Attorney

[greatwolf75]

I just read an article (any input is welcome on this) that attorneys are not licensed by ANY STATE, rather they are licensed by the BAR assc. Now correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that the state was the only authority allowed to issue any kind of license. I also read in this article that the BAR is a privitely owned orginization, if that be true then wouldn't that make it a monopoly? Doesn't the U.S. have laws about monopolies? I did a little searching (very little) on the different types of licenses that people can obtain and every single type out there are always granted by the state. So how is it, if what I read was true, can the BAR do that?

[David Merrill]

I do not think you can tie it directly to monopoly or even racketeering considering it is a private club. They contract by presentment and honor any proper and timely Refusal for Cause. [Now I also have some stipulations about identity etc. that need to apply and also the use of Federal Reserve Notes and declarations such as US citizen, resident etc. can effect the right of avoidance.]

So now that you know what you know look at the law enforcement/government like a large Freemason lodge. If you are a member then behave by the rules. If not then learn how to R4C.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Codee]

The bar is a quasi public corporation. They do not "license" attorneys. They provide membership.

This is all spelled out in Cal. in the constitution if you look long enough. Look at how "admitted to practice", "Licensed to practice", and "member of the state bar are all different."

There are no licensed lawyers. Only attorneys "practicing" equity/admiralty

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 6 JUDICIAL
SEC. 9. The State Bar of California is a public corporation. Every person admitted and licensed to practice law in this State is and shall be a member of the State Bar except while holding office as a judge of a court of record.

[Shoonra]

Lawyers are first admitted to practice. The state law usually spells this out, or else delegates it to the state supreme court which spells it out, almost the same in every state: First, graduation from an accredited law school. Second, passing the bar exam, which includes the Multistate Bar Exam on 6 or 7 basic legal topics (begun around 1975 by the Multistate Bar Examiners to provide more reliable and uniform clarity and difficulty to the questions) and probably a second exam on the legal peculiarities of that state relating to taxation, domestic relations, corporations, crime, etc. This exam is usually a two-day ordeal and there are cram courses, sometimes several competing cram courses, in almost every state. Third, having passed the bar exam, there is a vetting by the state bar for the state supreme court, which includes questions about the applicant's background and fitness. Fourth, having passed all the previous steps, the applicant is invited to join the bar of the state supreme court - which makes him eligible to practice in all the state courts of that state - which includes a public ceremony (many bring their parents and/or spouses) and an oath.

Having done all that, most or all states require that lawyers who are considered "active" must be enrolled in a state bar (which is separate and different from the ABA or any voluntary bar association), which essentially is a list of currently admitted lawyers. The enrollment provides the public with a list of who is entitled to practice law and also provides the state with a mailing list to notify all practicing lawyers of significant events and legal news. If a lawyer is disbarred, his name is struck from that list.

Officially, although most of the process is handled by non-judges, it is the state supreme court that evaluates and approves applicants to the practice of law.

[greatwolf75]

Well if all that is true then how is it that a judge (attorney in a dress) can charge anybody with practicing law without a license. If no one actually has a license then wouldn't he have to charge everybody including himself for the same thing?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Lawyers are first admitted to practice. The state law usually spells this out, or else delegates it to the state supreme court which spells it out, almost the same in every state: First, graduation from an accredited law school. Second, passing the bar exam, which includes the Multistate Bar Exam on 6 or 7 basic legal topics (begun around 1975 by the Multistate Bar Examiners to provide more reliable and uniform clarity and difficulty to the questions) and probably a second exam on the legal peculiarities of that state relating to taxation, domestic relations, corporations, crime, etc. This exam is usually a two-day ordeal and there are cram courses, sometimes several competing cram courses, in almost every state. Third, having passed the bar exam, there is a vetting by the state bar for the state supreme court, which includes questions about the applicant's background and fitness. Fourth, having passed all the previous steps, the applicant is invited to join the bar of the state supreme court - which makes him eligible to practice in all the state courts of that state - which includes a public ceremony (many bring their parents and/or spouses) and an oath.

Having done all that, most or all states require that lawyers who are considered "active" must be enrolled in a state bar (which is separate and different from the ABA or any voluntary bar association), which essentially is a list of currently admitted lawyers. The enrollment provides the public with a list of who is entitled to practice law and also provides the state with a mailing list to notify all practicing lawyers of significant events and legal news. If a lawyer is disbarred, his name is struck from that list.

Officially, although most of the process is handled by non-judges, it is the state supreme court that evaluates and approves applicants to the practice of law.

Shoonra admits there is no license.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Shoonra admits there is no license.

No, there is no "license". The legal profession's equivalent is a bar membership card and a certificate suitable for framing, issued by the state's highest court after that ceremony. It has the name, date of admission to practice, and maybe some other info.

And the criminal offense that is commonly called "practicing law without a license" is more officially termed "unauthorized practice of law".

[David Merrill]

A private club indeed.

In her second year of law school my cousin's wife blurted, "How did you hear about Erie?!"

Pretty revealing right there.

[greatwolf75]

I'm probably going to sound pretty stupid here but how can one be charged with unauthorized practice of law when law is what we all are suppose to know. They say ignorance of the law is no excuse, yet they can say it's also unauthorized?

Also, David, are you an attorney or just well schooled?

[David Merrill]

I have been kicked out of a few courtrooms in my day for not being a member of that private club.