Elizabeth Warren’s law license problem
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:
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).
I confirmed with the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers by telephone that Warren never has been admitted to practice in Massachusetts. I had two conversations with the person responsible for verifying attorney status. In the first conversation the person indicated she did not see any entry for Warren in the computer database, but she wanted to double check. I spoke with her again several hours later, and she indicated she had checked their files and also had spoken with another person in the office, and there was no record of Warren ever having been admitted to practice in Massachusetts.
Warren’s own listing of her Bar admissions is consistent with not being licensed in Massachusetts. In a June 25, 2008 CV Warren listed only Texas and New Jersey.
Warren’s Texas Bar information indicates she is not eligible to be licensed in Texas, but does not indicate when she went on that inactive status. Consistent with our finding that Warren was not admitted in Massachusetts, Warren listed only one other place of admission on her Texas record, New Jersey:
Warren became licensed in New Jersey in 1977. She famously and speculatively claimed to be the “first nursing mother to take a Bar exam” in New Jersey.
Warren, however, is not currently licensed in New Jersey:
While the date of termination of her New Jersey license is not on the website, telephone inquiries to the New Jersey Board of Bar Examiners and the New Jersey Lawyers Fund For Client Protection indicated that Warren resigned her license on September 11, 2012 (one of the people remarked to me “that’s a memorable day”). It’s odd that in the middle of a campaign Warren would take the time to resign her New Jersey Bar membership, particularly since she would have to retake the Bar exam to be readmitted.
Neither office in New Jersey could state whether her license was continuously active until her resignation because the computer only shows the current status, so I have made the request in writing as instructed. By resigning her New Jersey license earlier this month, Warren made it more difficult for the public to determine her pre-resignation status.
By all available information, Warren never has been licensed in Massachusetts, but at varying times has had active law licenses in Texas and New Jersey, although currently she is not licensed in either jurisdiction. It is unclear whether during the years she represented Travelers and others Warren was actively licensed anywhere.
I emailed the Warren campaign’s spokesperson, Alethea Harney, after the debate Thursday night requesting a list of all jurisdictions in which Warren was licensed to practice law. I requested that the information be provided by Friday morning specifically so I could include the campaign’s response, but I received no response.
2. Warren Used Her Cambridge Office as Her Law Office
Regardless of where she was admitted, Warren consistently since the late 1990s has held herself out as having her professional address for legal representation at her Harvard Law School office in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Warren was listed as “Of Counsel” on Travelers’ Supreme Court Brief, listing her Harvard Law School office as her office address:
Warren also used her Cambridge office address in other Supreme Court Briefs, such as Rousey v. Jacoway in 2004 where she represented AARP:
In 2003, Warren used her Cambridge address for another AARP Supreme Court Brief in Till v. SCS Credit Corp. (no public image available, but available in text form through Westlaw at 2003 WL 22070307) in which she appeared along with other counsel:
In the Till Brief, a Harvard Law School student was thanked for helping with the Brief, a clear reflection that the work on the Brief was performed at least in part in Cambridge.
Similarly, in 2002 in FCC v. Nextwave Communications, Warren filed a Brief for the Official Creditors Committee and filed a Brief (available Westlaw at 2002 WL 1379031 ) along with her Harvard Law School colleagues Laurence Tribe and Charles Fried (each of whom is licensed in Massachusetts) using her Cambridge address:
In 1998 Warren was on the Supreme Court Brief for the National Association of Credit Management (available Westlaw 1998 WL 536369), again using her Cambridge address:
Warren also has had other legal representations using Cambridge as the location of her law office, such as National Gypsum Co v. National Gypsum Trust, 219 F.3d 478 (5th Cir. 2000):
Additional court cases in which Warren used her Cambridge address include Matter of Cajun Elec. Power Co-op., Inc., 150 F.3d 503 (5th Cir. 199i8)(“Elizabeth Ann Warren, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, for Southwestern Elec. Power Co.”) and Matter of P.A. Bergner & Co., 140 F.3d 1111 (7th Cir. 1998)(“Elizabeth Warren (argued), Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA”).
The clear record shows that since the late 1990s Warren has held herself out as representing litigants using her Harvard Law School address, and there is every reason to believe the work was performed in Massachusetts, in some cases utilizing student help.
The listings above are not exhaustive, and there may be cases not reported in electronic databases, in which Warren has acted as counsel using her Cambridge address. For example, if Warren rendered legal advice but did not appear on the Brief or enter a court appearance, there would be no record. State court case briefs and appearances also are not captured by databases to the extent of federal cases.
What also is unknown is whether any of Warren’s representations involved Massachusetts clients or law, as Warren’s campaign has refused to disclose the full nature of her law practice when asked by The Boston Globe.
Warren’s office at Harvard Law School appears to have been her only office. I can find no record of Warren using any other address for such filings and representations other than her Cambridge address. That office not only was used in various cases listed above, it also is the office listed for her now inactive Texas law license:
3. Warren Was Practicing Law From Her Cambridge Office
There is no requirement that a law teacher be licensed to practice law in Massachusetts in order to teach or publish on topics related to law. In fact, a law teacher need not even be a lawyer. Once that law teacher starts acting a lawyer, however, the normal licensing rules apply.
The question becomes whether Warren was “practicing law” at her Cambridge address, or doing something that does not constitute the practice of law.
A person practicing law in Massachusetts needs to be licensed to do so. Superadio Ltd. Partnership v. Winstar Radio Productions, LLC, 446 Mass. 330, 334, 844 N.E.2d 246, 250 (Mass. 2006)(“As a general proposition, an attorney practicing law in Massachusetts must be licensed, or authorized, to practice law here”).
While there is no single definition of what it means to “practice law,” the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held:
As general observations, we have noted that the practice of law involves applying legal judgment to address a client’s individualized needs … and that custom and practice may play a role in determining whether a particular activity is considered the practice of law … More specifically, we have stated:
“[D]irecting and managing the enforcement of legal claims and the establishment of the legal rights of others, where it is necessary to form and to act upon opinions as to what those rights are and as to the legal methods which must be adopted to enforce them, the practice of giving or furnishing legal advice as to such rights and methods and the practice, as an occupation, of drafting documents by which such rights are created, modified, surrendered or secured are all aspects of the practice of law.”
Real Estate Bar Ass’n for Massachusetts, Inc. v. National Real Estate Information Services, 459 Mass. 512, 517-518, 946 N.E.2d 665, 674 (Mass. 2011)(citations omitted)(drafting real estate deeds for others constituted practice of law); see also Lindsey v. Ogden, 10 Mass.App.Ct. 142, 149-150, 406 N.E.2d 701, 709 (Mass.App., 1980)(person overseeing execution of will was not engaging in the practice of law where he “never held himself out as a Massachusetts lawyer, never drew any documents in Massachusetts, and never did anything else that could be considered as the practice of law in this State. A Massachusetts domiciliary is free to consult a licensed New York attorney on the merits of her estate plan”);
Warren’s activities on behalf of Travelers and other parties in the cases listed above would seem to fall easily within this definition of practicing law.
Warren described herself as “Of Counsel” or counsel and clearly was rendering legal advice and services based upon her evaluation of the law:
Generally speaking, the practice of law can include, “the examination of statutes, judicial decisions, and departmental rulings, for the purpose of advising upon a question of law … and the rendering to a client of an opinion thereon.” See Lowell Bar Ass’n v. Loeb, 315 Mass. 176, 52 N.E.2d 27, 33 (1943).
In re Bonarrigo, 282 B.R. 101 D.Mass.,2002 (bankruptcy petition preparers engaged in practice of law).
4. If Warren Was Practicing Law From Her Cambridge Office,
She Violated Massachusetts Law
In order to practice law in Massachusetts, particularly from a Massachusetts office, one needs to be admitted to the Massachusetts Bar, which Warren never has been. There is no general exception from licensing requirements for law professors.
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 221, Section 46A provides (emphasis mine):
Section 46A. No individual, other than a member, in good standing, of the bar of this commonwealth shall practice law, or, by word, sign, letter, advertisement or otherwise, hold himself out as authorized, entitled, competent, qualified or able to practice law; provided, that a member of the bar, in good standing, of any other state may appear, by permission of the court, as attorney or counselor, in any case pending therein, if such other state grants like privileges to members of the bar, in good standing, of this commonwealth.
Massachusetts Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5 provides in pertinent part that the obligation to be licensed has some narrow exceptions. [See footnote added 10-1-2012 at bottom of post.] None of those exceptions apply to Warren (emphasis mine):
(b) A lawyer who is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction shall not:
(1) 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; or
(2) hold out to the public or otherwise represent that the lawyer is admitted to practice law in this jurisdiction.(c) 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:
(1) are undertaken in association with a lawyer who is admitted to practice in this jurisdiction and who actively participates in the matter;
(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;
(3) are in or reasonably related to a pending or potential arbitration, mediation, or other alternative dispute resolution proceeding in this or another jurisdiction, if the services arise out of or are reasonably related to the lawyer’s practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted to practice and are not services for which the forum requires pro hac vice admission; or
(4) are not within paragraphs (c)(2) or (c)(3) and arise out of or are reasonably related to the lawyer’s practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted to practice.
As the Rule makes clear, assuming Warren were licensed in another jurisdiction (which is unclear), Warren still could not maintain an office in Massachusetts for the practice of law, which she did, unless licensed in Massachusetts, which she was not.
Warren cannot invoke the “temporary basis” exception quoted above because she maintained the Cambridge office continuously and for a long period of time, and was not temporarily in Massachusetts ancillary to her practice in a jurisdiction where she was licensed. A Comment to the Rule provides:
[6] There is no single test to determine whether a lawyer’s services are provided on a “temporary basis” in this jurisdiction, and may therefore be permissible under paragraph (c). Services may be “temporary” even though the lawyer provides services in this jurisdiction on a recurring basis, or for an extended period of time, as when the lawyer is representing a client in a single lengthy negotiation or litigation.
Whether the services were on a “temporary basis” would require a showing that Warren was actively licensed elsewhere (a fact her withdrawal from New Jersey makes more difficult to verify) and whether the services were in relation to her activities in the other jurisdiction. Comment 14 provides in pertinent part:
[14] Paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) require that the services arise out of or be reasonably related to the lawyer’s practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted….
Comment 10 also explains that temporary conduct in connection with a matter pending in a jurisdiction in which the attorney is licensed, such as interviewing a witness in Massachusetts or conducting a deposition in Massachusetts, is permitted. That would seem inapplicable here, both because Warren’s office was in Massachusetts, and also because her representation of Travelers was not of such nature that her services were incidental to her representation of Travelers in a jurisdiction in which she was licensed.
Moreover, the Travelers case was not the only legal representation Warren has provided over the years, as demonstrated above. According to The Boston Globe article about the Travelers case:
The extent of her legal practice, and the clients she has represented, is unclear.
Her campaign would not release a full list of cases she has been involved in. And, while some representation appears in scattered court records, much of her consulting can be done without placing her name on dockets as an attorney of record.
Her campaign detailed six Supreme Court cases in which she has filed so-called friend of the court briefs. They include two briefs on behalf of the AARP: one of which supports protecting individual retirement accounts in the event of a bankruptcy and another that fights to allow judges to lower consumers’ credit card interest rates in the event of personal bankruptcies.
Warren’s 2008 CV lists six Supreme Court Briefs in which she had participated (although two of them appear to be briefs filed on her behalf, not briefs filed by her as counsel), all of which predated the Travelers case:
Here, since Warren maintained her Cambridge office as her law office for well over a decade, it is hard to argue that it was either temporary or in connection with her practice in another jurisdiction. Moreover, unlike the out of state attorney in the Lindsey case above, Warren practiced law from her office in Massachusetts.
This is unlike some cases in which unlicensed conduct in Massachusetts is excused if ancillary to the attorney’s practice in a state in which he or she is licensed. In re Chimko, 444 Mass. 743, 831 N.E.2d 316 (Mass. 2005). Here, even if she were licensed in New Jersey while representing Travelers (a fact we still are trying to confirm), that would not permit Warren to maintain a law practice in Massachusetts unless licensed in Massachusetts.
There is a Massachusetts Bar Association Ethics Opinion which seems on point. Here is the official summary (emphasis mine):
Opinion No. 76-18
Summary: It is improper and misleading for an out-of-jurisdiction firm whose members and associates are not admitted to the Massachusetts bar to place a “Boston Office” address on its letterhead. In addition, the letterhead of such an out-of-jurisdiction law firm may not contain, without more, the names of Boston lawyers who are not associates or partners of that firm.
It is proper for an out-of-jurisdiction firm to have a local office indicated on its letterhead if (1) that office is operated by at least one member or associate of the firm who is admitted to the Massachusetts bar, and (2) any enumeration of lawyers on the firm letterhead makes clear which lawyers are not admitted to practice in Massachusetts and any other jurisdictional limitations.
Yet Warren, who was not and never was licensed to practice law in Massachusetts, has held her Cambridge office out to be her law office for the purpose of providing legal representation.
As noted above, we do not know the extent to which Warren has represented Massachusetts clients or offered advice as to Massachusetts law. The American Bar Association has recognized the problem under Model Rule 5.5 for a lawyer who maintains an office in one jurisdiction but practices “virtually” in another jurisdiction. While the ABA is working on solving such internet-age issues, there is no authority which exempts from the licensing requirements an attorney domiciled in Massachusetts using a Massachusetts office but who offers legal advice and services only to out-of-state clients and as to non-Massachusetts law.
5. Harvard Law School Warns Its Students Against The Unauthorized Practice of Law
My interpretation of Massachusetts law, and the broad scope of conduct which requires admission to the Massachusetts Bar, is consistent with the instructions Harvard Law School provides to law students who wish to participate in legal Clinics.
In Massachusetts, as in most states, students can provide services which otherwise would require a law license, providing that certain requirements, such as providing the services through a recognized law school clinic under the supervision of an attorney admitted to practice in Massachusetts, are met.
Here is what Harvard Law School cautions its students:
3. Standards of professional behavior for law students.
As future practicing lawyers, law students have standards of professional behavior and responsibilities expected of them. Please be advised that every state, including the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, has statutes and rules that prohibit the “unauthorized practice of law.” (See, e.g., Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 221 §41; Mass. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.5)
The practice of law is broadly defined and can include providing advice, in addition to direct representation. Just as one must get a license to practice medicine, one must be admitted to the bar in a particular state to be able to practice law. Law students are permitted to do legal work for clients as long as the student is working as an individual supervised by an attorney admitted to practice law in the relevant jurisdiction and that attorney takes responsibility for the legal work. Engaging in the unauthorized practice of law may result in criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment. See: Massachusetts Conveyancers Ass’n, Inc. v. Colonial Title & Escrow, Inc., 2001 WL 669280 (Mass.Super. 2001) : whether a particular activity constitutes the practice of law is fact specific. Matter of Shoe Manufacturers Protective Association, 295 Mass. 369, 372 (1936). http://www.reba.net/images/UserFiles/File/amici/Darryl%20Chimko%20v%20Richard%20A.%20KingAmicus%20Brief.pdf; http://www.relanc.com/documents/REBA%20Brief%20to%20Massachusetts%20SJC%20re%20UPL%20Issue.pdf
HLS students are required to comply with rules regarding the practice of law and the Law School’s policies regarding engagement in the practice of law while enrolled at the Law School. These rules ensure proper supervision and compliance with applicable legal requirements. Violation of the rules on the unauthorized practice of law may result in disciplinary proceedings before the Administrative Board, and may interfere with eligibility for admission to the bar.
None of these legal standards should come as a surprise to Warren. If Harvard Law School expects its students not to engage in the unauthorized practice of law in Massachusetts, presumably it provides similar warning to its faculty. Unfortunately, unlike many other Harvard schools, the law school faculty handbook is not available online or to the public.
While I have not checked every Harvard Law faculty member, several high profile professors who provide or have provided private legal services from their Harvard offices are licensed to practice law in Massachusetts, including Alan Dershowitz, Charles Fried, and Laurence Tribe.
What is odd is that Warren could have been admitted to the Massachusetts Bar on motion, since she was admitted elsewhere and had at least five years law teaching/practice experience (unless she had previously taken and failed the Mass Bar Exam). I am not certain when this motion provision came into effect in Massachusetts.
6. Warren’s Possible Practice Of Law Without A License Requires Full Disclosure Prior To The Election
I detail above the facts and law which lead me to the conclusion that Warren has practiced law in Massachusetts without a license in violation of Massachusetts law for well over a decade.
I expect Warren will disagree, and I welcome a discussion of the facts and the law.
I doubt that will happen. Instead, and similar to how her campaign tried to demonize me and the Cherokee women who questioned her supposed Native American ancestry, I expect Warren’s campaign will attempt to deflect these serious issues by attacking the messenger.
Warren should disclose the full scope of her private law practice. Perhaps there are facts not publicly available which will demonstrate that Warren was not engaged in the practice of law in Massachusetts when she earned $212,000 from Travelers, plus other fees from others who sought out her legal expertise dating back to the 1990s.
The voters of Massachusetts are entitled to know, before they vote, whether one of the candidates for Senate has not been following the rules which apply to everyone else.
Update: No, Mass. Board of Bar Overseers has not exonerated Elizabeth Warren and Elizabeth Warren represented Massachusetts client in Massachusetts.
Footnote added 10-1-2012: The multi-jurisdictional safe harbor provisions in Current Rule 5.5, did not come into effect in Massachusetts until January 1, 2007, and therefore would not aid Warren in defending her practice of law in Massachusetts prior to that date. (See this case for description of prior rule.)
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Ah …. so this is the BIG NEWS this morning:)! Made my morning ….
Nice work! So do you file the complaint with the Bar or the State Attorney General (or both)?
Yikes. I hope there are some Massachusetts lawyers (the real ones, with licenses) reading this blog this morning, and I hope they’ll take action against this poacher.
I am also very intrigued by the timing of Warren’s resignation from the NJ Bar. She just did it a couple of weeks ago? Hmmmmmmm. That seems awfully suspicious. What else is dear Lizzy trying to hide, I wonder?
Stay tuned, dear readers. Feels like there are more shoes (moccasins?) yet to drop . . . .
According to her family lore the Cherokee have reciprocal law licencing with the Massachusett tribe, so it’s all good.
Another GREAT article and exposee! We just cannot elect this lying, cheating woman to the senate. She’ll be the worse thing in the senate and that’s not even a stretch.
Please keep hammering. The tuned out voters need to wake up and tune into this fraud.
Warren LIED
Woo-hoo! The WAS worth waiting for! (Now to print it out and mail it to my politically-misguided mother in Massachusetts…)
Thank you, Prof. Jacobson.
Oops…”The was” = “That was”
I read this while eating breakfast. Delicious! My breakfast tasted pretty good, too!
“Rules are for the little people.”
+1
No gotcha here. You forgot — laws are for the little people.
Wowser. Where are the Massachusetts lawyers who are going to protect their guild? While licensing is to ensure qualified representation, it also serves to restrict trade. Hey guys–somebody is poaching on your territory. Those fees she collected could have been yours!
Takes a lot of nerve to do what she has done. But if you’re going to be a liar, be a bold liar.
[…] Bill Jacobson with the details: […]
BRB…do you want 6-penny or 9-penny nails for that lid?
[…] Please do take the time to click here and read the whole detailed post which is devastating. […]
Are the amicus briefs worth mentioning? Can’t -literally- anyone address a court in that manner? And since they are not specifically done in service of a particular client, they seem the least relevant to MA law.
The other stuff appears damning enough as it is. If you give Warren and her MSM defenders a chance to spin, they will choose to highlight the spinnable and ignore the real substance.
