Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Elizabeth Warren listed Cambridge as “primary practice location” with Texas Bar

Elizabeth Warren listed Cambridge as “primary practice location” with Texas Bar

Elizabeth Warren has touted that she has been a member of the Texas Bar for a long time, along with New Jersey.

We knew that Warren currently was inactive in Texas, but didn’t know for how long.  Also, there has been a mystery as to why she withdrew her New Jersey membership on September 11 of this year, which has had the effect of taking out of public view whether Warren was active in New Jersy and for what years.

While I reported in my original post that Warren was inactive in Texas, Rob Eno at Red Mass Group has the scoop that Warren has been on “inactive” status in Texas since 1992.  In an e-mail to Eno, the Texas Bar wrote:

“Inactive status” basically means that the lawyer cannot practice law in Texas. Following is a link to information on our website that goes into more detail:

http://www.texasbar.com/Content/NavigationMenu/ForLawyers/MembershipInfoandServices/CommonLawyerRequests/Inactive_Status.htm#what

Our electronic records indicate that Elizabeth Warren has been on inactive status since 6/1/92.

Since the Texas Bar is a mandatory Bar, meaning licensed lawyers must be a member (same thing in Rhode Island), being inactive with the Texas Bar effectively is being inactive in practice.

But what’s bigger is that Warren represented Cambridge, Massachusetts as her “primary practice location” with the Texas Bar.

The emails and documents are over at Red Mass Group.

The implausibility of Warren maintaining that she was not practicing law in Massachusetts grows by the hour.

(Now the tease.  Stay tuned for a morning post from me.)

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

There are two Elizabeth A. Warrens with home addresses in Cambridge, MA.

You and the Red Mass Group are also wrong about the Texas rules and inactive status (I’m active in Texas and inactive in two other states).

Texas rules say that you can’t request inactive status if you’re practicing law anywhere or a faculty member. But you only request inactive status once (apparently in 1992) so that this the time you once have to meet those requirements. After you receive inactive status, you can’t practice law in TX.

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

    “But you only request inactive status once (apparently in 1992) so that this the time you once have to meet those requirements. ” This sentence does not make sense. Perhaps it could be re-written?

    Who is “you?” Certainly not the author of the article (who is the “you” in your previous sentence). I’ll assume it was meant to say “she” or “Warren.”

    What does “so that this time you once have to meet those requirements” mean?

    Did you mean that one would only have to meet the requirements for inactive status at the time at which it was requested?

    She has been teaching law continuously, at various institutions, since 1977. In 1992, she had a tenured position at the University of Pennsylvania. She also went to Harvard in that year as a visiting professor. Consequently, she was, in 1992, a “Member who is a full-time or part-time faculty member of any law school and who is either compensated or uncompensated.”

      How’s this: Texas rules say that a lawyer can’t request inactive status if he or she is practicing law anywhere or a faculty member. But a laywer need only request inactive status once so that the time the lawyer makes the request is the only time he or she has to meet those requirements. After the lawyer receives inactive status, he or she can’t practice law in TX but can practice law elsewhere or be a faculty member.

        jim1 in reply to jim1. | September 26, 2012 at 6:50 pm

        Let’s also point out that the Red Mass Group Texas bar rules are apparently the current rules, not those in 1992. They could have been different at that time.

        byondpolitics in reply to jim1. | September 26, 2012 at 6:54 pm

        Precisely. That is why I pointed out that she has, in fact, been teaching law since 1977 and certainly was a professor in 1992.

        Of course, at is whether the rules were the same at the time she went inactive. However, that was not the point you were trying to make.

          It was the point I was trying to make.

          If she left PA for MA in 1992 and filed the application for inactive status in Texas after she left PA and before she was employed at Harvard (like during the summer), she could have certified she wasn’t on a law school faculty at that time.

        Estragon in reply to jim1. | September 27, 2012 at 1:21 am

        But if she requested inactive status in Texas and supplied a primary practice address in Massachusetts, would she not have needed leave from the Massachusetts Bar (or Federal District) to practice there?

    janitor in reply to jim1. | September 26, 2012 at 6:35 pm

    Maybe she lied?

      creeper in reply to janitor. | September 26, 2012 at 7:19 pm

      Is your last name Occam?

      counsel4pay in reply to janitor. | September 27, 2012 at 3:07 am

      “J”–I’ve been following your research, references, facts, and stats for a while here, along with Ragspierre, and I say it’s time for a more appropriate name:

      Elucidator
      SincereSage
      ThinksDeep
      [other suggestions-I KNOW there’s better ones out there]

      We need to have a contest to push you into a more fitting screen name. Best regards.

