Legal Insurrection’s Bill Jacobson has done yeoman’s work in uncovering what could be a game changer in the Massachusetts Senate race.
Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren is not licensed to practice law in the state of Massachusetts. The fact that she dispensed legal advice, wrote briefs, and represented clients — the legal definition of “practicing law” — means that Warren may be in a world of hurt.
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.
Jacobson followed up his voluminous research by making phone calls to the Board of Bar Overseers to ascertain Warren’s status:
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.
Jacobson also uncovered this curious fact in a phone call to the New Jersey Board of Bar Examiners:
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.
Sounds like someone with something to hide.
While this information might give a big boost to incumbent GOP Senator Scott Brown’s campaign, Massachusetts is a deep blue state with a 3:1 registration advantage for the Democrats. Democratic voters in the Bay State may avert their eyes and ignore this information, voting for Warren anyway. And it remains to be seen whether Massachusetts media will act like journalists and actually cover the story.
But at the very least, this gives Brown some potent ammunition to use against his opponent. In a close race, enough people might change their minds about the Democratic candidate to give Brown a victory.
For Fauxcahontas, all truth is relative; so not only is she entitled to her opinion, she is entitled to her facts. If she says she can practice law, then so be it, irrespective of what the law says. And if those oh so brainy Boston intellectuals vote for her, we know how much they respect the law, which would be, not at all.
Agreed. All comments to the contrary of anything she chooses to do is simply the lame wailing of racists against a brave, oops, that may not be PC….uh…let’s go with courageous white woman of color.
It’s the second time she’s gamed the system for her own gain. Sounds like a shoo-in for the Senate, MA style.
This may hurt her where it matters most: donations. Trial lawyers very much resent unlicensed people moving in on their territory, and they are big supporters of Democrats. In fact, they are the top of the Democratic totem pole. Brown should use this as a strategic bombing campaign of Warren’s money factory.
Of course, none of this surprises me at all. Well, the journalism evinced here does. Good job!
If Warren has violated Massachusetts law — and it certainly looks like she has — she needs to be prosecuted… and probably ought to face disciplinary action in from state bar that has admitted her.
Yeah. Right. Sure.
Like Massachusetts prosecuted Teddy Kennedy for Mary Jo’s murder.
It doesn’t matter what the laws are to an enclave of holier than thou leftists inside their very own Echo Chamber (the Echo Chamber being their Media Machine)
Clinton was di-barred for Perjury, and never had more than 43% of the vote, but he is a “Rock Star” former President, the most popular ever. The Trusted Elder Statesman.
Moochelle was forced to abandon her Law License too, (“voluntary forfeiture?”).
For what exactly, no one is asking…but have you seen the ARMS on that woman, isn’t she MAGNIFICENT?
Princess Riding Free will pay no penalty for violating the law…How can she when she MEANS to do such GOOD in the world!?
Klinton was the most popular president ever? By what measure??
I was being sarcastic.
I agree with you. Obviously Miss Warren doeswn’t let any law stand in her way. I think if she will lie about this, she will lie about anything.
Hey! Her family lore said that she was licensed to practice law and you have no business at all trying to question that.
Also, you’re a racist.
And sexist. Other -ists will be added until you submit.
My understanding is that her grandfather had lawyerly cheekbones.
Not intending to detract from the importance of this apparent scandal, is this a bigger deal than practicing politics without a clue?
Yes, it is a bigger deal because there is actually a law against practicing law without a license. Unfortunately, LOTS of folks practice politics without a clue, but it’s perfectly legal if the public cluelessly elects them.
Just the response I wanted to see, and exactly my point. We’ve got a long way to go to achieve a better, more informed and conscientious voter out there. Many of these races would be total blowouts without the continued tolerance for the utterly clueless voter who, shamefully, are encouraged to remain clueless by the equally cynical party machines who stand to gain from it.
There are also laws against violating the Hatch Act, providing automatic weapons to Mexican drug gangs, sneaking across the border, committing voter fraud, etc.