Thank you Professor. Elizabeth Warren’s entire campaign is based on her claim that she’s qualified to help the “middle class” –the people who can’t make it because the system is “rigged.” She’s qualified alright–she has spent decades learning hot to game the system and screw the people the system is supposed to be helping. I’m a member of the Bar of two jurisdictions, and to maintain my Bar admissions, I pay dues every year to the tune of several hundred dollars per jurisdiction. A portion of my dues goes into Client Trust Funds, which are there to aid members of the public who are wronged by unethical lawyers. While being paid a fortune by Travelers, Harvard and others, Elizabeth Warren didn’t even have the decency to do what she was legally required to do: take a Bar Exam and pay her Dues, some of which was undoubtedly meant to help the citizens of Massachusetts. This article needs to go far and wide.
Here’s a question. If Lizzy Warren is not and has never been licensed in Massachusetts, and if she provided legal representation under the false banner that she WAS licensed to practice law in Massachusetts, then what would that mean for the cases in which she won? Would those verdicts be considered null? Or would there be some other kind of review? I’m a legal neophyte so I honestly don’t know, but it seems to me that there would have to be repercussions not only on Warren but on her case history as well.
Just a postscript to my earlier comment. I just read the Boston Globe article Professor Jacobson linked and wanted to point out another problem with Warren’s law license problem. In addition to using her Harvard address for her lucrative but unlicensed legal practice, it’s unclear whether she could have maintained an unlicensed “satellite” office in Massachusetts as well: Her Home. “Four years of her tax returns released on Friday show that she received an average of about $150,000 a year in gross income from her home-based consulting business that includes her legal work, public speaking, writing, and investing.”
Usually the IRS is very, very hot about folks declaring their homes as their business office.
Lots and lots of declarations and statements showing the usage. It’s a big tax deduction and it’s been a target of those attempting last minute deductions to offset unexpected circumstances with their taxes as it’s easy to LIE about.
Of Course the rub comes when the IRS looks and finds out that it is a LIE.
That’s tax fraud. Which is a criminal offense.
So;
Fake Indian (red not dot)
Fake Minority (Beige not brown)
Fake Lawyer (Minnow not shark)
I’d say three strikes and she’s OUT!
Did she even go to law scool?
At this point, that’s a very good question.
Fauxcohontas in heap big trouble, Kimosabe.
I sent this to the Brown campaign and to the Boston papers.
Great work!
[…] While pretending to be an Indian Princess, Elizabeth Warren appears to have also been practicing law as a pretend lawyer in Massachusetts. Although she has, at times, been licensed in Texas and New York, it doesn’t look like […]
But she stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!
What good is a state bar if it does no policing whatsoever? Is it just a list-keeper?
Also, is it possible that verdicts and legal agreements that resulted from her counsel can now be questioned (vacated?) given her illegal status?
Something tells me we will see the media, especially the Globe scramble to prove how this is common, or find other evidence to suggest she was up front about where she was licensed (TX? OK?), etc.
“Aunt Bee and Pee-Paw said I could practice law anywhere I wanted to because of my high cheek bones!”
Holy Prairie Crabs!
I don’t find any “saving clause” in what you’ve laid out, Prof.
In Texas, this is a very serious offense in the eyes of the State Bar, and the Penal Code has provisions, too.
All I can say is that it looks like you have her dead to rights.
And her withdrawal from the New Jersey bar is just weird. Why? And why on that date? For a law professor, maintaining your bar status would be MUCH easier than for us field hands, since most jurisdictions would waive the CLE requirements in whole or good part.
Very, very nice catch, Prof! She might wriggle free, but she appears to be firmly (pun) hooked.
New developments…
on radio today Lyin’ Lizzie admitted she was not licensed in Mass. AND…
claimed she let her New Jersey bar status go because she couldn’t keep up with CLE requirements.
Which is odd, given that, at worst, here in Texas you are allowed to catch up on CLE hours if you miss the deadline…
AND they are waived for certain classes of lawyers (like law professors).
Seems to be pattern emerging about her behavior, a disregard for “due process”.
This is an unbelievably important story. Congratulations to Prof. Jacobson for discovering and reporting it. It goes without saying that the mainstream media should have found it themselves, but the acid test will now come as they summon the enthusiasm to follow a story uncovered by a blogger.
Doesn’t the licensing issue only come up if you are serving the general public? If these are huge multinationals being served, then its generally not a problem.
The licensing issue comes up if a lawyer is practicing law in a state — it does not matter if the client is Joe Q. Public or an international corporation. The identity of the client is irrelevant; the material fact is whether or not the lawyer was practicing law in the state on behalf of that client.
You looked under the wrong name. Check Elizabeth Pocahontas.
Ah shucks, you stole my thunder! I was going to recommend that the good Professor search under her real name: Lizzy Fauxcohontas!
😉
This goes beyond law-breaking. Liawatha is in big trouble now– she messed with a guild, and throughout history few transgressions are more dangerous.
Seriously, if integrity means anything, the Professors brief should close out the issue. She lied about her ancestry to get work and she lied about her qualifications in order to practice law. Other than he intellectual leadership of the rape and pillage movement, what can she say in her own favor?
So nice to wake up on a Monday morning to find the pompous and arrogant campaign of Elizabeth Warren’s circling the drain.
[…] September 24, 2012 – 6:40 am Tweet Legal Insurrection’s Bill Jacobson has done yeoman’s work in uncovering what could be a game changer in the Massachusetts Senate […]
I just spoke with Scott Brown’s office. They said they are” very aware of the Legal Insurrection blog and read it regularly.” The man who answered the phone said he was going to take a look at the law license story.
[…] as William Jacobson reports at Legal Insurrection, the Travelers Insurance issue may have […]
Fake Indian. Fake Lawyer.
What next? She’s an android from the future?
No. Androids do not have high cheek bones.
Awesome job. It quite seems that all Dems are liars. And the better they are at it the higher they rise.
All of these cases appear to be Federal cases. It’s my understanding that if someone is admitted to practice law in a state that they can be admitted to practice in any Federal court in the country, regardless of whether they’re admitted to practice in state courts. So Fauxcahontas may have used her New Jersey or Texas bar admissions to gain admission into the Supreme Court, Federal Courts of Appeal or any Federal District Court. If this is what she did she likely isn’t breaking any law, even if she isn’t admitted to practice in Massachusetts.
But if she didn’t use her New Jersey or Texas Bar admissions, she would be in trouble, right?
Presumably. But she had her Jersey license until earlier this month and the Jersey bar said she was admitted to the Supreme Court. So I assume the Supreme Court varified that she was a member of the Jersey bar. She wouldn’t be admitted today because she resigned her membership. But back in 2003 and in the other cases cited, she may very well have been entitled to practice in Federal courts.
This seems to be the key point — does Supreme Court work require admission to the bar in the state where you keep your office, or just to the Supreme Court bar?
It would be great fun if this scandal were real, but it looks like Warren is losing this race anyway.
Excellent stuff.
Isn’t double checking basic claims of an opponent – such as licensing for claimed professions – a standard part of opposition research at the national level? Did not the Brown campaign or the RNC routinely check this?