Does anybody know when Warren put her NJ bar membership on inactive status? I thought I read somewhere yesterday or the day before that she said in a 2010 interview that her NJ bar membership had been inactive for years. Is it possible that she has not had any active state bar membership for years, and the reason that she resigned her NJ bar membership last week was to try and hide that fact?

    Estragon in reply to Observer. | September 27, 2012 at 1:50 am

    That may well have been the reason she resigned. New Jersey doesn’t have the “inactive” status – you can resign, or pay your fees. If you do not pay the fees, you are “ineligible” – a category which sounds like it was created to pressure people to pay up to avoid their reputation being impugned by that status.

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!

Sir Walter Scott

Warren’s deceitfulness compounds by the hour. I’ll ask again, does anyone at HLS administration believe that Warren sullies the institution?

As of today, Warren is still listed among the faculty, as the Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law.

Is it not time for HLS to at least suspend her teaching appointment until these questions of her honesty and fidelity to truth are cleared up?

Dean Minow says “...Harvard Law School is the oldest continuously operating law school in the nation, but its greatest tradition is its commitment to critical analysis—of law, legal institutions, and legal education itself…

My question is, does Warren’s behavior reflect positively or negatively on HLS’ commitment to critical analysis—of law, legal institutions, and legal education itself?

I’d say her behavior reflects very poorly and sullies the institution.

Any institution recognizes it is greater than any single person, and a person who sullies the institution, well, as Clint Eastwood said,


When somebody does not do the job,
we’ve got to let them go.

    2nd Ammendment Mother in reply to Sandy Daze. | September 26, 2012 at 8:19 pm

    I’m still curious what the standing Harvard policy for use of the school’s address and offices for the conduct of personal business?
    Can the janitor’s sell Amway from their workrooms and can the staff receive their Avon shipments and sell those from their desk?
    Can they list their Harvard office as their official place of business on their state business licenses?
    And…. did Warren register as a business in Massachusetts and pay the appropriate state and local taxes associated with her business activities?

      This, from Hvd’s med school faculty site, but I’m almost 100% certain it applies across the board to all faculty and students:

      “For example, faculty and staff members may use their Harvard Medical School titles, and the School seal, for identifying themselves for the purposes of their faculty related responsibilities. This includes using their faculty and staff title and the School seal on letterhead and business cards. However, faculty and staff members should never use the Harvard name and seal when participating in private outside activities not related to their faculty responsibilities. Faculty members should limit their identification with Harvard to listing their formal titles, and then only when engaged in outside activities relevant to their professional expertise. In these uses, the title should be in the context of biographical information, not in a separate manner that would visually link the University or the School to the corporate or other outside activity.” (at http://www.fa.hms.harvard.edu/use-of-the-harvard-name/)

      I note that Warren had HARVARD LAW SCHOOL printed in caps, so no reader could miss it. So the question for Harvard is, was Liz engaging in “private outside activities not related to their [her] faculty responsibilities”, for which she should “never use the Harvard name”? And if so —and it sure seems like it — will they go after her in the usual nasty relentless manner they demonstrate to those they’ve deemed as abusing their brand?

The Professor says in this article that she withdrew her NJ license on Sept. 11, 2012.

Looks like there is no real “inactive” status for most lawyers licensed in NJ. If you move, it looks like you have to resign from the NJ bar.

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/cpf/internetfaq.htm

    Ragspierre in reply to jim1. | September 26, 2012 at 6:38 pm

    “If you move, it looks like you have to resign from the NJ bar.”

    I dinnit find any such thing.

    On the contrary…

    5. Although my firm has an office in New Jersey, I practice only in another state. How do I answer the attorney registration Question 3 about whether or not I engage in the practice of New Jersey law? (back to top) You should answer “No.”

    What ARE you talking about?

      This: Am I exempt from payment because I practice out-of-state? (back to top) No. You cannot claim an inactive exemption from payment solely by virtue of being out-of-state.

      janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | September 26, 2012 at 6:46 pm

      Rags, it looks like this goes to information submissions, e.g. trust accounts, required for lawyers in practice in New Jersey, not whether the individual is actively registered as a lawyer.

        Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | September 26, 2012 at 7:02 pm

        “New Jersey Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection”

        There is an assessment made against all licensed attorneys in New Jersey.

        The cite discusses the only exemptions from having to pay that assessment, and other extraneous crap.

        It says nothing about “moving out of New Jersey” relevant. to this thread

    janitor in reply to jim1. | September 26, 2012 at 6:41 pm

    Interesting. Similar rules to Texas in that if you are practicing anywhere, you can’t be inactive. From the website you referenced:

    2. I don’t practice law in New Jersey and I don’t want to pay the fees. I want to be placed in inactive status. What are my options? (back to top)

    There is no “inactive status” in New Jersey. Your options are as follows:

    1. if you meet the standards on the bottom reverse side of the billing form, you can claim an exemption from payment by completing the certification (without alteration or qualification) for (i) Armed Forces, AmeriCorps, or Peace Corps or (ii) Retired completely from the practice of law;

    2. if you are not exempt and do not pay the required fees, you will be declared ineligible and not in good standing in New Jersey; or

    3. you may formally resign from the New Jersey Bar as noted in the answer to Question 3 below.

      Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | September 26, 2012 at 7:32 pm

      You have to be careful. That whole site only has to do with their “client protection fund”.

      They even collect (i.e., TAX) lawyers from other states practicing in NJ.

      There are a VERY limited number of exemptions. You can NOT practice and you still owe. You can be out of state, and you still owe. IOW…you owe.

Subotai Bahadur | September 26, 2012 at 6:22 pm

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But, I have just yesterday survived a Jury summons [Voir Dire but not put on the jury].

I got to wondering if there was some sort of reciprocity to practice between certain states. As far as I know, the “Albino Cherokee” has only claimed membership in the Texas and New Jersey bars. From what I can find neither has reciprocity the way some states do. Massachusetts apparently has a curious form of reciprocity that allows you to apply to practice in Massachusetts if you have been in practice in another state for 5 years and have graduated from an ABA approved law school. None of which would authorize Warren to practice law out of her Cambridge office.

The questions are: a) will anyone with standing file a formal, public complaint to the Massachusetts Bar Association about her illegal practice of law, and b) Will the Bar Association do anything but cover it up? Keep in mind that this is Massachusetts, she is a Democrat, and these are lawyers. Sorry Professor, the lawyers I have encountered up close are pretty much morals and ethics-free. Add Massachusetts Democrat to the mix, and I am pretty sure that this is another case of the modern American syndrome of the connected being routinely above the law.

Subotai Bahadur

    Anyone can file a complaint with the Massachusetts Bar. You can do so.

    Has Professor Jacobson or anyone else tried to find out if Warren took the MA Bar exam and failed?

      counsel4pay in reply to Mercyneal. | September 27, 2012 at 2:58 am

      Lawyers live in their own little world–and they compel all others to pay homage to them. In CAL, I have represented both (1) complainants against attorneys here and (2) attorneys against whom complaints are made.

      HERE IN CAL–IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A PERSONAL BASIS FOR COMPLAINT [read this as, “unless you can prove you were ripped off somehow] YOU GET -0- RESPECT AND ATTENTION FROM AN OVERWORKED AND HARRIED “Disciplinary Commission”.

      MASS is going to have to figure this out for itself vis-a-vis “ethical violations” and ACTUAL STANDING TO PRACTICE. Expect THAT outcome sometime next year.

      BUT, FOR NOW, in the Court of Public Opinon, WE, THE PEOPLE, do NOT need the keen eyes of professional ethics gurus (who deem counting angels on the heads of pins as child’s play) TO SEE THAT THE “ALBINO CHEROKEE” HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN A SYSTEMATIC; CONSISTENT; AND INEXCUSABLE PROGRAM OF FRAUD AND DECEIT. She “gamed” the system, confident that once HARVARD’S UMBRELLA OF PROTECTION COVERED HER, SHE WAS TOTALLY IMMUNE FROM ATTACK–recall how one Hussein Obama has been shielded over the years!

    counsel4pay in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | September 27, 2012 at 2:50 am

    SB: Marvelous post. This stuff quickly gets complex, right?

