read the whole thing, but the gist is below. Warre admitted this morning that LI is correct. she is not licensed in MA, and since she resigned her NJ license earlier this month, she may not be licensed anywhere. -- http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/elizabeth-warrens-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. 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.
Warren this am: Speaking to Boston's 96.9 FM radio program "Jim and Margery" on Monday, Democratic Senate challenger Elizabeth Warren admitted that she is not licensed to practice law in Massachusetts. According to reports from listeners, she claimed that she does not maintain a law practice. She also "said that she gave up her New Jersey license because she could not keep up with the Continuing Education requirements," according to one listener who commented on Breitbart's Monday story, "Does Elizabeth Warren Have a Law License Problem?". Ms. Warren's statement comes as a surprise to the many clients she's provided legal services to over the past decade, including the law firm of Simpson, Thacher, and Bartlett, which listed her as "of counsel" in the 2009 brief they submitted to the United States Supreme Court on behalf of their client, Travelers Insurance. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...Not-Licensed-to-Practice-Law-in-Massachusetts
Thanks for reminding me - time to kick some cash over to the senate races now that Obama has the prez handled.
There are ways to exploit the fake controversy, but I don't think this is how you do it: http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/09/25/904581/warren-brown-tomahawk-chop/ Stay classy, Scott Brown.
ever more serious charges: -- Elizabeth Warren defender: “With this bombshell, I would no longer view the case against her as weak” Posted by William A. Jacobson Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 11:06am 96 291 Soon after my original post, Elizabeth Warren’s law license problem, Mark Thompson at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen wrote a post taking an opposite view, No, Elizabeth Warren Did Not Engage in the Unauthorized Practice of Law. That post by Thompson was cited far and wide, including at Memeorandum as well as at friendly conservative blogs which wanted to present the case for Warren to provide balance. In light of my post this morning that Warren represented a Massachusetts client in Massachusetts on an issue related to Massachusetts law, Thompson has concluded in a new post today: Professor Jacobson has uncovered this morning a case in which Elizabeth Warren entered an appearance in a federal appellate court as a representative of a Massachusetts client in a case that appears to have clearly implicated Massachusetts law. Although this is still a federal appellate court, because we’re dealing with a Massachusetts client and issues of Massachusetts law, this looks really, really bad for Professor Warren. With this bombshell, I would no longer view the case against her as weak. Thompson also has updated his original post: UPDATE 4 9/27: Professor Jacobson has uncovered new facts that I view as a gamechanger. Although I stand by my above analysis as applied to the facts known at the time, Professor Jacobson’s discovery this morning answers my objections to his arguments. Making progress. More to come. Update: Thompson emails, for attribution: Professor Jacobson: I couldn’t figure out how to leave this as a comment at your site, but I wanted to let you know ASAP that I concede that your discovery this morning answers all of my arguments and is a gamechanger. Your diligence in investigating this matter is commendable. Regards, Mark Thompson Jack Marshall at Ethics Alarms adds: Prof Jacobson, on his blog Legal Insurrection, is in line for an Ethics Hero award with his tenacity regarding Elizabeth Warren’s dubious qualifications to engage in the practice of law in Massachusetts. The overwhelming reaction by his colleagues in legal academia, and mine in the legal ethics community, has been to airily dismiss his arguments as trivial, far-fetched and thinly disguised political warfare, since Jacobson is an unapologetic conservative blogger (and a distinguished one.) Meanwhile, the mainstream media has, I think it is fair to say, completely ignored the story…. The rude brush off Prof. Jacobson is getting in this wagon-circling exercise is wrong in every way, and does injustice to every person and institution involved, including the Massachusetts legal establishment, the legal profession, ethical lawyers (which, believe it or not, the vast majority of them are), Senator Brown, the U.S. Senate, Massachusetts voters, and the American public…. http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/0...-no-longer-view-the-case-against-her-as-weak/