Should a lawyer be held personally responsible for breaking the law? Doesn’t that go too far? I mean, c’mon. Laws are for the little people in society. It’s how we control them. But we do NOT prosecute Indian princesses, especially if they are lawyers.
As for me, I have accepted the possibility that Ms. Warren might be less than honest and added it to my list of possible explanations for her alleged behaviors, right below Alien Abduction Syndrome
[…] against people seeking asbestos poisoning payments, there are new questions about her law license. Legal Insurrection has a detailed bit of investigative reporting. The highlight: I detail above the facts and law which lead me to the […]
In Maryland, practicing law without a license is a criminal offense punishable by jail and/or a fine.
[…] ARE FOR THE LITTLE PEOPLE: Elizabeth Warren’s Law License Problem: Maintained private law practice at Cambridge office fo… Good […]
Is there any record that she took the MA bar and failed? Some people do and go to another easier test in another state. Is this what she did?
Awesome, Professor, awesome.
Maybe you should be teaching journalism in addition to law … oh wait, you’re just a blogger not a real journalist, never mind 😉
My hats off to you, your hard work and contribution – one person making a difference.
Between being an academic fraud, and an ethnic fraud, she is also a scold of a lawyer who turns out to be scofflaw as when it comes to her own profession – a bit of a legal fraud as it were.
Properly played, this should be the final nail in her coffin.
Let the MSM cover-up & spin begin.
Truth is always there in the morning, Lizzy.
Great job Professor Jacobson! Bravo.
[…] Insurrection’s Bill Jacobson has done yeoman’s work in uncovering what could be a game changer in the Massachusetts Senate […]
Great work! Congratulations, HLS was bullied into hiring a woman whose credentials didn’t warrant it, who lied about her ethnicity and apparently engaged in the unethical practice of law. Now what are they going to do?
Hello, Clarice…
I’ve always wanted to legitimately say that.
Wow. Amazing work, Professor – well done.
Two questiond jump out at me after reading this report:
1) What benefit was provided to Elizabeth Warren when she cancelled her law license in New Jersey only 12 days ago?
2) Is Bruce Mann, Warren’s husband, licensed to practice law in Massachusetts?
(And if he is licensed, and they have such a supportive marriage, why didn’t he ever help his wife out with her paperwork???)
All this coming out now and probably wouldn’t have if she had not run for the senate. It sure didn’t come out when she was grilled by the senate for obama’s cabinet. Too bad she didn’t get it. She would have fit right in. She got too greedy. She probably saw she was making peanuts as a ligator compared to what she could make as a US senator.
BTW, that $212,000 and $150,000 is chicken-feed to any lawyer worth anything. I once worked for a law firm of many lawyers for several years as a bookkeeper and I know how much these charaltons can rake in.
[…] MA Sen: Elizabeth Warren’s law license problem […]
It is up to Boston reporters now to find out just exactly when her law licenses in Texas and New Jersey expired.
This is Jacobson’s money quote: ” It is unclear whether during the years she represented Travelers and others Warren was actively licensed anywhere.”
What a nightmare fo her if her license in both states had expired.
COLD WATER ALERT: I actually don’t think Warren is in violation of any Mass. statute or ethics rule (at least based on the the facts presented).
The main flaw in Prof. Jacobson’s argument is the premise that Lizzy maintained an office in Mass. “for the practice of law.” It appears she has an office at Harvard that she “maintains” for the primary purpose of being a law professor there. As far as I can see, she doesn’t maintain a law office as such, i.e., an office with a shingle that says, “Elizabeth Warren, Attorney at Law (Nos Falamos Cherokee).” Not only does she not maintain such an office, she doesn’t have a listing in the Mass. Lawyer’s Diary, in Martindale-Hubbell (for Mass.) or in the Yellow Pages (that I could find). There also doesn’t appear (from the OP) that she has law office letterhead that identifies her as a Massachusetts lawyer. In the absence of any of those things, she doesn’t appear to have held herself out either as someone who can represent Bay State residents who have legal problems or people in other states who need representation before a court or agency in Massachusetts.
From my perusal of Prof. J’s article, it doesn’t look as though her law practice involved appearances in Massachusetts courts at all. It looks as though she mainly (exclusively?) authored amici briefs in federal court litigation in cases that did not generally arise out of Massachusetts law.
Understand: Warren is a shrill, liberal, and incredibly dishonest candidate, IMO, and I look forward to voting against her. However, as a Mass. lawyer with considerable background in bar disciplinary disputes, I don’t see anything here that strikes me as out-of-line from a BBO perspective.
Prof. J. wrote: “As noted above, we do not know the extent to which Warren has represented Massachusetts clients or offered advice as to Massachusetts law.” But that is the key issue, I believe. The fact that she may have physically typed (or had students type) amici briefs within the territorial limits of the Commonwealth for filing in U.S. Supreme Court cases does not constitute “practicing law in Massachusetts” as that term would be understood within the profession. That would be like me working on a (Massachusetts) case while on vacation and having someone accuse me of therefore “practicing law in Florida without a license.” I don’t need a Florida license to work on Mass. cases for Mass. clients.
To make this stick, in my view, you would need facts showing (a) that Attorney “Spewing Bull” affirmatively held herself out a a Massachusetts lawyer (which is what the law firm mentioned in the OP effectively did when it referenced a “Boston Office” on its letterhead), (b) that she actually appeared and practiced before Massachusetts courts and tribunals (without being temporarily admitted “pro hoc vice”), and/or (c) that she made a practice of counseling out-of-state clients on matters pertaining to the application of Mass. law (e.g., advising foreigners who are thinking about buying rental properties in Mass. about various aspects of Mass. housing law).
Conrad: We don’t know what cases she worked on, because she won’t release that information, according to the Globe. Why not? For all we know she WAS practicing law at her Harvard office.
Ive read the spin that she was a consultant or somesuch withthe Travelers.
Um…explain this then
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_07_08_08_295_Petitioner.authcheckdam.pdf
As long as you are licensed anywhere, you can practice in Federal Court. Bankruptcy is an exclusively federal enclave of jurisdiction. Warren would not have to be licensed in Mass. in order to appear on an a Federal case (she would still have to be an attorney in good standing somewhere else, though).
I’m not so sure there’s any cold water here.
Although she appears to have been representing clients in the US Supreme Court and other federal courts, all federal courts require an attorney to be licensed and in good standing in a state bar (and usually at least one other federal court) in order to be admitted to practice in the federal court. She may have been licensed and in good standing in New Jersey and Texas. So, she may not have violated any federal court admission rules.
But the real issue is that she listed her office address as being in Massachusetts, not Texas or New Jersey. So regardless of whether she was properly admitted to the federal courts, she was giving the impression that she practiced law out of an office in Massachusetts. Based on Prof. Jacobson’s findings, that appears to be a big violation of Massachusetts law. This is probably not an issue that would affect her prior representation of clients in federal courts, but Massachusetts should be angry at someone appearing to have a law practice in Massachusetts when the person is not licensed to practice there (most state bars would be upset about this and would have rules against it).
Caveat: I’m no expert on this stuff–just a litigator with more gray hair than I would like.
To be a little clearer, what she was doing was certainly practicing law, and if she only has an office in Massachusetts (and nowhere else) then she is practicing law in Massachusetts without a Massachusetts license.
Sure. The last page of the pdf file basically says so as she is listed with all the other lawyers as lawyers for Travelers. Im a simpleton with this stuff and clearly she wasnt just filing some friend of the court brief. Listing her addy certainly amplifies that notion
I would agree that filing briefs on behalf of clients is in the nature of practicing law. What I’m saying is that “practicing law in Massachusetts” denotes something more than simply preparing legal briefs within the territorial limits of Mass. on behalf of clients outside of Mass., for filing in courts outside of Mass. If she had been representing people in cases being heard in Mass. courts, or soliciting Mass. residents to become her clients, or offering to provide help to people located anywhere in the world in resolving Massachusetts legal matters, that would be another thing entirely. But the OP doesn’t appear to furnish evidence of any of those things.
I don’t think Warren’s listing her Harvard U. office address on the amici briefs — if that’s all there is — constitutes holding herself out as an attorney licensed to practice in Massachusetts. Now, if she had listed herself in the Mass. Lawyer’s Diary or other attorney directories as a practicing attorney with an office in Massaachusetts, and failed to make clear that she wasn’t actually admitted in Mass., that would be another story. But that doesn’t seem to be what happened.
I would also note that apparently Warren isn’t admitted to practice anywhere these days, so I don’t believe any state’s bar-disciplinary apparatus would have any jurisdiction over her (you can’t, for example, disbar someone who is not a member of the bar to begin with!). And it’s not like she’s going to be arrested and prosecuted for any of the laws she has supposedly broken merely on account of using her Harvard U. address on a legal brief or two. So we seem to have something of a jesuitical debate over an unusual set of circumstances that doesn’t really seem to have a lot to do with the protection of the people of Massachusetts against the unauthorized practice of law. Just my two cents.
“I would also note that apparently Warren isn’t admitted to practice anywhere these days, so I don’t believe any state’s bar-disciplinary apparatus would have any jurisdiction over her (you can’t, for example, disbar someone who is not a member of the bar to begin with!).”
Could this be the reason why Warren resigned her law license in New Jersey less than two weeks ago, on September 11, 2012?
1. Thanks for your posts, Conrad. I hope our host will respond.
2. I decry the thumbs-down’s you received. Whether or not you wind up with the better of the disagreement, your points are informed, relevant, reasonable, and civil.
3. In the context of what’s currently public knowledge, I don’t know if Bill is correct in the narrow legal sense. In view of Warren’s character, there is no reason to give her the benefit of the doubt about the legal work she refuses to disclose. Unless those activities are credibly accounted for, I assume that where there’s smoke, there’s probably fire.
4. I’ve claimed that what’s needed to shut Warren down is a revelation that she would hurt MA voters in their pocketbooks. The evidence thereof might be in the legal work she is shielding from view.
All good points.
If I had been in her shoes, I would have either sought to be licensed in MA, or simply asked to be footnoted in the brief (assuming I had contributed anything substantive) as a contributor, but not as counsel. I would have not chosen to list myself as “of counsel” and listed my office address in a state in which I was not licensed.
“It appears she has an office at Harvard that she “maintains” for the primary purpose of being a law professor there. As far as I can see, she doesn’t maintain a law office as such, i.e., an office with a shingle that says, “Elizabeth Warren, Attorney at Law (Nos Falamos Cherokee).”
________________________
Appreciate your comments and insight on this as a Massachusetts lawyer, Conrad. I’m curious (as someone who is not a Massachusetts lawyer) about something you said, and hope you’ll be kind enough to address this question for me:
Does Ms. Warren maintain a law office outside of Massachusetts — say in New Jersey, for example? She appears to have been practicing law while simultaneously teaching at Harvard, so if she has not been practicing law out of her office in Massachusetts, then where exactly has she been practicing?
I think my 11:46 AM comment probably answers this, but no, I’m not aware of any physical office Warren has in any other state. The main problem I have with Prof. J’s analysis is that he is seems to be defining the concept of “practicing law in [state]” in strictly geographical terms rather than by reference to the lawyer’s relationship to people and the laws of “[state]”. The overarching purpose of all of these rules and regulations is to protect the public, in this case, the Massachusetts public. (Arguably, it’s also to protect Mass. lawyers from competition from non-Mass. lawyers and from complete non-lawyers.) Clearly, the Mass. SJC wants to make sure that if someone goes and hires a lawyer to represent him/her in court case, that the person hired really is a lawyer who is duly qualified and hasn’t been disbarred for stealing client funds, for example.
Given that the main concern of the who ethical rules regime is protection of the lawyer-hiring public, the first question should be whether Warren in fact held herself out as a Massachusetts lawyer. Did she hang a shingle identifying herself as available to take on cases on behalf of Mass. clients in Mass. courts? More generally, what was the connection between Warren’s legal practice and the Commonwealth of Mass.? It appears that connection was limited to the fact that the legal work she did, she did WITHIN the geographical boundaries of Massachusetts. But what was the work — was it representing Massachusetts clients? It doesn’t appear so. Was it handling cases before Massachusetts courts and agencies? Doesn’t appear so. Was it advising/conducting advocacy on matters involving Massachusetts law? Doesn’t appear so. It simply looks like Warren, who was by all accounts a member of one or two other state bars, took on occasion legal work on behalf of (I guess) “national” clients in federal cases on federal law issues, which work she performed from the office Harvard U. provided her as a law professor.
Please understand, I am not vouching for Warren in any way. I’m just saying that if the facts are limited to what I have gleaned from the OP, then I don’t see where she needed to be a member of the Mass. Bar to do what she did.
Warren seems to have several problems here. It appears at this point that she is not licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction (MA, NJ or TX). Nevertheless, she appears to have been practicing law out of her Harvard law office. I would say that putting your name on legal briefs as a “of counsel” would tend to suggest that your are holding yourself out as a lawyer.
Now if she were licensed say in New Jersey and was acting as a lawyer out of her Harvard office, there might be some issue as to whether she was actually illegally practicing law in Massachusetts. But whether Warren ever appeared in Massachusetts courts would not be determinative of this.