    When I read your phrase “Albino Cherokee” my “Orange Crush” drunk spewed from my nose. [Ugly visual]. The whole comment was great but gee…I have GOT TO STOP READING AND DRINKING–even diet sodas!

Great work, Prof. For my part I am sending more California dollars to Brown. We need this horrible woman to be defeated

    Rick in reply to Rick. | September 26, 2012 at 6:40 pm

    Three attempts just now to contribute to Brown’s campaign failed, and I cannot find any error or gap in my contribution information. Has anyone else had this problem?

When did Warren’s ethics become inactive?

    AmandaFitz in reply to Hepcat. | September 26, 2012 at 9:03 pm

    Good thing they didn’t require “Professional Responsibility” back when Warren became a member of the bar.

Ok so she said in a radio interview on Monday that her license in NJ has been inactive for years and years. But people have said here in NJ they don’t have inactive licenses. Can someone clear this up?

    janitor in reply to Mercyneal. | September 26, 2012 at 6:51 pm

    Looking at the NJ website, it would seem that by “inactive” she meant that she was representing that she wasn’t practicing law in NJ, in order to avoid some of the bar requirements (fees, continuing education, trust accounting information.)

    So — if she was “inactive (officially, however she got there) in Texas, and representing to New Jersey that she was “not practicing in New Jersey” (what she called “inactive”) — then… she was practicing only in Massachusetts, while alleging that what she was doing for the hundreds of thousands of dollars she was earning was not the practice of law.

      Mercyneal in reply to janitor. | September 26, 2012 at 6:59 pm

      So if she was inactive in Texas and it appears she was most likely inactive in NJ, then how can she practice law in Massachusetts without an active law license anywhere?

cicerosdaughter | September 26, 2012 at 6:45 pm

In Texas, she lists scotus bar admissions. I’d like to see when that was and who wrote in support of her application. Any way to find this? Does that ever expire once admitted? Please explain to the public how her lack of MA license doesn’t violate the supremacy clause, but how her practice of law, even if only federal, violates MA law. I bet she did work on MA cases, and there have to be some adversaries out there. Anyone want to run People search on Westlaw???

Fat Boy Ted Kennedy was first elected (special election) to the Senate on 11/06/62 (enabling him to serve out the unexpired portion of Jack’s term, just barely meeting the Constitution’s 30 years of age requirement for Senators, Fat Boy being then just 30.8 years of age). On 11/03/64 Fat Boy stood for his first full term election, which he won. On 11/03/70 Fat Boy stood for his second full term but the first one following the death of MJ Kopeckne for which Fat Boy was responsible but suffering no penalty therefor (so corrupt the system of justice in the “Commonwealth”). He won handily, the majority of Mass. voters untroubled by Fat Boy’s homicide of another woman, not his wife, with whom he was “keeping company.”

A majority of Mass. voters continued this pattern, in 1976, 1982, 1988, 1994, 2000, 2006. Fat Boy died in 2009.

And you think that a majority of Mass. voters are going to be bothered by Granny Warren’s mere lying and other incidences of flaunting the law. “Laws are made for the little people. Not me. I repeat, do as I say, not as I do, you little peons.”

As I have said in earlier posts, it is truly hard to believe that this state/commonwealth, the one in which I live, was one of the original 13 !!!

    walls in reply to pfg. | September 26, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    Find and read [currently out of print] Senatorial Privilege by Leo Damore – a truly fascinating read. And watch your blood pressure.

    janitor in reply to pfg. | September 26, 2012 at 7:24 pm

    Good point. Though… (I’m hoping) part of it might have been that he was John Kennedy’s brother.

This is all very interesting and I look to the Professor’s post tomorrow morning.

However, the only thing that’s been proven so far is that the various law license requirements are so complicated that you actually have to hire a rocket scientist to figure them out.

    janitor in reply to Mavila. | September 26, 2012 at 6:53 pm

    Or a lawyer. (No shortage on this website). 🙂

    Even lawyers screw them up. The General Counsel of several Wisconsin large companies found themselves in a difficult situation a few years ago:

    A Wisconsin blog called MilwaukeeWorld brought the licensing issue to the forefront when it released an investigative report criticizing the general counsel of four Wisconsin-based companies for not being admitted to practice law in that state.

