quote me stating you are not a lawyer.
I work in transactions so I don’t know how it works for court. You’ll have to ask Dinsdale. But for me it involves strolling in to the office of any agency in the country and conducting my affairs. That’s it.
Seeing as I actually happen to work for the Feds, along with other attorneys, many of us refer to ourselves as “federal lawyers” or “government lawyers” or “federal government lawyers” or any combination thereof. As I said, the world does not begin and end at federal courts and your statement that I am “misleading” in terms of what I do is peculiar. Perhaps in your neck of the woods it’s always referred to as “attorneys not engaged in the practice of law employed by the Federal govt.” but around here we just call ourselves federal lawyers.
If I’m not practicing the “unauthorized practice of law” (which clearly I’m not)-I’m doing one of two things. I’m either practicing the law or I’m not doing legal work whatsoever. Please tell me what you think attorneys working for the federal government do.
I did not. I simply stated that you do not have to be licensed in the state in which you practice if you’re a federal lawyer.
So far, I’ve demonstrated that I am NOT in fact required to be licensed in California and I’m curious to see when you’ll show me that I am.
From the outset I defended my advice regarding reporting attorney misconduct as generally sound and accurate, and I still do. The exceptions for attorneys employed by the federal government with respect to appearances before administrative agencies and various federal courts (of which I was unaware and of which I am still not completely sure – is there a standing order, statute, etc., and don’t reply, “the supremacy clause”) has little bearing on the advice regarding reporting attorney misconduct.
I was also initially misled by the term “federal attorney,” a new one to me, when used to describe an attorney employed by the federal government. I assumed, wrongly, you meant an attorney who practiced exclusively in federal courts.
Finally, I never suggested you weren’t a lawyer, I suggested that perhaps you didn’t “practice law,” in the strict statutory sense (plenty of lawyers don’t practice law in a strict sense, ever heard of in-house counsel?), which is hardly an insult. The first definition of lawyer in Black’s is “someone learned in the law.” An attorney, by comparison, is an agent and necessarily has a client (since representing someone else is generally considered the practice of law, an attorney would, per se, practice law).
You’ve directed my attention to some case law regarding a particular Cal. statute and I find it intriguing, but it leaves questions unanswered. I’ve already asked those questions and will await a response.
Financial Advisors don’t need to have a CFA (Chartered Financial Analyst) designation, or be a CFP (Certified Finacial Planner). However, it does point to a standard of training and industry knowledge, and an organizational Code of Ethics. These organizations will crack down hard on people misusing Series 7 is a test for a broker’s license.
Accountants don’t need a CPA (Certified Public Accountant) or a CMA (Certified Managerial Accountant) designation. Accountants who, for whatever reason, don’t go the accounting firm route, may never get that. There’s plenty of corporate accounting jobs, and while they usually recruit from the accounting firms, they occassionally will pick up fresh meat right out of school.
The client of an EA (Executive Agency) attorney is the Secretary of that agency, the Program Offices of that Agency and the citizens of the United States of America. That’s elementary professional responsibilty from law school.
I’ve cited a federal case that cites other federal cases stating that state licensing rules do not apply to those representing the federal government. So far you’ve switched the issue to “how” that is without stating a single authority to the contrary-that I am required to be licensed in the state in which I practice. And it wasn’t a state law, incidentally. Could I go look up similar federal cases for the remaining 49 states? No doubt, but I don’t have the time. Additionally, three of us have written stating that we’re not subject to licensing rules and you still refuse to accept it. I really don’t feel I can do any more to convince you, it seems like you just can’t admit there’s an exception for us. Bungling as the Feds may be at times, surely you don’t believe they would put all of their attorneys at risk for suspension by not insisting we be barred in the states in which we’re practicing?
In-house counsel for businesses routinely “do legal work” in the sense that they oversee legal matters – they are not, for the most part, engaged in the practice of law. Therefore, your dichotomy is false. A “lawyer” could be both “doing legal work” in a jurisdiction in which he is not admitted, as set forth above, and not be engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
As I said, I’ve never heard the term “federal lawyer” used to describe an attorney employed by the gov’t. I wrongly assumed you meant someone that limitted his practice to federal courts.
Nothing, unless and until you attempt to represent someone in state court in California, in which case, your status as a “federal lawyer” means nothing, based on what I’ve seen. As I said earlier, I wrongly assumed your occupation to begin with based on a term I am unfamiliar with. Then, I posited that perhaps your work does not involve the “practice of law” in the strict statutory sense. No need to get upset.
This is a misstatement of fact. Re-read posts 33 and 40. I have not refused to accept your assertion, to the contrary, I have asked for authority, some of which you have provided, for the proposition that there is an bar admission exception for attorneys representing the federal government. I have also asked follow up questions based on my reading of that case law. Recall this all stems from your assesment of advice I gave concerning attorney misconduct, advice you claimed was inaccurate when at most it was incomplete and the ommitted information bore little relevance on the situation being addressed. Since that time I have been engaged solely in defending my inital assesment of how your situation as a lawyer might fall outside of the “practice of law” in the strictest statuory sense. That’s it. You keeping bringing in information concernign your job when it is unnecessary. I do not dispute your claims, and haven’t for some time, that there is an exemption for attorneys employed by the feds in certain situations. BTW the “how” you seem to think is a misdirection is actually quite important because if the “how” is a standing order of pro hac admission, then my initally statement that you claimed was inaccurate would actually be completely accurate. I have been sincerely asking questions. Don’t get so upset. I am not maligning you.
Thanks for the CLE. Recall, I don’t care what you do, I was explaining how someone might be a lawyer (in-house counsel for example) yet still not practice law.
Hell, I had to pull out my Black’s to see what the hell pro hac meant.
I’ll do a little search and see what the basis is under which attorneys employed by the federal government can represent their employer in any federal court, so long as they are licensed in any jurisdiction. I suspect it is somewhere in 28 USC - as DOJ is technically the US atty of record, and agency counsel act in court to the extent delegated by DOJ. Those delegations can take near infinite forms, and in some instances, requires appointment as a Special Assistant US Atty. DOJ recently has become a little stricter about requiring SAUSA status. SAUSA appointments generally need to be renewed annually, which requires a certification that you remain licensed to practice somewhere. I just pulled my folder full of appointment forms, but they do not reference the authority.
I don’t even need to be admitted to the courts in which I appear. Sometimes we do essentially as a courtesy, and 'cause its rarely in your interest to piss off the court clerk.
But whether I am in Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, or Wisconsin, or the 6th, 7th, or 8th, I just say, “How ya doin. I’m Dinsdale representing the gubmint.” Since it is just never an issue and I’ve been doing it these past 2 decades, you lose track of the underlying authority - if you ever knew it.
Kinda crunched right now. I’ll dig up a precise cite sometime later.
Didn’t say you would - that’s why I pointed out that I only practice before the USPTO. (But I need to be a member of the bar of the state in which I practice to advise clients on trade secrets, licensing, etc.)
I have read many articles over time about state bars finding ways to let lawyers who cheated or grossly misrepresented their clients slide.
I can’t do that. It would have to be the … help me out here …
Holy cow, anu-la. First of all, nobody’s called you a liar. Second, whole bean conceded that you may be right under some exception to the general rule. Third, nobody ever said you’re not a lawyer. Fourth, you’re wrong about whether or not you’re “practicing law.”
Now, I’m sure what you’re doing is super complicated and important, but it’s not the “practice of law” as defined by numerous state statutes. You and I may think that your law degree was toally necessary for you to be able to do that work, but it doesn’t change the fact that legislators don’t consider what you’re doing “the practice of law” for which you need to be licensed in their state.
Let’s take Texas as an example (since that’s the state where most of my practice occurs). As a general rule, you can be fined and/or spend time in jail for the “unauthorized practice of law.” Section 81.101 of the Texas Government Code states:
Section 81.102 of the Texas Government Code states who may practice law in Texas:
There are plenty of other statutes prohibiting the practice of law without authorization from Texas, but I won’t get into those.
The point is that the state has a definition of the “practice of law” that includes many things that lawyers do, and does not include things that many lawyers do. One example of legal work that lawyers do, but which isn’t generally considered the “practice of law” in most states, is corporate work. I’ve got a law school buddy who’s been a corporate attorney for years in California, but he’s not licensed out there, nor does he need to be because the legal work he’s doing does not fall under Cali’s definition of “the practice of law” for which he needs to be licensed in Cali.
I’m not sure, but I’m guessing that’s exactly what you do (in part because you seem to be unfamiliar with concepts related to litigation, such as the definition of “the practice of law,” licensing requirements, and the fact that you generally need special permission to practice in federal courts).
So if you have a problem with your job description, maybe you should take it up with the State of Texas. Or California (note – the link goes to a .pdf of the LA County Prosecutor’s manual on the unauthorized practice of law, which includes citations to the relevant California statutes).
And maybe it’s possible – just possible – that employees of the federal government are an exception to the rule that everyone has to be licensed to practice law. But that exception doesn’t negate the general rule. I think whole bean has merely been making that point, as well as asking for the basis of your exception.
By the way, thanks to both you and Dinsdale for your service.
A current issue illustrates my dissatisfaction with my particular state bar.
Right now my beef with my state bar is that they just enacted a requirement of continuing legal education (CLE). IMO, it is little more than a tax - plain and simple, benefitting those who provide such training.
100% of my work is for a single federal agency. I receive considerable in-house training, and believe me, after 20 years at the same job I am as capable of representing my client as anyone. For example, I don’t need to be trained on regulatory changes, because I am asked to comment on proposed changes before they are released for notice and comment.
Furthermore, CLE is generally rather expensive - with courses costing several hundreds of dollars. As a federal employee, I have to pay my bar registration, any local bar memberships, and the cost of any CLE. Private firms generally pick up such charges for their employees. Further, while I make a good living, I earn nowhere near the salaries of many private lawyers.
Don’t get me wrong - I’m not complaining about my job. But I really resent the broadbrush approach which assesses real costs across the board, woithout addressing any real problem I am aware of. IMO, this smacks of the “feelgood” type of regulation done primarily to create the appearance of doing something worthwhile. It is easier to impose this cost across the board, than to do the hard work of weeding out the actual incompetents.
I am not aware of there being a problem with underterained lawyers. Nearly every lawyer I have encountered professionally or privately makes an effort to keep abreast of developments in their area of practice.
IMO, the only people who stand to benefit from this requirement are the folks who make a buck off of providing this type of training. Kinda appropriate that it benefits folks who parasitize lawyers… 
Oh yeah - the bar also benefits because they can claim to be doing something to improve the quality of legal services. Of course, if you are going to make an argument that specious, you should choose an audience less cynical than the community of lawyers.
Re-reading my last post, I think it hits upon my main criticism of current bar regulations.
IME, they ought to spend less effort on vetting people beforehand, and more effort on identifying and disciplining wrongdoers. Of course, effective and aggressive discipline would be harder than enacting prophylactic measures of nebulous effectiveness.
While the practice of law involves significant (if not unique) issues of trust and responsibility, I think the concept of “law as a noble profession” is somewhat outdated. In most respects these days, law is a business - and an overcrowded one at that.
Take a look at the most active membership of your local bar. Is it representative of the profession as a whole? Not around these parts. Don’t see a whole lot of sole practitioners, or government or public interest lawyers attending those functions and serving on those boards.
One of the major elements of the criticism of lawyers is that it is an “old boys network.” IMO, self regulation thru state bars encourages this perception.
Well, obviously YMMV, but the benchers of the Law Society in my jursidiction includes a mixture of lawyers employed by the provincial government, sole practioners, big firm guys, a staff lawyer with the Legal Aid Commission, and two lay benchers (non-lawyers). It’s required that one of the lay benchers sit in discipline proceedings, to ensure views of non-lawyers are represented.
NP - based on your terminology, am I correct in assuming you practice somewhere other than in the US? (Sorry, I’m not coming up with tons of rhymes for vagina!)
I have no knowledge as to how law is practices or regulated outside of the states.
Question:
I’m licensed in Virginia.
Could President Bush appoint me as the US Attorney for the Northern District of California? That is… obviously he can appoint me. Can I assume that duty tomorrow, without passing the California bar?
Indeed, the type of position which Anu is describing is usually titled “attorney advisor” and they do not act as attorneys representing clients. They act as functionaries and policymakers in executive agencies. They are all represented in court by Department of Justice attorneys.
Yes, if someone wants to accuse Anu of misconduct, then they can go to the bar association that had licensed her. Her status as a federal employee does not remove her from the authority of the bar where she has taken an oath.
… the dirty scumbag lawyers who run the court and legislature?