Question:   Um, Where’s the media on this?

Professor Jacobson continues to deconstruct the feeble:  For how long will Warren defenders maintain the charade that she did not practice law in Massachusetts?

[…]  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.  […]

[…]  Yet still, Warren defenders persist in defending on the basis that Warren just wrote a few Briefs for out of state cases and never did anything for a Massachusetts client in Massachusetts, much less on a Massachusetts issue of law.

I consider that test irrelevant, but in any event, Warren did represent a Massachusetts client in Massachusetts on a Massachusetts legal issue.

The case was an appeal in the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston in the case of Cadle Company v. Schlictmann.

The case involved a dispute as to a lien on a contingent fee earned by Beverly, Massachusetts lawyer Jan R. Schlichtmann, who was the subject of the film A Civil Action.  The issue in the case was whether a creditor or Schlictmann was entitled to the contingency fee earned in a case which started prior to Schlictmann’s personal bankruptcy but did not conclude until long after the bankruptcy.

The lien enforcement arose out of state law.  Even though there were bankruptcy related issues, the question was whether the state law lien survived.  As noted on the court docket and in the ultimate decision, the case only was in federal court because of what is called “diversity jurisdiction,” which permits a plaintiff to file in federal court if the plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than any of the defendants, and the dollar amount exceeds a minimum threshold (now $75,000).

The First Circuit ruled in favor of the creditor.

Based on the First Circuit docket available through PACER, it appears that Warren and three other Harvard Law professors were brought in to try to convince the First Circuit to reconsider its decision.  The Schlichtmann representation is not a case previously disclosed by the Warren campaign.    (read more)

Essentially, it appears to me that Prof Jacobson has totally busted the defense of her not practicing “law in Massachusetts” wide open……   She did practice law, and she was not liscensed to do so.    So the original question remains,…

where’s the media?