    “Bryan Blankfield, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Oshkosh Truck Corporation; John “Jack” Hammond, General Counsel, Vice President, and Secretary of Sensient Technologies Corporation; Robert Heath, Vice President and General Counsel of Briggs & Stratton Corporation; and W. David Romoser, Vice President, General Counsel, and Corporate Secretary of A.O. Smith Corporation were all placed in the spotlight by the blog.

    Even though general counsel working in Wisconsin do not need to be licensed in the state, the bad publicity was damaging. “With such high stakes, it is confounding that attorneys who make a career of practicing in Wisconsin are too lazy or indifferent to get a license here. This is perplexing, since the state offers relatively simple access to license for qualifying attorneys,” Michael Horne commented on MilwaukeeWorld.”

    http://www.gcconsulting.com/articles/120116/73/General-Counsel-Frustrated-with-Licensing-Rules.

    (Wisconsin has an in-house counsel exception which allow in-house counsel to practice law for their employer and related companies, subject to certain requirements).

      janitor in reply to jim1. | September 26, 2012 at 7:31 pm

      So the lawyers were correct? They didn’t need a license because they were in-house. It was the “publicity” that got it wrong.

      Where is the publicity about Warren’s issues?

        They had to file within a period of time and pay around $300, janitor, in order to make use of the in-house exception. They hadn’t done that when the article came out.

‘Curiouser and curiouser!’ cried Alice…’now I’m opening out like the largest telescope that ever was! Good-bye, feet!’ (for when she looked down at her feet, they seemed to be almost out of sight, they were getting so far off). ‘Oh, my poor little feet, I wonder who will put on your shoes and stockings for you now, dears? I’m sure I shan’t be able! I shall be a great deal too far off to trouble myself about you: you must manage the best way you can; – but I must be kind to them,’ thought Alice, ‘or perhaps they won’t walk the way I want to go! Let me see: I’ll give them a new pair of boots every Christmas.’

Sounds like things are getting pretty weird for Elizabeth Warren right about now…

Thank you for doing the journalistic work that the Mainstream Media refuses to do.

Teasing this story out over time sounds just like what Andrew Breitbart would do. I keep checking Google to see if any MSM are picking it up. They are so scared of this story that they aren’t even going after you! There are some really skeevy politicians out there, but she takes it to a whole new level. She believes that the MSM’s cover actually gives her moral authority. Great job and keep the pressure up!

PCH

The reason this is so confusing to non-lawyers is that before you even get into the interesting questions of appearances in federal court litigation (whether as counsel of record or “only” “of counsel”) you first must be “actively” licensed to practice law in at least one state jurisdiction.

When you get out of law school you have to pass the Bar Exam of the State in which you intend to practice law. After you pass you are a member of that State’s Bar and subject to its rules and regulations, most of which are designed to protect members of the public from people who are not licensed, from ethical violations, fraudulent activity related to retainers, billings, etc. Most State Bars assess compulsory dues on their members and also impose Continuing Legal Education requirements. I am admitted to two State Bars and I can tell you that between my Bar dues and CLE requirements, it’s quite a lot of money annually. I am “active” in both. A portion of that money goes into Client Security Trust Funds which are administered by the State Bars to help members of the public who are wronged by unethical attorneys ( recovering improper retainers, stolen or converted trust funds etc).

If Warren was “inactive” in both Texas and NJ from the 1990’s onward and was representing Travelers and other clients in federal courts she may have misrepresented herself as an “active” member of those Bars to those clients and to the federal courts in which she was practing law (writing briefs and advising other lawyers is practing law). She has admitted to never having acquired a license to practice in MA so it’s starting to look like she has been practicing law for decades without any “active” Bar license anywhere. Did she do this just to save money and not be bothered with reporting and filing requirements?

I also want to repeat what I posted on other LI threads about Warren’s law license problem. Wholly apart from the lucrative bankruptcy litigation work she had, if she did any legal work for friends, family members or colleagues in MA (even if she didn’t charge them for it), she needed to be licensed in MA. So, for example, if she prepared Deeds, reviewed Bankruptcy Petitions or Schedules for a Debtor or Creditor, reviewed a real estate contract or a lease for a business or individual, prepared Closing documents, reviewed loan applications, prepared a Trust or Will or appeared in a Probate Court for someone–this all constitutes the practice of law in MA.

    creeper in reply to SGLawrence. | September 26, 2012 at 7:31 pm

    On behalf of the laity here, I thank you.

