I assume so.
The NDIL down the street recently got Fitzgerald from NY.
I heard nothing about his having to sit for the IL bar, nor do I believe there would be any reason. AUSAs move geographically quite often.
If I remember, I’ll ask someone to confirm.
Trying to crank out a boring 7th Cir. brief today…
Golfing tomorrow! 
If that’s true… then how does it square with the statues regarding UPL quoted earlier? While agency attorneys are perhaps arguable not engaging in the practice of law when they act on their agencies’ behalf, especially in administrative proceedings, a US Attorney prosecutes criminal cases on behalf of the government. How is he NOT engaging in the practice of law?
Bricker it appears you are ineligible for the position. In order to appear in other than a one shot pro hac vice (sp) case an attorney must be admitted to the CA bar in order to practice in that court as per local court rule. Link
I’ll find the authority sometime - tho it might take a bit of digging, and I may not get to it til next week.
I assume the fact that agency counsel’s client is - essentially - the entire US, they are licensed to practice in all of the nation’s federal courts. I’m sure it is somewhere in 28 USC and/or 5 CFR, tho it might be less than crystal clear. It is the kind of thing that is so basic and unquestioned, and irrelevant to my day-to-day practice, that you lose sight of the specific underpinning. I’m sure some fed attys could give you the cite off the top of their head - just not this one!
How is the US Atty situation you describe different from me being licensed in IL only, yet regularly practicing in IN, WI, MI, OH, MN, & TN D.Cts and the 6th, 7th, and 8th? In fact, I probably practice in 3 states more than I do in IL.
Clearly, different rules apply to atys representing the fed gov’t than apply to private counsel.
As I said, I regularly practice in district and App cts to which I have not been admitted. When filing my appearance, I simply indicate that the requirement of admission does not apply to me as a federal atty representing a fed agency.
Some cts prefer admission for oral arguments, and we generally comply as a courtesy. But I believe we could fight it if we desired.
As a final observation I’ll note that federal agencies may be required to participate in actions throughout the country, tho they may have counsel in only limited jurisdictions. My agency has 11 or so regional counsel offices, as well as a national HQ, but not all agencies are so geographically widespread. I think a great deal of the “special treatment” for federal counsel simply reflects reasonable concerns for administrative efficiency.
Shit, I wish I could find a cite for this.
Attorneys representing the United States are permitted to engage in the “practice of law,” however you want to define it, throughout the country regardless of where they may be licensed, as long as they are members of at least one State Bar or the D.C. Bar.
Here, I’ve got a partial cite. 28 USC Sec. 517 (as taken from my 2002 edition of West’s Federal Civil Judicial Procedure and Rules, but I’d wager it’s still accurate) states, in full:
Obviously, that applies only to DoJ lawyers, but I’m certain that a similar provision exists for any lawyers representing the United States, I just can’t find a cite.
So can we all stop gassing on about it now and get back to the OP? Gracias.
–Cliffy
I will have you know, sirrah, that I have not one iota of knowledge about the practical applications of the law!
The argument isn’t circular at all. I’m not talking about practical knowledge, which you don’t get in law school anyway (more’s the pity). I’m talking about knowing the way the law is structured, how it works, and how parts of it relate to another. You can’t just take a six-week cours in this and understand it. Maybe you don’t need to take three years, but if it’s possible to self-educate on this stuff with any degree of success, I’d be hella surprised.
As I note, it’s not practical material I’m talking about, it’s just the law. But regardless, we’re not talking strictly about the test here, although that’s one big prong. But to be licenesed as a lawyer you typically need four things – passage of the Bar, passage of a character investigation, swearing of an oath to defend the Constitution, but before any of that you need prong 1 – a legal education. You’re not allowed to just up and take the Bar – you have to graduate from law school first.*
I’ve answered this already, but anyways: No. The reason lawyers have the required information is because we went to law school. And that most anybody is allowed to do if they wish.
As noted, the Bar Exam (well, the state half) isn’t much like any exam non-lawyers will be familiar with. It’s neither “reading comprehension” in the way I think you mean, nor is it “short-answer” in significant part.