In California, this issue has come up. For example, say a lawyer admitted in Nevada moves to Los Angeles and begins an immigration practice. He could as well say I never go into California courts so I should be ok. But the California State Bar would disagree that this is the appropriate touchstone. The relevant questions would be to you live in California? Do you hold yourself out to the public as a lawyer? If the answer to both questions is yes, you are likely illegally practicing law without a license regardless of whether you ever stepped foot in a state court.
When you think about it, the number of lawyers who ever set foot in state court to represent clients is exceedingly small. This can not be the relevant factor.
What struck me as odd in this story was the fact that a lawyer who is admitted in another state can apparently be admitted in Massachusetts on motion. As I understand it, that is not the case in states like California, which require lawyers who want to practice there to take their state bar exam.
If Warren wanted to continue practicing law while teaching at Harvard (which she apparently did), then why wouldn’t Warren go ahead and get herself admitted in Massachusetts? Surely one of the other Harvard professors who was already a member of the Massachusetts bar would have been willing to sponsor her admission. Or was there something in her New Jersey bar record that would have caused a problem? (e.g., Was she not in good standing in New Jersey?).
It’s curious, to say the least.
your comment was a cogent response … unfortunately I think your argument fails because Professor Warren held herself out to be a lawyer, by appearing in legal matters as ‘of counsel’ … which as you know requires an active registration in a state. Apparently her active registrations in Texas and New Jersey are in question.
She didn’t appear in those cases in her capacity as a law professor for the purpose of advancing legal knowledge, but in support of the party paying for her services.
I think she is in violation of the law, and the ethics of the Law School.
I would agree that she wouldn’t have been permitted to file court briefs on behalf of clients if she wasn’t admitted as a lawyer ANYWHERE. I’m assuming she was admitted in at least NJ at the time she was doing that.
The CPA industry is very similar to the law profession re: registration – and when I move to (or even travel to) another state to work as a CPA, the state board requires me to register. If I don’t, I cannot even put “CPA” on my business card and definitely can’t practice as a CPA.
Probably not a game-changing development but certainly embarrassing for someone who taught law and is seeking public office. Another example of “do as I say, not as I do.”
Doesn’t your argument therefore conclude that an attorney can represent anyone outside of the state which they actually live? How does that make sense?
Oops. Litigator.
The Globe says, “The extent of her legal practice, and the clients she has represented, is unclear.
Her campaign would not release a full list of cases she has been involved in. ”
Why won’t she release all of the cases she worked on?
She now also needs to release all of her records of all the cases she worked on.
You’ve done yeoman’s work, Professor! Congratulations, and thank you.
Sounds to me like Fauxcahontas engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law. Bars don’t like that; courts don’t like that. It will be interesting to see what the Mass Bar does about it. (If nothing, that proves they’re in the tank for the Dems, too, and the public be damned.)
IANAL, but it seems to me the verdicts in the cases she “represented” should stand as long as one of the other lawyers on the same side is properly licensed. But I’m prepared to be schooled by someone who actually knows what they’re talking about. 😀
This ad is….meh. Knock her down then tell me why I should vote for you Scott…
Try the law license angle….build a bigger case.
Conrad.
She didn’t have a license to practice law in MA. She therefore could not practice law in that state. She could only practice in Texas and New Jersey if she had registered her docicile in those states. The fact that she gave her MA address on ALL these cases gave the impression she was licensed to practice in MA. My question is…if she was not known to HAVE a practice, how did these clients know she would take their cases or even that she existed.
What this speaks to is CHARACTER.
All too often the liberal mindset is, Do as I say, not as I do. Phrased in Leone-speak, Laws are for the little people, not me.
What does it say about our would-be leaders when they see the laws, made by the people themselves via their reps, as objects to be avoided, not obeyed.
Gaming the AA system of spoils, claiming fake Indian status, shoddy scholarship in her so-declared areas of “expertise,” preaching to us from on high while being well-ensconced in the !% in income and net worth, flaunting the law as this story demonstrates.
AND THIS PERSON BELIEVES HERSELF DESERVING OF A SEAT IN THE SENATE !!!
Got so excited I posted in the wrong Lizzie thread!
PROFESSOR!! I can almost guarantee you that she also failed to obtain a business license to work out of her office. That can be checked easily too. Failure to obtain business license is a misdemeanor in Virginia where I used to practice, and I know of at least one attorney who was convicted for failure to have a business license. Add tax cheat and crook to her resume. Oh, and credit me for this if you are able to confirm. 😉
After 60+ comments it’s hard to be original but I’ll try.
First, thank you Professor Jacobson: this is the kind of investigative reporting I used to see in newspapers, but no longer do.
Second, as a physician, it’s unusual to see a professional give up all their licenses unless required to do so. I know plenty of retired doctors who nevertheless renew their medical licenses without fail. The rationale is, “you never know when you’re going to need it, and getting it back is a lot harder than renewing it.” What the state gives the state can take away.
So I’m more than a little surprised that Prof. Warren would give up her New Jersey and Texas law licenses. Even if her intent was to stay at Harvard the rest of her life (or until elected/appointed to high office in Washington), you never know.
Good luck, however, in trying to pry loose information from either Texas or New Jersey about her relinquishment of her licenses. I don’t know the rules, but trying to get information from the bar associations / bar disciplinary committees will be very hard. Is there any sort of public record in those states?
stevewhitemd: One should also note that both Obamas are no longer licensed to practice law anywhere.
In general, it’s not as rare for lawyers to give up a bar admission as it is for physicians, but it is highly unusual for law professors not to be admitted anywhere.
Most law professors I’ve known over the past 30+ years have maintained at least one “major” bar admission (NY, CA, DC, MA, FL or IL) in addition to the state in which they were teaching.
Apparently giving up law licenses is a standard practice in the Obama Administration…as both Barak and Michelle are reported to have ‘surrendered’ their law licenses – without any public explanation.
[…] Legal Insurrection: Elizabeth Warren’s law license problem […]
[…] In a June 25, 2008 CV Warren listed only Texas and New Jersey. Read More at Legal Insurrection By Editorial Staff /// September 24, 2012 About Editorial Staff […]
[…] Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren practiced law in the state without a valid law license, according to William A. Jacobson: Warren is not licensed to practice law in Massachusetts. Warren’s name does not turn up on a […]
FOX is covering Obama’s interview where he says “sometimes these ads are less than honest, that’s just what happens in a campaign” (paraphrased). That part was not aired, but is on the online version.
Pelosi stated the same when defending some breaking of a campaign promise … “those are just things you say in a campaign”.
Now another “chosen one”, Native American Elizabeth Warren, is caught “just saying things to get elected”, “just saying things” to get accepted in Harvard, and apparently, “just letterheading things” to practice law without being licensed.
Rep. Wilson was correct … “They Lie”.
They seem to be coming from the same mold. What we hear in the news is about them personally, not about the worked they’ve presented themselves to do on behalf of the public.
[…] Following fairly closely on the heals of Elizabeth Warren’s geneology problem where she fraudulently asserted that she was of Cherokee heritage and represented herself as such for preference in hiring, positions and other perks, it now comes out that she is, or was, practicing law without a license. The good Prof. Jacobsen does his usual outstanding job on this story over at Legal Insurrection. […]
“In politics, nothing is more damaging than the inadvertent confirmation in the public mind of a nagging doubt.”
Breitbart has a story she admitted on the radio this morning that she has no MA license.
You are waging war on the 1/32 Cherokee woman.
Racist! War on women!
Good work, Professor!
I don’t know about the law license matter. I suspect we’ll learn more in time. Check the business license and whether she filed the necessary taxes (state and local business taxes).
Also, I’d be interested to know how Harvard views the matter of using their resources to conduct non-academic work for people outside the university.
Great way to start the week! Truth prevails!!!!
You are like a bull dog…..love it!
Can’t wait to hear Rush talk about you today!
God Bless America.
Actually, the real document to look at would be her applications to enter as counsel of record.
If they are all amicus materials, we may not get the answer, however, if she appeared on a Pro Hac Vice, then the affidavit would lay out her licensing.
Also, she may have been admitted on a case by case basis in the various Federal Districts those applications may be a good source of information. In each of those cases she would have had to provide a current “Good Standing certificate” from her State of admission. Although, the Federal Districts don’t allow for multiple request for admission under this rule, before they make you apply for full admission to that Court.
Good Catch! Congratulations! What a scoop!
First Elizabeth Warren was part Cherokee … before she was not. Then she was a practicing attorney … before she was not. I think it only fair to gender focused libs whose vote she is wooing, that she drop trou and prove whether she is an Elizabeth or a Warren.
Nice work, Professor Jacobson. Is there any hope of ginning up a class-action lawsuit to force her to disgorge her fees? That would be a savory application of the Alinsky Rules.
Something I posted at Ace:
Lizzie Warren was a prof
And the law bar she did scoff
To her the law does not apply
She’s a Democrat – that is why
Of course she’s legit, silly.
She’s registered under the name “fauxcahontas”!
Seems she’s admitted it: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/24/Elizabeth-Warren-Admits-She-Is-Not-Licensed-to-Practice-Law-in-Massachusetts (HT Instapundit)
Now what?
Barbara: “Now what?”
Now we watch the MSM busily not report the story!
Wow! H*ly Fr*ckin’ C*w!
Nice job, Prof J!
Well, I am curious to know as to why she refused to disclose any of her legal work AT THE STATE LEVEL to the Globe a while back. Is it because she didn’t have an MA law license?
Also, someone needs to find out when her New Jersey and Texas licenses expired.
is this one of the articles we should spread around (reprint with correct accreditation to you) on our sites like the cherokee articles?
this is huge IMO.
[…] Legal Insurrection Warren is not licensed to practice law in Massachusetts. Warren’s name does not turn up on a […]
Harvard continues their association with this embarrisment at their peril.
Agreed. I find Harvard’s public lack of action appalling and hypocritical. There is a huge cheating scandal being investigated currently at Harvard – some basketball players have resigned. Apparently discipline only applies to students – not $300K+ professors. How can Harvard ignore the Cherokee flap, the filing of false EEOC data to the DOL, and the plagiarism in “Pow Wow Chow”? Yes, it is a cookbook – but plagiarism is plagiarism.
When Yale football coach Tom Williams falsified his resume over his supposed “Rhodes Scholar” claim, he was subsequently terminated in quick order. I’m still waiting for Harvard to show some fortitude …..
WRONG! People like her need to be in government (where we can keep an eye on them) or academia, lest they escape and do REAL damage to the PRIVATE ECONOMY.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/handbook/handbook-faculty/2012-13/index.html
is that the handbook you speak of?
It seems her ability to practice law are just another “family story”
If she had been admitted pro hac vice, it would say so in the pleadings typically (you would be ID’d as “admitted pro hac vice” in each filing).
Her excuse that she couldn’t keep up with her CLE requirements is garbage (reason she gave for surrendering her license). she likely qualified for an exemption as most jurisdictions give professor and judges a pass from CLE requirements.
Most bar rules would require her to have a disclaimer in her e-mail and business cards that says something to the effect, “Admitted in the State of Texas and the State of New Jersey, not admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”
Why is not teaching law part of the practice of law requiring that the teacher be licensed in the state in which she teaches?
Is her campaign dead yet? Ah, she’s a Democrat. They don’t die, they just lie away.
I’m guessing Lizzie just took Prof Jacobson off her Rosh Hoshanah New Year’s card list.
Next thing you know the good Professor will find out she’s not actually a woman either!
It appears our government has a license to break the law. I wonder what the best legal minds would think of our last election if they knew the truth. Do you know why Sarah Palin’s bus tour was really canceled last year? Do you know why she stayed 30 miles away from the second debate and chose the death of Steve Jobs to announce that she’s not running? Know what leaked out? Sarah Palin isn’t in this race because too many people now know the truth.
Search PalinsDirtyLittleSecret for the BIGGEST cover up in world history…
[…] […]
A democrat lying? Thankfully I was sitting down. Shocking.
We can only pray that America wakes up before Nov 6th. Or if you’re voting for the dopeyrats Nov 4th as the first junk in the truck lady
[…] […]
Maybe her family lore is that she was a lawyer?
Maybe her family lore is that she was a lawyer?
[…] […]
Ok, Drudge has a link to this story up now. Hope someone from the Boston Herald picks up on it!! Good going, Professor Jacobson!!!
“Drudge has a link to the story”
Otherwise known as “incoming!” 😀
Looks like your upgrades are doing their job, Professor.
Liz Warren MAY be licensed to practice before the Supreme Court of the Cherokee Nation. We just don’t know!
Rush paid compliment to the Professor!
SNL needs a new skit, similar to Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer…
Unlicensed Indian Lawyer
“Your honor, I’m just a poor Indian squaw. Your modern ways frighten and confuse me. But one thing I do know is that far from being an ignorant slut, Sandra Fluke has earned the right to free birth control. When she’s on her back, the meter is running.”
This post just got a mention on Rush… well done!
Since Warren used her office at Harvard as her office of her law practice, I wonder if she has reimbursed Harvard for using their premises for her own personal law practice? I also wonder how she has her law practice deductions listed on her personal income taxes? I would bet she lists an amount for her office, for her office supplies, etc. If checked, she may be charging Harvard for office supplies, then listing them on her personal income tax as an expense. It is an interesting question she should answer. Maybe she needs to release her personal income tax reports.
Apparently, Betty speak with forked tongue…
Heap big surprise.
We need to start calling her Chief Speaking Bull or maybe even Chiefly Speaking Bull.