    Observer in reply to SGLawrence. | September 26, 2012 at 9:48 pm

    Don’t most state bars offer exemptions to judges and full-time law professors, at least for the yearly CLE requirements, if not for the membership fees? (Wouldn’t it be ironic if it turns out that Warren, who was charging her clients $675 an hour, didn’t bother to maintain an active state license in order to avoid a few hundred dollars a year in bar fees?)

Has anybody checked with the Cherokee bar?

If Elizabeth Warren gave legal advice at any time to Harvard University, she most definitely was practicing law in MA. So, for example, if she wrote any memos to Elena Kagan, other administration officials at Harvard, or a student organization, in which she rendered legal advice, that’s the essence of practicing law. Same would be true if she appeared as “of counsel” in a brief for Harvard.

cicerosdaughter | September 26, 2012 at 7:33 pm

A-ha. Read this article. The unauthorized practice of immigration law …. Practicing federal law in a state in which an attorney doesn’t have a law license. Here immigration, a seemingly federal issue, is the topic, but we can apply e warren’s facts to this reasoning:http://www.wmitchell.edu/lawreview/Volume35/documents/Kuck.pdf

cicerosdaughter | September 26, 2012 at 7:37 pm

I don’t think the supremacy clause insulates her. A stay at home mother with a law degree and an iPad may be a very dangerous weapon.

cicerosdaughter | September 26, 2012 at 7:53 pm

So all this research about tx and nj is really unnecessary, although could undermine her pro had vice beeswax, but I doubt she bothered with that anyway.

Crap on a cracker, Professor … like I’m going to be able to sleep tonight now …

Boy, is there anything more exciting than lawyers talking shop? (j/k)

Set my alarm for 6 am.

    Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | September 26, 2012 at 8:50 pm

    Dude! This is RIVETING, vital stuff…!!! This is better-than-an-action-movie content!

    (Or green-eye shade, picking through the chicken entrails minutia…take your pick.

I think Liawatha read your article, Professor. There is one down thumb. Had to be hers!

GREAT research, I can’t wait to see tomorrow’s entry!

    Jack The Ripper in reply to herm2416. | September 26, 2012 at 11:06 pm

    No. It was me. I was trying to tap the Thumbs Up on my tablet and the screen was acting like it was frozen. I tapped repeatedly and then it went to one Thumbs Down.

    My bad.

    Besides, she is probably following Professor Jacobson very carefully, but only via smoke signals. If he is in Ithaca, the wind will blow mostly east, parallel to I-90 to Boston. [I guess smoke signals were not very good for global warming].

Could Elizabeth Warren have rendered legal advice to Occupy Wall Street factions using her Cambridge “letterhead?” After all, she bragged about laying the foundation for their movement. Wouldn’t THAT be fun to hear about!

Ostensibly brilliant women sometimes aren’t. Hillary Clinton graduated from Yale Law School and yet she flunked the D.C. bar. Likewise, it would not surprise me to learn that Professor Warren flunked the MA bar. Since Warren’s legal career was already launched, I can see her rationalizing not re-taking it.

    AmandaFitz in reply to jemTX. | September 26, 2012 at 9:09 pm

    Do you honestly think this woman even made the effort to take the MA Bar exam? I don’t. As with her bogus “minority” status, she simply figured that the “rules” don’t apply to her. She had already skated on the plagarism and false data charges, so why think anyone would notice if she practiced law without a license? And, BTW, the ABA is NOTORIOUSLY left-wing.

Obviously, if Elizabeth Warren were a White woman, her ethics wouldn’t be in question.

Salem is in MA – maybe there should be a new witch trial!

On a lighter, less technical note, I would like to know if the books Warren co-wrote with her daughter (All Your Worth: The Ultimate Lifetime Money Plan and The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Going Broke) were written with the assistance of an undeclared ghostwriter.

    SGLawrence in reply to jemTX. | September 26, 2012 at 10:24 pm

    If Elizabeth Warren enlisted the services of an undeclared ghostwriter she better have a good Work-for-Hire agreement in her files. On another even lighter note, Bill Clinton was a good sport about his “warm up act” at the DNC–in her 2-Income Trap book Elizabeth Warren rips into then Senator Hillary Clinton as having no principles or convictions in relation to certain banking legislation.

