Brown has attacked Warren for negotiating, on behalf of Traveler’s Insurance, a $500 million dollar trust fund to handle asbestos claims in exchange for an end to lawsuits. Most Republicans would favor it– reasonable payouts to everyone who deserves them, rather than a handful of jackpot verdicts, leaving nothing but a bankrupt company for most legitimate claimants. But Brown is grasping at straws to parry Warren’s equally demogogic claim (resonating with Obama’s campaign) that our economic troubles would be over if only “Scott Brown and the Republicans” would stop shielding “billionaires” from being taxed their “fair share.”

keep your lawsuit and your will
safe within the lawyers guild

Where’s your office? in which court
is your contract or your tort

If your practice crosses state lines
will you incurs their dues or fines

Split those hairs, quite pathetic
this we call, legal ethics

It becomes a little murky w/r/t bankruptcy where, for example, the Code provides priority but state law determines exemptions. Even more murky are the Code provisions that allow non-attorney bankruptcy petition preparers and administrative activities under 9010.

As a practical matter, however, the federal courts have taken the position that they can manage their own dockets (thank you very much) and don’t really need the intervention of the state unauthorized practice of law committees. See, e.g., UPLC v. Paul Mason & Associates, Inc., 46 F.3d 469, 472 (5th Cir.), where the Court held that what is the practice of law in Bankruptcy court is not determined by Texas law, but rather by federal law. So even if she “ran afoul of MA rules” and the state committee decided to seek an injunction, federal courts have shown a certain ambivalence towards being told how to run their dockets.

So even if her NJ law license was active (we know she went “inactive” in Texas in 1992, despite probably not being eligible for that status), she still ran afoul of MA rules.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/elizabeth-warren-defender-with-this-bombshell-i-would-no-longer-view-the-case-against-her-as-weak/

http://www.legalethicsforum.com/blog/2012/09/elizabeth-warren-and-upl.html

So the question is, “has Elizabeth Warren only worked on bankruptcy cases?” That is her area of expertise, and those are all handled under the Federal court system (I believe). It will only take a brief, bill, or other piece of paper in regards to some other type of case in any other state’s court system from her with her Massachusetts address to show she’s broken the law.

As I’ve been saying, to see if Warren committed UPL, one of the things you would need to do is list all the courts where she practiced and see if she complied with the admission rules of that court when she practiced there. With all respect and collegiality toward you, given that you’ve been polite and helpful, it is not enough to argue by analogy based upon some court that denied admission to some lawyer at some time. We’d need to look at the local rules regarding admission of each court where she appeared. For example, some federal courts have taken the position that as long as you had some state license at the time you were admitted to that federal court you can keep practicing there even after your state license lapsed. And, for another example, what the USDC for the District of Columbia does with admissions does not bind the US Supreme Court. So if Warren was admitted to the SCOTUS court, the fact that she might be ineligible for the USDC for DC is not governing.

I’ve said all along that it’s possible that Warrren failed to properly secure admission into the courts in which she has practiced. But none of us can conclude that she practiced UPL at this point, based upon what her critics have been saying.