What difference do laws make when enforcement is selective?
This is rich indeed and could be a twofer- from Rick Moran at American Thinker:
“I have to assume that Warren faced review of her outside legal activity from former-Dean Elena Kagan, among others. I wonder how Justice Kagan can explain the apparent fact that she allowed Professor Warren to practice law in Massachusetts without a license?”
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/elizabeth_warren_not_licensed_to_practice_law_in_massachusetts.html#ixzz27Oe9ERqn
Laws are for the little people. She don’t need no stinkin’ license!
You said it all right there!
Can’t wait to hear what Boston mayor Mumbles Menino will do with is endorsement.
This is the state that kept reelecting Ted Kennedy after he murdered Mary Jo Kopechne
what a scathing point you make – yet the votes for Ted represent the majority vote for years and years in Massachusetts. I’m now flipping a coin (mentally) and thinking about Mayor Barry, Cynthia McKinney and Charlie Rangel voters.
I think Ted votes may be the worst!
Bill’s post is quite long. And it requires you to follow him into the high weeds on the ethical and legal issues. But it’s well worth the read.
I believe that Bill has proved that Elizabeth Warren must answer some questions and provide some explanation. I think any lawyer would recognize that without those answers and explanations, Warren is in serious trouble here.
What’s worst about this whole thing is Warren had an easy path to admission. Like most states, Massachusetts has a waive-in provision for local law professors. She met the experience requirements and could have been “admitted on motion.” No need to prepare or take any bar exam.
Were essentially left with one question: Was there some character or fitness issue in her past that would have prevented such admission?
“I think any lawyer would recognize that without those answers and explanations, Warren is in serious trouble here.”
Just imagine all the lawsuits from past clients who found out she wasn’t qualified to practice law in Massachusetts! I expect that any client who lost a case or even didn’t win as much as they expected could sue her for falsely representing herself as a lawyer and claim substantial damages. I imagine the Massachusetts Bar would find this very embarassing too and want to make an example of her.
If she gets elected anyway, she might end up representing her constituents from the slammer….
Her mother told her that she could practice law. Why do you hate women so much?
Your flip comment resonated, as only days ago I read a column by Letty Pogrebin in the increasingly leftist Jewish “culture” magazine “Moment” in which she insisted that Israel shouldn’t be made a wedge issue, but rather that the Republican “war on women” *should* be a wedge issue. (Some people apparently are beyond parody.)
William F. Buckley once said something to the effect that he would rather be ruled by people selected at random from the phone book than by the faculty of Harvard. I’m beginning to understand his point.
Since Buckley was a Yale alum, I understand why he would say that (though I do agree with him).
Don’t assume Mass. people won’t vote for her. They have a decades long record of voting for murderers,drunks, cheats, adulterers,bootleggers and any other vice you can think of. They appear to prefer them.
They have a decades long record of voting for murderers,drunks, cheats, adulterers, bootleggers and any other vice you can think of.
And that’s just Ted!
Well, all of those things but one. It was Ted’s father who was the bootlegger.
“By resigning her New Jersey license earlier this month, Warren made it more difficult for the public to determine her pre-resignation status.
Sounds like someone with something to hide.”
Attorneys are subject to the discipline of their state’s licensing agency. When an attorney violates the code of professional responsibility (the attorney ethics code) and this comes to the attention of the attorney licensing agency, it begins an investigation. (Believe me, any lawyer will tell you they recoil at opening a letter addressed to them having the return address of the attorney licensing agency.) The attorney being investigated is obliged to cooperate with the investigation. Failure to cooperate is, in itself, grounds for discipline. When the investigation, and perhaps trial, is complete, the attorney licensing agency then either drops the matter or it disciplines the attorney.
By the way, an attorney is subject to discipline even if the bad conduct did not occur in the licensing state. Thus, if Warren practiced law without an attorney’s license in Massachusetts, the New Jersey bar may discipline her in New Jersey. If I recall correctly, President Clinton resigned his Arkansas attorney’s license rather than face disciplinary proceedings for his perjury elsewhere.
Attorneys may be privately disciplined for minor matters. They may be publicly disciplined. This can include an admonishment, a slap on the wrist. It might include a fine. It might include a suspension of the attorney’s license for a limited period of time—for instance thirty days, ninety days, six months, a year, etc. It might include an indefinite suspension hinged upon the fulfillment of a condition, such as successfully completing a chemical dependency treatment program, or successfully re-taking and passing the ethics portion of the state’s bar examination. In extreme cases, it might include complete disbarment. Whatever the discipline, the agency keeps a record of the disciplinary measure. For public disciplinary matters, the agency’s record is a public record.
Resigning one’s attorney’s license is REALLY significant. To reinstate a license means that you have to study for, re-take, and re-pass the state’s bar examination. Several decades out of law school, this can be a daunting task. Most attorneys, having left the active practice of law, find it easier to meet the minimal requirements of keeping the attorney’s license up to date. They do this, just in case they want or need to return to the practice of law.
This article suggests that the New Jersey agency’s public record of Professor Warren’s disciplinary history in New Jersey no longer remains public as a result of her resignation of her attorney’s license. Her resignation from the New Jersey bar thus may close the door on no history of discipline, or it may close the door of an extensive history of discipline, or perhaps just one or two, very damning, cases of disciplinary history. Who, apart from Professor Warren, knows.
Has the divine Ms. Warren ever called for Mr. Romney to release his tax records?
But she called on Sen. Brown to release his tax records.
This could be the reason she resigned her NJ license on the 11th. If she knew someone was looking into this, or if the DNC found out about her Massachusetts (ahem) law practice, she might have resigned precisely to avoid such a disciplinary action.
Or at least hold it off until she was safely in the Senate. Where to be prosecuted or even face such disciplinary action, as a sitting Senator she would first have to be censured by the majority of the Senate. Which, between Democrats and RINOs, is not going to happen to a “compassionate progressive” Democrat.
For the Democrats, this looks like business as usual. But if the people of Massachusetts vote her into office, I can only say Ben Franklin and Daniel Webster would probably want to have a word or two with them.
And those words would burn.
clear ether
eon
If the NJ disciplinary committee is anything like NY, nothing will happen to Running Mouth. Legal ethics is an oxymoron.
Resigning one’s attorney’s license is REALLY significant.
In the case of NJ, her explanation is probably credible. Many (not all) states require that holders of professional licenses attend a fixed minimum of ‘continuing education’ hours every two years, and lawyers in renewal of their licenses must swear, and be prepared to provide evidence that they did indeed attend classes or do other approved activities. One of those ‘activities’ is usually teaching in their field, but that can’t suffice for all of the hoops they must jump through, and she must have known she’d come up short.
So she figured out that the jig was up in NJ, since she hadn’t maintained the CE requirements, and would have been sticking her neck out to swear that she had. And she gave up the NJ license.
Mass must have been much easier – just practice away unlicensed, and since she wasn’t admitted to the bar, no need to bother with continuing education and its bothersome affidavits every two years. It seems that the good old boys on the Board had her back, or she felt she could rely on them to say so.
The issuance of Law Licenses is a discriminatory and antiquated practice that has no place in modern society. Our social contract specifically states “the pursuit of happiness” and is not prosperity one element of happiness? Are not lawyers widely thought to be prosperous? How then, in the name of Gay Marriage, can we restrict the Practice of Law to those few individuals who are privileged enough to attend Law School and then lucky enough to pass a Bar Exam? Thousands upon thousands are denied their Constitutional Right of “Happiness” by the capricious and arbitrary rules of a self-selected body of arbiters. How can a “Law Guild” even exist in these United States when its only purpose is to restrict the vast earning potential of a Lawyer to a subset of the population with appropriate connections? And are not Law Schools and the Bar Exam nothing more than hazing rituals passed down from one generation to the next?
The Constitution is old and dead, which makes all laws old and dead. There is no point, other than blatant and insidious discrimination, to limit the practice of Law to Licensed Lawyers.
In a rational world, she would withdraw in shame to prevent even further contamination of the Rock Star in Chief’s quest for another four years of playtime.
But it’s Massachusetts, the state where killing a 19-year old woman gets you 40 years in the Senate.
This news will probabaly insure her a triumphant victory as a state of perpetual students and hands-out minorities turn out in droves to stick their thumbs in the eyes of every adult in the commonwealth.
There are some notable exceptions for practicing law in a state where one is not admitted.
In participating with local counsel, one can appear pro hac vice. Also, working on federal issues which apply to cases in a research capacity has a wide latitude.
Clearly, Warren had the requisite “abilities” to render proper advice and counsel. Therefore, the more interesting question to me is not whether she practiced in an area where she did not possess the appropriate knowledge of the local laws in order to protect her clients.
The question is what existed that needs to be investigated and dug up that would cause her to do in New Jersey and Massachusetts what she did? Is there something on the applications that she wished to avoid scrutiny?
The actions make no sense otherwise. The “technical” argument won’t stick in a world where her co-conspirators control the media. They will simply argue that she’s “well qualified” and simply “forgot” or made an “oops” on a technical matter of little significance, easily corrected. That’s how it WILL play in the media, before and after it is otherwise totally ignored and buried as a non-issue.
What lies beneath the surface of this issue, may contain the real motivation and intent. Dig deeper. The New Jersey move holds the clues.
It looks like Running Mouth is still licensed in Texas. So, as you say, NJ holds the clue. However, an investigation in Texas might be able to request info from NJ (whether it gets it or not is another question). And, hopefully, reporters in Texas will be more inquisitive than those in Massachusetts.
You mean to tell me you don’t believe Elizabeth Warren, the original Spouting Bull? She heap big liar around these parts. Make lots of wompum working for big university that hires the red man to feel good about itself. She one bitter squaw that never got the hang of living in a teepee. She only like condos. I think making her Senator would smell like buffalo chips, so don’t do it people of Massachusetts. Send her back to the “reservation” on Beacon Hill or Charlestown, Boston. She fit right in over there.
I am now forming a “Warren for 2016″ exploration committtee and will do all in my power to see this this individual, a highly touted DNC speaker continually praised by the President and beloved by Harvard, becomes the Democratic party’s nominee for President, for I think she perfectly reflects the values of that portion if America and would be their ideal representative.
On second thought, cancel the committee–might be nothing to the charges. Pity of so.
Just another way for the Establishment to keep women of color down!
Licensing Board! Bah! Who needs a licensing board when you’ve got cheekbones!
I know the Democrat “Machine” here quite well. It nauseates me.
Warren, far-to-the-Left Democrat? Detached, monied, Ivory-Tower academic Liberal? Flexible relationship with the truth? Go figure…
What’s wrong with you people. Don’t you know Indians are in charge of their own nations within the USA? Liz needs no license as she’s a sovereign entity, or so she’s claimed.
Yeah, she’s half Cherokee and half Man-Bear-Pig.
A game changer? You’re giving way too much credit to Bay State voters. Why would they turn down Warren for this? It’s piddling compared to the actions of Ted Kennedy, who committed a felony while in office. Can’t you hear Warren’s supporters: hey, she didn’t kill anyone. What’s the big deal?
As Columbia and Harvard act as accomplices in hiding Obama’s past, Harvard also assists in the lies, deception and coverup for High Cheekbones/Low Character imposters.
I find it more than a little ironic that Harvard’s University Seal originally contained the motto veritas christo et ecclesiae or Truth for Christ and Church.
As the boos for God grew louder over the years, Harvard began the chore of wiping away the religious ties to the Christianity that formed the place and replaced it with the mere word Veritas . Truth without an annoying Christian base.
