Charges are flying between senatorial campaignsDate: 10/3/2012 By G. Michael Dobbs
news@thereminder.com
With the Massachusetts senatorial campaign coming into its final month, charges and counter charges are flying between the camps of Sen. Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren.
Last week, the blog postings of a Cornel Law School professor were among the favorite "shares" on Facebook from Brown supporters. Associate Clinical Professor William Jacobson has raised serious questions about whether or not Warren illegally practiced law in Massachusetts.
Jacobson explained to Reminder Publications the question revolves around the Massachusetts rule that requires a state license if there is "other systemic presences for the practice of law."
Warren has been involved in a number of cases, especially revolving bankruptcy issues, but her campaign admits she is only admitted to the bar in New Jersey, Texas and the Supreme Court.
Looking at her legal activity, Jacobson said, "Obviously she has had a continuing and systemic practice of law."
"She needs a license to practice law in Massachusetts," he added.
When the Warren campaign was contacted for comment, spokesperson Julie Edwards replied, "During her legal career, Elizabeth Warren has been admitted to the New Jersey bar, the Texas bar, the Supreme Court bar. And she took on cases in several federal courts where she was authorized to practice. She never represented that she was licensed to practice in Massachusetts. She never hung out a shingle there. She fully complied with the rules governing the practice of law. This is a distraction from the real issues in this campaign and Elizabeth's fight to work for middle-class families."
The Warren campaign supplied an additional quote on the matter from Laurence Tribe, Carl M. Loeb, professor, Harvard Law School, "Elizabeth is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States and other federal courts. There is no doubt she was authorized to file briefs and practice before these federal courts when she did so. She violated no state law by exercising that federal right. In fact, any state rule that interfered with her federal filing would be null and void under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution. Elizabeth complied with all applicable rules, and it is ridiculous to suggest she was unauthorized to work on cases in the Supreme Court and other federal courts."
When shown these quotes, Jacobson said, "They are straw man arguments. These are arguments no one is making."
In his writing on the subject, Jacobson said he has never contested Warren's right to file briefs and practice at federal courts. He did charge that Warren has refused to disclose what she has done as a lawyer versus being a law professor.
To support the claim that Warren has acted within Massachusetts statues, the Warren campaign also supplied this writer a Tweet by Robert Rizzuto, a political reporter for The Republican stating, "Mass. Board of Bar Overseers says Elizabeth Warren doesn't need a Mass legal license to argue SCOTUS [Supreme Court Of the United States] case [and] that school office isn't law office."
"This is not a true statement," Jacobson charged.
He said this statement came from an interview in Massachusetts Lawyer Weekly (MLW) with Michael Fredrickson, General Counsel of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers (BBO). According to the MLW story, "Michael Fredrickson, general counsel for the BBO, says he does not believe a law professor would be considered to have 'a continuous presence' or 'an office practicing law.'
"'If they actually practice here — as some part-time law professors at some of the smaller schools do — they might,' Fredrickson says. 'But being a professor at one of the large schools, their office is a professor's office, and the fact that they tend to dabble in the practice of law doesn't run afoul of our rule. I don't think Elizabeth Warren would fall within that, such that she would have to register here.'"
Jacobson said he interviewed Fredrickson and wrote in his blog: "Fredrickson confirmed that he did make the comments attributed to him in MLW, but also made clear that he was not speaking on behalf of the BBO. Fredrickson said it was his 'personal reading' of the law, and that he was 'not speaking on behalf of the BBO.' Fredrickson also stated, in response to my question, that he was not speaking on behalf of the Bar Counsel, the office vested with investigatory and prosecutorial function at the BBO. Fredrickson did indicate, though, that as a practical matter registration issues usually are referred to him. Fredrickson stated that he did not purport to determine whether Warren violated the applicable law. He said he was just 'speaking hypothetically' and not specifically as to Warren because 'I know so little about Elizabeth Warren and her practice.'"
Jacobson said practicing law without a license is both a criminal and bar offense.
On the other side, the Brown campaign was criticized when a video of some of its employees appearing at a Warren campaign event and performing "the tomahawk chop," an obvious reference to the controversial claim of Warren's Native American heritage.
Brown followed the reporting of that incident with a television and radio ads calling attention to Warren's depiction of her family history.
In a statement to the press, Brown spokesperson Alleigh Marre said, "Sen. Brown has spoken to his entire staff — including the individuals involved in this unacceptable behavior — and issued them their one and only warning that this type of conduct will not be tolerated. As we enter the final stretch of this campaign, emotions are running high, and while Sen. Brown can't control everyone, he is encouraging both sides to act with respect. He regrets that members of his staff did not live up to the high standards that the people of Massachusetts expect and deserve."
Cherokee Chief Bill John Baker released a statement, "We need individuals in the United States Senate who respect Native Americans and have an understanding of tribal issues. For that reason, I call upon Sen. Brown to apologize for the offensive actions of his staff and their uneducated, unenlightened and racist portrayal of native peoples."
|