–Cliffy
*In some states you can apprentice, but you still require a legal education of particular character.
I believe the specific authority will exist in the delegation of authority from DoJ to the specific agency since, as I mentioned above, DoJ is the gov’t’s atty.
From experience I can tell you that these delegations can be quite obscure and not easy to find. You will notice that in many instances agency attorney appears “of counsel” to DoJ, even if they are doing all of the work.
Damn, I hate this appeal!
I apologize for the hijack; I never thought it would go this far. I simply popped in to answer a question regarding reporting professional misconduct. I do, however, really want to know the answer to the question(s) – maybe there should be a GQ on it – when appearing in the various federal (and perhaps even state) courts, do attorney’s representing the US have to comply with the same admission requirements as other attorneys (i.e. state and district bar admission or pro hac admission)? If not, by what authority?
BTW, this “gassing” has attracted as much interest as the OP and is related to the general question presented in the OP regarding attorney licensing in the US, as that process is governed by the states.
I KNEW someone would know that one!
No, it isn’t necessary. Lawyering and advocacy aren’t exactly new professions, and for much of history were unlicensed.
I guess the idea of licensure/regulation for any profession/vocation is a question of whether a society wants to at least attempt to provide a minimum quality of life for its inhabitants. One way of accomplishing this is to require a minimum degree of licensure or regulation for certain services. I mean, I’m sure people got by just fine hundreds of years ago, but I still feel somewhat better knowing the FDA is at least pretending to watch over my food. The occasional hepatits outbreak doesn’t make me think otherwise.
Is lawyer licensing necessary? No. Good idea? Yes. Alot of bad lawyers? Certainly. Far fewer than there would be without regulation? I’m certain. Even the scummiest lowlife cockroach with a briefcase will pause at the thought of instigating a bar investigation: suspension is humiliating and economically crippling, and permanent revocation is pretty much the end of your career. If you’re barred in multiple states, the other states will often revoke your license when one of them does.
And the ebay-style rating system for attorneys is Martindale-Hubbell, although only other lawyers really get to vote and it’s not like people can leave comments or anything (and it was recently (?) acquired by Lexis, how interesting).
The same is true of medicine, but I am very, very grateful that any doctor I pick out of the phone book was required to go through a rigorous licensing process before hanging out his or her shingle.
Also:
And:
Actally, the whole chapter has reference to statutory authority:
Title 28, Chapter 31: The Attorney General
Hey - whaddya know? I got the right chapter number!
I guess it wasn’t obscure at all.
I guess what I was thinking about was when it comes down to specifics regarding exactly what has or hasn’t been delegated. Who signs what, who appears, etc.
Our office is currently in the process of hammering out agreements with each of the US Atty offices in our region concerning what we and they can and must do.
Quite often such agreements reflect staffing and budget concerns.
You aren’t going to be able to turn up those kinds of agreements in a Westlaw search.
Speaking as an attorney, the licensing of attorneys is an absurdity. There is absolutely nothing magic about what we do, and certainly nothing that requires an additional three years of education, much less a bar examination that largely covers areas of law the potential attorney will never face again in his/her professional career (not sour grapes: I’ve passed two state bar exams). We read, we write, and we speak.
I’ve always believed that anyone who wants to should be able to hang a shingle. I firmly believe that under such a system, complete revelation of the attorney’s educational background and professional experience must be mandated, and then the customer can choose.
Sua
I was wondering when you’d show up, Sua. 
You and I have have gone back and forth on this same issue before, but I can’t find the thread.
I can find it so I guess I’ll just start: mandated by who? What if they lie?
Ah, here it is: Throw the bar open: a proposition (for milum).
Our exchange: Link.
I still don’t think you ever answered my main question, which is how can dropping a licensing requirement possibly not lead to more fraud, not less? I would write more, but by coincidence I have have to go out to the greatest concentration of self-taught legal authorities one could hope to meet: the county jail. I’ll let you know you they do. 
Bah. I’ll let you know how they do.