See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Elizabeth Warren's law license problems
Source:
Legal Insurrection
URL Source: http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/0 ... h-warrens-law-license-problem/
Published: Sep 24, 2012
Author: William A. Jacobson
Post Date: 2012-09-24 20:53:10 by X-15
Keywords: None
Views: 129
Comments: 6
Maintained private law practice at Cambridge office for over a decade but not licensed in Massachusetts 4377 2906 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. 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. 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. 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.” 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. 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. 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. Poster Comment: First Hitlery Clinton had problems with her law practice at the Rose Law Firm, then Obama and Moochelle had their law license problems, now Elizabeth Warren is revealed to have broken the law. Stick a fork in her, she's going down in flames this November......
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: X-15 (#0)
Rumor has it that Geronimo was her great great Grandfather.
In her dreams!! That Okie doesn't have any more injun in her than this Okie does.
#2. To: Cynicom (#1)
Rumor has it that Geronimo was her great great Grandfather.
-Alex Kurtagic
#3. To: X-15 (#0)
If she owned the company but did not practice law with a client in Mass. then there is no issue. If she owns or worked for another firm in a state where she is licensed and that is where the representation/advice took place then no issue. She had to actually practice law in the state of Mass. If she did that, she is screwed.
#4. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#3)
Full, complete article at link shows her practicing law in Mass., the devil's in the details. William Jacobson did a masterful job in exposing Warren's legal woes.
-Alex Kurtagic
#5. To: X-15 (#4)
Just watched Liz v. Scott Brown on HuffPo, and the wench needs to lose. A whining loser wanting to cash-in, in deecee, imo. (After twenty-five seconds of viewing)
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#6. To: X-15 (#4)
Thanks. Will have to read it. Question I have, how does this make her any different from all the other politicians?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest