cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Learn ?

 

 pro hac vice (proh hock vee-chay) prep. Latin for “this time only,” the phrase refers to the application of an out-of-state lawyer to appear in court for a particular trial, even though he/she is not licensed to practice in the state where the trial is being held. The application is usually granted, but sometimes the court requires association with a local attorney.

Highlighted
Advisor

2 more women for the policy making roster

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: Mr. Kraft, better send another check

I sent her two checks as seed money and I think it will do the trick. Do you suppose senator brown will get unemployment?

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: Mr. Kraft, better send another check

 

 


@kraft-t wrote:

I sent her two checks as seed money and I think it will do the trick. Do you suppose senator brown will get unemployment?



Better reload the checkbook.

 

 

snip-

In my post on September 24, Elizabeth Warren’s law license problem, I detailed how Elizabeth Warren had used her Harvard office in Cambridge for the practice of law for over a decade in numerous cases in which she appeared as “Of Counsel” or counsel, and how she identified that office in filings with various courts.

Even though Warren refused to disclose the full extent of her legal practice, I argued that her use of the office in Cambridge for the practice of law, and her systematic and continuous presence in Massachusetts for the practice of law, would be a violation of Massachusetts law since she was not licensed in Massachusetts.

In response, defenders of Warren tried to make distinctions which make no difference to whether Warren improperly maintained an office for the practice of law or a systematic and continuous presence in Massachusetts for the practice of law.

Warren defenders argued that if she only represented non-Massachusetts clients in non-Massachusetts cases which did not involve Massachusetts law, she was not practicing law “in Massachusetts” even if she was practicing law in Cambridge. Other strawman arguments included that as long as Warren complied with federal court admission requirements, Massachusetts could not require her to be licensed.  For reasons I have explained, those arguments are wrong.

 

snip-

Warren specifically entered an appearance:

Warren’s name appears as one of the counsel of record:

The docket entry leaves some unanswered questions, specifically on what basis and using what license Warren entered her appearance.  There does not appear to be any request by Warren for permission to appear in the case.  Perhaps some enterprising reader can dig out the First Circuit appearance rules as they existed in August 2001, when Warren entered her appearance.

Regardless, the issue is not whether Warren was authorized under First Circuit rules to enter an appearance in the First Circuit.  That is the strawman issue used by Warren defenders to distract.

The issue is whether Warren defenders can continue to maintain the charade that she did not maintain an office for the practice of law, or maintain a “systematic and continuous presence” in Massachusetts for the practice of law.

Warren defenders have proposed the standard that Warren never represented a Massachusetts client in Massachusetts or on any issue involving Massachusetts state law.  Now we know she did.

Update: Elizabeth Warren defender: “With this bombshell, I would no longer view the case against her as weak...

 

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/elizabeth-warren-represented-massachusetts-client-in-massachuse...

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: Mr. Kraft, better send another check

Take her to court and lock her up if you can. However, I remind you of your effort to "get" Barack Obama  and this has about as much chance as that previous effort did.

 

You're blowing smoke and it will get you no where!

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: Mr. Kraft, better send another check


@kraft-t wrote:

Take her to court and lock her up if you can. However, I remind you of your effort to "get" Barack Obama  and this has about as much chance as that previous effort did.

 

You're blowing smoke and it will get you no where!


Is the law for all or are there those that are above the law?

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Again 3020

 

 pro hac vice (proh hock vee-chay) prep.

 

Latin for “this time only,” the phrase refers to the application of an out-of-state lawyer to appear in court for a particular trial, even though he/she is not licensed to practice in the state where the trial is being held. The application is usually granted, but sometimes the court requires association with a local attorney.

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: Again 3020

Again from one of the Indian's supporter.

 

snip-

Elizabeth Warren defender: “With this bombshell, I would no longer view the case against her as weak...

Comments
Permalink
Posted by William A. Jacobson               Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 11:06am

 

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/2012/09/elizabeth-warren-defender-with-this-bombshell-i-would-no-longer...

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: Again 3020

Have at it but know that you will be addressing her as Senator Warren. And your racist remarks will have been for naught.

 

Have you considered iow much cash from the cherokee nation may be flowing into her election coffers since Scott brown chose this method of campaigning.

 

In case you don't know, those cherokees own several of those big buildings with the bright lights tingling slot machines and hundreds of white folks wanting to part with their cash.

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: Again 3020


@kraft-t wrote:

Have at it but know that you will be addressing her as Senator Warren. And your racist remarks will have been for naught.

 

Have you considered iow much cash from the cherokee nation may be flowing into her election coffers since Scott brown chose this method of campaigning.

 

In case you don't know, those cherokees own several of those big buildings with the bright lights tingling slot machines and hundreds of white folks wanting to part with their cash.


That makes it all OK to lie on an application and practice law without a license. She will fit well in the swamp.