    Jack The Ripper in reply to jemTX. | September 26, 2012 at 11:13 pm

    That was my point a few days ago, when I asked, in light of this, and the 1/32nd Cherokee/Delaware Native American claim which is laughable whether it is 100% true or not true (because the only hardship she might have possibly experienced was at the hands of the bigots in her own family who disapproved of the alleged “miscengenation” for lack of a better word), and the cribbed recipe, and claiming to have been on the side of the asbestos claimants, whether it was fair game, or just piling on, to consider scrutinizing her academic writings and speeches and other works for possible plagiarism.
    Between the farcical claim of a person of color being on the faculty and the $350,000 per year for teaching one class, its high time that someone (such as a student or an alum) form Occupy Harvard Law School.

“(Now the tease. Stay tuned for a morning post from me.)”

Play theme from Dragnet:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=theme+dragnet&mid=400F647EEB2A25D08E50400F647EEB2A25D08E50&view=detail&FORM=VIRE3

Hey if we can’t mock her for being a fake Indian, can we mock her for being a fake lawyer?

You know, put on my best power suit carry a briefcase and shout things like “objection!” and “I rest my case!” at the next Warren function.

Jack The Ripper | September 27, 2012 at 12:24 am

This may be old stuff, but have most of you read the following article, and the reader comments?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/04/warren-accused-repeated-instances-of-scientific-misconduct-before-harvard-hire

Also, there is a Rutgers University Law Review article at 43 Rutgers L. Rev. 185 1990-1991, which can be found online at http://www.docstoc.com and which does not review Professor Chief Teaching Bull’s work (along with two co-authors) in a kind light. That law review article is a Book Review of Warren et al.’s work, entitled Social Science Research on Bankrupty – As We Forgive Our Debtors: Bankruptcy and Consumer Credit in America.

Frankly, the Rutgers Law Review piece essentially states that although the reviewer sat on the committee that approved the National Science Foundation grant (NSF grant) that funded Warren et al.’s research on Social Science Research on Bankrupty – As We Forgive Our Debtors: Bankruptcy and Consumer Credit in America, the author believes that the work was a substantively flawed waste of NSF money (which I guess is taxpayer money).

Has anybody else found any instances of questionable academic work involving Chief Teaching Bull?

Does the NSF have an Inspector General? Does Harvard have internal auditors?

And, can anyone located Elizabeth Warren’s complete tax returns, including Schedule C’s and other schedules? The Schedule C’s should show all business income and, possibly much more interestingly, all business deductions, be they accurate, low or high, related to not practicing law, related to paying research assistants, possible legal settlements, etc.

And, did she need to have a business license and pay an occupational tax for some of these activities, be they law or academic grant work?

The New Jersey Bar
Requires a staffed office
To practice law there…

Since Warren clearly did not have a staffed office in New Jersey, she could not practice law in New Jersey and would have had an inactive status there, as well.

So she could not practice in New Jersey, Texas or Massachusetts. It is beginning to look like Lizzie has a little problem…

cicerosdaughter | September 27, 2012 at 8:22 am

Scotus rule:Rule 8. Disbarment and Disciplinary Action
1. Whenever a member of the Bar of this Court has been disbarred or suspended from practice in any court of record, or has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar of this Court, the Court will enter an order suspending that member from practice before this Court and affording the member an opportunity to show cause, within 40 days, why a disbarment order should not be entered…. Would becoming Ineligible, aka not an attorney, be the equivalent to suspension? If she were in eligible in both tx and nj in 2008, it seems that she might have been a little dishonest with scotus and her clients. Also, after reading Sperry, it also seems that a non- lawyer ( no state bar license) can only practice purely federal law before a federal agency that has explicitly made such authorization in a regulation, rule, etc. Scotus makes no such authorization in its rules of court.There is no federal rule, law, regulation that explicitly permits a non-lawyer who holds Scotus bar admissions to practice law before scotus, like the us patent court does. Therefore there is no federal pre-emption of MA statutes, regulations, and rules regarding the unauthorized practice of law when Warren was practicing law when working on scotus cases in MA. Looks like she broke the law.

[…] not just a sporadic Federal law practice) without a valid law license, after his post yesterday that raised questions about her representations regarding her license to practice in Texas.* He is doing the job that the national and Massachusetts media should be doing. In the end, the […]

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend