of activities, would there be any ruminating over whether the unlicensed practice of law were taking place?

    janitor in reply to janitor. | September 26, 2012 at 3:35 pm

    Additional thought: she was apparently rendering legal services directly to a client. If she had been retained by a law firm to assist in the manner of a paralegal or expert consultant to the law firm, I would think that her bill would have been rendered as part of the law firm’s costs.

Let me get this straight. 1. She maintained a verifiable office in Cambridge 2. She billed $675/hour as a special LEGAL consultant 3. While she may not have appeared in court, she dispensed LEGAL advice in writing to clients who were billed by the hour.

She has the gall to say that she was not practicing law? This is laughable.

A question:

I do not see where in the documents she suggests that she is admitted in Massachusetts.

I do see where the firm that retained her has a mailing address in NYC

And I do see where the documents were filed in New Jersey, where she was admitted

Am I missing something? (These darned iPhone screens are so small!)

    Mercyneal in reply to turfmann. | September 26, 2012 at 3:42 pm

    She said she hadn’t used her law license in NJ in years and years.

    We don’t know if she had let it lapsed when she worked on this.

    J Mann in reply to turfmann. | September 26, 2012 at 3:47 pm

    There’s an exception on Massachusetts Professional Rule 5.5(c) for lawyers providing legal services on a temporary basis for cases that arise in the state where they are licensed; so if this was the only case, Warren would arguably be ok.

    However, at some point, the sheer number of these jobs will probably eliminate any argument that her work was “temporary.”

    janitor in reply to turfmann. | September 26, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    In some states, e.g. Florida, the lawyer must maintain and practice out of an address in the state. Did Warren maintain a functioning law office in New Jersey or elsewhere?

    cbbruuno in reply to turfmann. | September 27, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    Yes, you are missing how desperate some people are in their efforts to beat Warren. Quite frankly this is comical.

Prof Jacobson takes the pitch and knocks it out of the park. Home run.

Take it from a slightly different angle…

1. you have a medical doctor, retained by a committee especially to render expert medical advice;

2. that doctor bills for her expert medical advice under billing bearing the notation “Professional Medical Advice”;

3. would it be remotely plausible that the doctor could successfully claim that her work did not involve the practice of her profession?


Professor Jacobson: I understand you have requested further information from New Jersey (and Texas?) about her bar status, but was she admitted and in good standing anywhere when she was doing all of this?

If she had been admitted in the appropriate federal courts, would she not be OK submitting briefs or practicing in those courts (and others pro hac) if she were admitted and in good standing in at least one jurisdiction?

That may not be dispositive of her Massachusetts standing, but if she was not current and in good standing in at least one state, what happens (happened) to her various federal admissions? Certainly she would not be eligible to be admitted pro hac anywhere if she were not in good standing in at least one state.

Keep up the good work, and watch your “6:00” — ethics complaints are tough stuff and you will have people gunning for you.

Have you grieved her in MA? Have any of her former clients grieved her? Could they? Inquiring minds want to know….

I like how the jack hammer of truth keeps breaking up the concrete of pretense around Lizzie.

I am not a lawyer, so could someone please explain to me this:

Even if she was still licensed in NJ or Texas, what if she had let her licensse lapse when she was doing the work in these MA cases?

I think what she said on the radio a couple of days ago was that she hadn’t used her NJ license in years. Correct me if I am wrong.

Professor, you are Breitbart!

Would this be a bump in the road for Warren? Noise perhaps? Great minds think alike, you know.

Here Warren take my freshly printed card…
“Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go and do not collect $200.”

The details on the bill make it unequivocal that she was acting as a lawyer.

Drafting, reading and editing motions sounds exactly like what this lawyer does when he practices law.

Keep hammering at it, Professor. It’s going to take someone with as much legal savvy as Warren and twice as much intelligence to corner her.

Fortunately, you have both.

Here’s what I see on looking at the Mass. Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers. Rule 5.5(b) prohbits a lawyer “except as authorized by these Rules or other law, establish an office or other systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law.” Note “except as authorized by these Rules”. Rule 5.5(c) provides in part “A lawyer admitted in another United States jurisdiction, and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal services on a temporary basis in this jurisdiction that:…
(2) are in or reasonably related to a pending or potential proceeding before a tribunal in this or another jurisdiction, if the lawyer, or a person the lawyer is assisting, is authorized by law or order to appear in such proceeding or reasonably expects to be so authorized”

Was not Warren “authorized by law…to appear” in the proceedings in which she has so far been identified as providing legal services. I’m assuming, of course, that she was a member of the NJ bar at the time she rendered the services. Doesn’t Rule 5.5(c) provide a pretty clear exception to the prohibition in 5.5(b)? I think it does and therefore it does not matter what kind of presence Warren had in Massachusetts–she is covered under 5.5(c)Based on the facts as we currently know them, is there something I’m missing?

It’s possible of course, that she was not a member of the bar anywhere, but until we know that, seems premature to accuse her of unathorized practice of law.

I should note, by the way, that I’m not even sure how the Mass. Board of Bar Overseers even has jurisdiction, since she was not licensed in Mass. to begin with, but since Professor Jacobson appears to be relying on the Mass. rules, I thought it important to point out that what the rules actually say.

    casualobserver in reply to PlainTalk. | September 26, 2012 at 5:25 pm

    The debate has always been focused on the legal definition of ‘temporary’ and ‘practice’ in the state of MA. At least within this blog. I have worked with a number of academic experts in defending patents, mostly in the sciences and engineering. Academic/expert consulting is not unusual. However, can her work as we know it so far be equated to expert opinion or testimony? It seems she was acting as any other counsel actually licensed and in practice.

    Note also she has admitted to having abandoned her license in NJ because she couldn’t meet the education requirements, or something like that. So, it’s not perfectly clear if she was continually licensed anywhere.

    It’s reasonable to be skeptical primarily because her “temporary” provision of services appears to not have been short term (over years) and she isn’t very forthcoming for someone who may be playing strictly by the rules.

    creeper in reply to PlainTalk. | September 26, 2012 at 7:10 pm

    So if no one filed an objection to Warren’s appearance, does that constitute “authoriz[zation] by law…to appear”?

    You’re assuming (your word) that she was authorized simply because she did appear. The woman’s honesty is so far in question that I do not doubt for one moment she would do as she pleased until someone told her she couldn’t.

    ThomasD in reply to PlainTalk. | September 26, 2012 at 7:35 pm

    There was nothing temporary about her ongoing legal endeavors.

    The problem is that Prof. Jacobson has dismissed 5.5(d)(2) much too quickly. It states:

    “(d) A lawyer admitted in another United States jurisdiction, and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal services in this jurisdiction that: . . .(2) are services that the lawyer is authorized to provide by federal law or other law of this jurisdiction.”

    The question then becomes; what is authorized by federal law? what is provide legal services in this jurisdiction? and did Warren have a license in NJ or Texas?

    Authorized by federal law is answered by Comment 18, which provides that;

    “[18] Paragraph (d)(2) recognizes that a lawyer may provide legal services in this jurisdiction even though not admitted when the lawyer is authorized to do so by federal or other law, which includes statute, court rule, executive regulation or judicial precedent.”

    Court Rule is the operative word as Supreme Court Rule 5 deals with admission to practice in that court.

    How does the statute deal with the provision of legal services? Under (d) a lawyer “may establish an office or other systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law as well as provide legal services on a temporary basis.” Now this is a little debatable, but they phrased this catchall exception very broadly.

    Now in order to be admitted to practice in federal courts you must submit a certificate of good standing, meaning it is almost a certainty that Warren had good standing in either NJ or Texas.

    With that in mind. I could not find whether you have to be an active TX bar member in order to receive the certificate. But NJ says that an attorney cannot receive the certificate if they are administratively ineligible. Either way, she received a certificate from one of the states, giving her the cover of 5.5 (d)(2).

      Bruno Lesky in reply to gaelen. | September 27, 2012 at 7:59 am

      The US District Court of Mass lays out specific conditions before allowing pro hac vice (= for this occasion) practice. From the USDCMass website:

      “Pro Hac Vice Admission
      In order to be admitted to the bar of this court pro hac vice, a motion must first be filed in the action in which the attorney seeks to be admitted. The motion cannot be filed by the attorney seeking admission, but must be signed and filed by a member in good standing of the bar of this court. Note, it is the duty of the moving attorney to first verify the bar admission status of the attorney he or she is sponsoring for admission to the court pro hac vice.

      The motion must be accompanied by an affidavit stating that the attorney: is a member of the bar in good standing in every jurisdiction where admitted to practice; there are no disciplinary proceedings pending; and the attorney is familiar with the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Refer to Local Rule 83.5.3.

      A filing fee is required with the filing of the motion for each attorney seeking admission. The amount of the fee is posted on the court’s fee schedule and is not refundable should the motion be denied.”

      Warren stated on Monday “I’ve been inactive in the New Jersey bar for a very, very long time” (Jim & Margery 96.9FM radio show).

      And we know from Wm Jacobson’s post yesterday via Rob Eno at Red Mass Group that Warren has been on inactive status in Texas since 1992.

      So how could Warren possibly be eligible to practice since 1992?

      And did a Mass bar member in good standing file a pro hac vice motion?

      Who? (I don’t know how to find this out.)

Agreed. Prof Jacobson is providing an extremely valuable service with this project.

Plain Talk @ 4:45. If you practice medicine in a state where you do not have a license, the state board of medicine will prosecute you for unlicensed practice. Jurisdiction? QED.

    PlainTalk in reply to katasuburi. | September 26, 2012 at 7:00 pm

    Might well be. And might be true in some states and not others. Does not necessarily apply to lawyers and does not appear to apply to lawyers in Mass. I’ve seen reports in the news about criminal prosecutions for unlicensed practice of medicine, so I suspect that in some states at least, the medical licensing folks only have jurisdiction of their own (they can revoke and suspend licenses) but can’t do anything about unlicensed quacks–hence it up to police and prosecutors to handle those. In Mass. it is a crime to practice law without a license.

    A better example would be if a NJ licensed doctor at Harvard performed robotic surgery from Mass. in NJ once or twice a year, while keeping a full time job that did not require a Mass license.

The Professor wrote: Only Warren knows the extent of her private law practice, and she refuses to make a full disclosure.

A question: did Prof. Warrent disclosure her tax returns for this time period as part of her Senate campaign?

This Washington Post article notes that Prof. Warren released returns for 2009-2011. I don’t know how to find them, or any other returns she released, as my Google-fu isn’t so good. But perhaps others know where her released returns are and can take a look.

My point: the tax returns would outline her ‘consulting’ income. There would be the usual schedules for a small business, and income would be outlined in that. Perhaps even the vendors would be listed.

Just a thought.

More specifically, on page 36 of 79 attached above, the accounting firm(?) seem to understand clearly what she was doing. In Paragraph 13 they write: “As set forth in Exhibits A and B, Professor Warren rendered 3.5 hours of professional services during the Application Period, resulting in legal fees totaling $2,362.50…”

[…] It depends on the meaning of the word “law”: Elizabeth Warren and her supporters have mounted an argument that what she did at her office in Cambridge for private litigants was not the practice of law. […]

To practice law in NJ in 2002 (in state office rule rerealed 2003), you had to have had a bona fide office in State. Lizard appers to ahve had no such office.

Rule 1:21-1(a) (2002), states, in pertinent
part, that:

“no person shall practice law in this State unless
that person maintains a bona fide office for the
practice of law in this State regardless of where
the attorney is domiciled. A bona fide office is
more than a maildrop, a summer home that is
unattended during a substantial portion of the
year, an answering service unrelated to a place
where business is conducted or a place where an on
site agent of the attorney receives and transmits
messages only. For purposes of this section, a
bona fide office is a place where clients are met,
files are kept, the telephone is answered, and
mail is received, and the attorney or a
responsible person acting on the attorney’s behalf
can be reached in person and by telephone during
normal business hours to answer questions posed by
the Courts, clients, or adversaries and to insure
that competent advice from the attorney can be
obtained within a reasonable period of time. An
attorney who practices law in this State and fails
to maintain a bona fide office in this State shall
be deemed to be in violation of RPC 5.5(a)…

    george in reply to george. | September 26, 2012 at 5:09 pm

    sorry for the awful typing, meant to type

    To practice law in NJ in 2002 (in-state office rule was repealed 2003), you had to have had a bona fide office in NJ Lizard appears to have had no such NJ office.

      She wasn’t practicing law in NJ in 2002. No need to have a NJ license.

        byondpolitics in reply to jim1. | September 26, 2012 at 6:42 pm

        You are missing the point.

        According to these documents. she was clearly practicing law in 2002. Depending on *where she was practicing law, she may have a problem.

        If she was practicing in MA, she clearly has a problem. She was clearly not licensed to practice there. Jacobson argues, convincingly but not definitively, that she was practicing in Cambridge because the jobs were small and stretched over months. It could have been from her HLS office or her home. I do not see why it matters (except to HLS) because in either case she was not licensed to do this.

        However, if she was instead practicing in NJ, there is the possibility that she does not have a problem. These documents were filed in New Jersey. She has a problem if she did not have a license at that time in NJ or if she did not have a bona fide office there.

          It looks to me that the NJ rule you cited only applies to lawyers who were practicing in NJ. It doesn’t say “no person licensed to practice law in NJ can practice law unless that person maintains a bona fide this State.”

          “no person shall practice law IN THIS STATE unless
          that person maintains a bona fide office for the
          practice of law in this State regardless of where
          the attorney is domiciled

Who cares if she did or didn’t, unless you’re a statist who believes in controlling the market and restricting competition by “granting” licenses to participate in the market?

    george in reply to khan. | September 26, 2012 at 5:10 pm

    or pehaps you are a person who believes law are meant to be followed and lying about things is bad.

    Hepcat in reply to khan. | September 26, 2012 at 5:16 pm


    It goes beyond that. Warren claims that she was not practicing law when she obviously was.

    Voluble in reply to khan. | September 27, 2012 at 1:24 am

    Presumably Warren or her potential voters would care since she and they are statists. They might also care for other reasons but that is the one you brought up.

    I don’t care since this sort of licensing is mainly used to keep fees high and control who is allowed entry into the field. Most of what lawyers do is not more difficult than what plumbers do and certainly no more intellectually demanding than being an engineer for instance.

    But the law is the only profession that can create a need for its services because lawyers make all of the laws. It is not in their interest to make things work well without their aid. That is mostly what they are there for… to help you get around the mess they have made of things.

To be fair, Elizabeth Warren’s mother told her she had a Massachusetts law license. It’s part of Liz’s heritage.

Thanks, Prof. Shittin’ ‘n grinnin’ here.

BTW, was Warren breast-feeding during any of this?

Based on these Applications, I wonder if the next defense of Lizzie will be that she was more an Expert on retainer by these firms. The drafting and editing of the briefs/motions were similar to her writing an expert report.

As an aside, I have been a Paralegal for nearly 20 years and if I had submitted the time entries to the billing attorney that are listed in these applications, I would have been laughed at and asked to redo them. I also know that some my clients would have not even paid the bill with those types of entries. Just awful!

Patently Absurd | September 26, 2012 at 5:25 pm

Professor: you should get a copy of the “Supplemental Affidavit of Elihu Inselbuch” filed on September 10, 2001 that is mentioned at paragraph 6 of each Fee Application copied above. This Affidavit would have to layout all of Warren’s credentials in seeking to have the Bankruptcy Judge approve the retention of Warren in the first place. That is, Warren had to be approved by the Bankruptcy Judge before she started working on this matter. This affidavit would have been filed in support of getting that approval.

    vbmoneyspender in reply to Patently Absurd. | September 26, 2012 at 7:03 pm

    Patently Absurd nails it. Professor, you need to get a copy of the application that employed Warren as Special Bankruptcy Consultant. That Application will lay out exactly what she was employed to do and what the basis for her employment was. It was also include a resume showing her qualifications to be employed on behalf of the Asbestos Claimants Committee. She may be able to hide behind her employment being as a consultant rather than as an attorney but the employment application should clarify that issue one way or another.

Is it possible that there is an exception under the rules of the Massachusetts Bar for Native Americans, who are citizens of the their tribe and the United States, but not a State?

Is it possible that Professor Warren was practicing law from her Cambridge University Office that could be considered a part of her reservation, or was she Off the Reservation?

Maybe Professor Warren was advised by her Paw Paw when she was a little squaw that she could render legal services from her Harvard Office without complying with the rules of the Paleface Bar.

I share this for the benefit of her supporters, who need to leave no stone unturned in defending the indefensible.

So the “Mother of the Occupy Movement” — excuse me, “Non-gender-specific sex-neutral Parent of the Occupy Movement” — charges 675 bucks an hour for her time?

Wow. That must really hurt her Marxist, redistributionist heart (if she has one) and soul (whose existence she no doubt denies).

Good to see how she’s borne the pain with such fortitude! All in the service of The Greater Good, of course. No doubt most of it was donated to worthy causes like whales, free-speech-suppression, and baby-killing factories.

As for me, not being ashamed of being a capitalist, I’d sure like to know how I can sign up for a gig like that!

Liz charged as a lawyer, clients must have thought they were paying for a lawyer, but she now claims she was just a (very) special legal consultant.

Liz checked the box as a Native American, seems to have been accepted by Harvard as a Native American, but she then claimed she just wanted to meet Native Americans and removed the actual status after she was in at Harvard, having collected her “pay” of being hired.

Warren’s scholastic work also seemed to intentionally remove evidence of the actual research accomplishment she took credit for (eg. paid herself for an unfounded claim). Her research could not be researched.

Even with her “you didn’t build that” theme, she gave herself credit, but it was not hers to take, having come from that CA radical guy.

She wants credit for Occupy Wall Street … not sure about those details. But she does seem to have a habit of taking credit or pay for more than she is entitled to.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Midwest Rhino. | September 26, 2012 at 7:43 pm

    Yes. Not just her clients but the opposing side . Any settlements reached would have been under the impression she was actually registered to practice & thus legit.

    It would be a big ask for the opposing side not to be intimidated by the “harvard’ logo. Plus I suspect it would even be difficult to find a MA lawyer not in the harvard cheer squad.

    Never mind being just an ordinary person .

    Let’s not forget that she’s also the very first breastfeeding something-or-other.

What’s really comical is that she did not have a law license from the state she lived in. Why is that, I wonder?

Couldn’t pass the test?

BannedbytheGuardian | September 26, 2012 at 7:35 pm

I posted this ‘consultancy ‘ angle yesterday. Consultancies are the “depends what your definition of Is is ” of the 21st century.

The bar for lawyers is very low compared to the medical profession. I know that the then US major internet Medical Imaging company required the radiologists to be registered in that particular state in order to send the diagnosis. With 57 states it was not always possible & some states slipped thru the staff roster-even though they held an average of 17 states registrations each.. Then midnite calls would be made to a company ‘s allied radiologist who had that state’s registration.

Wouldn’t it be grand if we could sue our lawyer if we lost a case?

Serious question here: if Warren didn’t have a license as seems increasingly likely, just how did she get these jobs? How do you promote yourself as available for hire to dispense legal advice and such, but not have a law license?

Do the corporations not vet the people they hire? Can you really just “say” you’re a lawyer and they’ll accept it?

I’m really curious to know how does one get a job as a lawyer yet not have a license to practice as one?


    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to foolishcop. | September 26, 2012 at 7:45 pm

    Give me a H

    Give me an A

    Intellectual elite pom pom march?

    Most states have exemptions for in-house counsel providing advice only to their employer. In addition, teaching law is not the practice of law.

      byondpolitics in reply to jim1. | September 26, 2012 at 8:57 pm

      There has been no claim that she provided legal advise to her employer. Furthermore, why would they want it? Her expertise is not relevant to any legal needs that Harvard University might have. Naturally, they have in-house legal counsel: It’s not her and it’s not any of their law professors.

      Furthermore, no one claimed that her teaching activities were part of her law practice.

Based on the Warren Principle, I just opened a law office in Raleigh NC and another in Wilmington NC (the beach, you know). I have no law degree, never been to law school, but clearly that is no impediment to the practice of law anymore.

I’d be happy to keep posting at LI, but I’m going to have to insist on $685 per post for ‘legal consultation’.

    Do you also happen to be Cherokee? If you are, would you be so kind to share a few of your family’s favorite recipes.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Hepcat. | September 27, 2012 at 12:14 am

      Why, it just so happens I AM Cherokee, in fact, royalty if you must know. Actually, I’m the King of the Cherokee, yeaaah, that’s the ticket. And I have a delightful recipe for Cherokee Pineapple Boureki Shortcake that I plagiari…. borrowed from my grandmother, Princess Running Sore of the Oklahoma Sores. I would gladly forward the details, except…

      …you owe me $685 for this post.

Shame on us, the collective “Us,” for forgetting that the law only applies to us little people. I’m certain, as certain as God making little green apples, that there’s are many exemptions for personages like Prof. E. Warren, which clearly allow her to do what she pleases, when so ever it strikes her fancy.

Ah, is it time yet for my afternoon nap? It has been an eventful day, hasn’t it! Please let us move on and grant Prof. Warren leave to go forth and solve her little problems as she wishes. 😉

./reality on

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Doug Wright. | September 27, 2012 at 12:20 am

    One must judge Ms. Warren not on her deeds, but on her intentions, and with socialistic liberals, since all they do is ultimately For The Children™, said judgment cannot help but find in her favor.

Since she was not a member of the bar, it is apparent she was not operating under any of the rules governing professional responsibility. I wonder how the opposition and her “clients” feel about having divulged private and possibly embarrassing and/or damaging information to a person who had no obligation to keep it confidential.