I now suggest that they should replace the current motto to more accurately reflect the morals and principles of the place. Iacere et Mentini .
To Lie and To Deceive
That motto change happened a long time ago — they just haven’t gotten around to applying to the Corporation for the new seal. Sort of like Ms. True Spirit “forgetting” to apply to the Mass. bar for her litigation privileges. Just a formality!
Nothing new here. If memory serves, a Mass. governor, or was it a Boston mayor, named Hurley, or Curley, or whatever, once ran the state, or the town, from jail. So there’s ample precedent.
When our mutual “friend, Joey Bag A Donuts” comes to “check on Ms. Great Cheekbones’ kneecaps”, rest assured that both will still be there, and pointing in the right direction. That, ahem, will be the Taxachusetts, or Haarwood, direction. That’s how this crummy state has almost always “worked”. Keeping my fingers crossed for Scott Brown!
I just skimmed this article. No need to read it in depth.
I’ll hear all about it tonight on CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, and probably this weekend on SNL (the weekend news!).
Right?
What’s that?
No, I wasn’t planning to hold my breath….
Yeah, just finished reading all about it on Legal Insurrection. Curious, cops have to take polygraph tests to become cops, lawyers and doctors don’t. In some departments, cops even have to take polygraph tests as a condition of promotion, but doctors and lawyers don’t. People who play cops without a license do some serious jail time usually, especially after using their badge to get freebees from the locals street walkers in San Francisco. But I’ve yet to read about an attorney ever doing any jail time for practicing without a license, either as the defense or the prosecution, and I’ve seen examples of all of the above. Life can make you jaded if you let it, but it sure is a comedy.
Do Native Americans requir licensing from the pale face governors?
And I’m sure she’ll give back all the money she earned illegally defending the evil corporate 1% who aren’t human but heartless, bloodless automatons, right? RIGHT?
In many states, practicing law without a license is a crime. Period. Although courts grant “courtesy” in some matters to allow unlicensed parties to do certain things before them, or allow a licensed attorney from another state to plead before them if there is a compelling reason, unlicensed people are not allowed to practice law.
Warren said in a radio interview that she resigned her New Jersey law license because she didn’t have time to do the required continuing education, all the while teaching law at Harvard. I thought that was stupid of her. Another person who is way above her level of competence. Kinda like Barry O.
She is as fictional as some of the characters in Obama’s biography.
She’s a Democrat in the deepest blue state in the Union. Nothing will come of this.
THE PASSION OF ANDREW BREITBART: ‘OCCUPY UNMASKED’ HITS THEATERS
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/09/21/The-Passion-of-Andrew-Breitbart-Occupy-Unmasked
In most States it is illegal,i.e. a crime to practice law without a license issued by that state.
Practicing without a license.
You keep practicing, Elizabeth, until you get it down pat. Maybe then you can charge $500,000 for your services instead of just half that amount.
And then those folks got minority representation so that should be worth something, right? Let’s not let not having a license make a difference, right?
And Lizzie, guess you were too busy buying bankrup homes in OKLA and flipping them for profit to bother to pass the bar in Massachusetts. One can understand that what with teaching that one class you teach your time isn’t your own, nevermind being involved in trying to publish in that Pow Wow Chow book–after all, in the University culture it is publish or perish. Did you get extra credit for this on your tenure track?
It is amazing how you have turned that stellar high school debating skill into first, college scholarships and now, the chance to become a member of the US Senate. Never has someone with so little gotten so far…well, except for the President of course.
But don’t pack just yet. If you see that haze, it is the smoke signal in the sky stating that your whole being appears to be lies and exaggerations and bypassing the system to promote yourself. That might not be enough to keep you out of the Senate. but we can hope, can’t we?
….but I didn’t do it myself … or did I ?!!!
Since when does being honest, truthful, and law abiding matter to a lberal Democrat?