The Senate race in Massachusetts between incumbent Sen. Scott Brown (R) and Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren (D) is probably the most visible senate race in the country. Ever since Republican Scott Brown surprised the state and nation by winning the seat long held by Democrat Ted Kennedy, the Democrats have sent a great deal of effort and money to win the coveted seat back.
In the course of the campaign, it has been learned that Warren claimed to be enough Cherokee Indian to claim minority benefits and status, when in fact there is not enough Indian blood in her to fill a thimble. It also appears that she was hired by Harvard Law School purely to fill a minority quota despite her less than illustrious credentials.
Yet, the race between Warren and Brown remains too close for anyone to call at this time. However that may soon change if the new accusations being levied against Warren are proven to be true.
It seems that since the late 1990s, Warren has served as counsel on a number of legal cases including her representing the Travelers Insurance Company asbestos case which went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In most all of these instances, she lists her Harvard Law School address as her legal office of record.
That in itself is not a problem. The problem is that according to the Legal Insurrection’s William A. Jacobson, there is no record of Elizabeth Warren ever being granted a license to practice law in the state of Massachusetts. According to Jacobson:
“Warren, however, never has been 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,” Jacobson added. “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.”
“The clear record shows that since the late 1990s Warren has held herself out as representing litigants using her Harvard Law School address, and there is every reason to believe the work was performed in Massachusetts, in some cases utilizing student help. The listings above are not exhaustive, and there may be cases not reported in electronic databases, in which Warren has acted as counsel using her Cambridge address. For example, if Warren rendered legal advice but did not appear on the Brief or enter a court appearance, there would be no record. State court case briefs and appearances also are not captured by databases to the extent of federal cases.”
If Jacobson’s allegations are proven to be true, it may be too little too late. On some of the cases, the statute of limitations has expired, which means there is little that can be legally done. Additionally, if she only practiced in federal court and not state court, then it would not be a crime, unless she conducted any of her preparatory work at home or at Harvard. If found guilty of practicing law without a license, the worse that could happen is that she receive six months in jail and/or a fine up to, are you ready for this – $100.
The underlying question that I would be asking if I were Scott Brown, is what kind of person is Elizabeth Warren if she misrepresents herself as a minority and as a licensed or practicing attorney in a state she has no license for? Is that the kind of person the people of Massachusetts want to represent them in the U.S. Senate? I would hope not!