{"id":21476,"date":"2011-08-02T12:01:53","date_gmt":"2011-08-02T17:01:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=21476"},"modified":"2020-12-21T05:32:39","modified_gmt":"2020-12-21T11:32:39","slug":"when-did-you-stop-beating-your-law-license","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=21476","title":{"rendered":"When Did You Stop Beating Your Law License?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Question: \u00a0If you were storing a car in your garage for the winter, would you carry insurance on it?<\/p>\n

If you’d discovered you didn’t read the Strib <\/em>anymore, would you continue to pay for the subscription?<\/p>\n

If you got an hour’s exercise a day by biking or running or swimming, would you pay for a gym membership?<\/p>\n

No, no and probably not, I’m guessing.<\/p>\n

Careful. \u00a0Award-winning journalist \u00ae\u00a0Karl Bremer might accuse you of driving without insurance, illiteracy and being out of shape…<\/p>\n

…well, no. \u00a0That’s not quite right. \u00a0He’d write a piece on his blog Ripple in Stillwater<\/em>\u00a0with a headline like “Is Joe Schmo Driving Without Insurance?”, or “Is Mary Moe Illiterate?” or “Is Evonne Yeo Obese And Out Of Shape?”, listing the factoids and not a whole lot more.<\/p>\n

One of the great plagues of the “alternative media” – and by that, I mean mostly the left-wing alternative media – is the “I’ll ask an inflammatory question – one with either no facts to back it up, or facts presented with no context that would help the uninformed that are my target audience decide whether it’s a valid quesiton – and let it dangle out there”.<\/p>\n

It’s sort of like this classic South Park spoof of Glenn Beck…:<\/p>\n

\n
\n

<\/object><\/p>\n

Dances With Smurfs<\/a><\/strong>
\nTags: SOUTH
\nPARK<\/a>more…<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Which brings us to this piece<\/a> from Bremer’s Ripple, <\/em>in which he\u00a0writes:<\/p>\n

Throughout her political career, Michele Bachmann has rarely passed up an opportunity to burnish her lawyerly credentials by claiming that she\u2019s a \u201ctax litigation attorney.\u201d And for almost as long, Bachmann hasn\u2019t even been authorized to practice law in her home state of Minnesota.<\/p>\n

Now, it appears that Bachmann\u2019s license to practice law in Minnesota should not only be unauthorized, but suspended and placed on \u201cnot in good standing\u201d status for failure to comply with the \u201cRules of the Supreme Court on Lawyer Registration.\u201d…<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

This is only the latest in a long history of sloppy record-keeping, tardy legal filings and questionable campaign reports that litter Bachmann\u2019s political career. Will anyone care enough to enforce the law this time?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

You bet!<\/p>\n

But since the allegations are coming from the award-winning journalist \u00ae Karl Bremer, perhaps it’s not my place to check it out. \u00a0I’m no award winning journalist\u00a0\u00ae after all – I’m a mere uppity peasant.<\/p>\n

So I wrote a couple of lawyer friends of mine; Joe Doakes of Como Park, and Joe “Learned Foot” Tucci (*). \u00a0And, for good measure, called the Minnesota Judicial Branch, which maintains the lists of lawyers that practice in Minnesota and, by the way, which Bremer cited.<\/p>\n

And the answer I got? \u00a0To borrow a quote from Joe Pesci in the greatest movie ever made about the law in America, My Cousin Vinny<\/em>, “Everything that guy just said is bullsh*t”.<\/p>\n

Let’s break down Bremer’s charges, one by one:<\/p>\n

“Suspended” Disbelief: <\/strong>Let’s go back to that last paragraph:<\/p>\n

Now, it appears that Bachmann\u2019s license to practice law in Minnesota should not only be unauthorized, but suspended and placed on \u201cnot in good standing\u201d status for failure to comply with the \u201cRules of the Supreme Court on Lawyer Registration.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Bremer writes this because Bachmann’s record with the Minnesota Judicial Branch reads “Not Authorized”. \u00a0Here, take a look<\/a>. \u00a0It says she’s “Not Authorized Resident, Not Practicing in MN \/ Voluntarily Restricted (By Choice).<\/p>\n

What does this mean? \u00a0I mean, to me – a mere uppity peasant – it appears that she may have taken her license out of “active” status to pursue another career for bit. \u00a0 But what do I know?<\/p>\n

Doakes – not an award-winning \u00ae journalist, but a lawyer – explains:<\/p>\n

Mr. Bremer doesn\u2019t know what he\u2019s talking about.\u00a0He reminds me of the guy who has read the \u201cto coin money\u201d phrase in the Constitution, interprets it to mean the only valid money is gold coinage, and therefore refuses to pay his mortgage. In similarly erroneous fashion, reading the plain English words in the Rules governing lawyer licenses doesn\u2019t mean he understands how the Rules are applied in real life.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0First, Ms. Bachman\u2019s license to practice law has NOT lapsed \u2013 she has voluntarily self-limited her license precisely as provided by the Rules. She could un-self-limit her license at any time as provided in the Rules (notify the Court, pay a fee, catch up on classes).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Sort of like letting the insurance lapse on a car you keep stored; it doesn’t preclude reinstating the insurance and going back on the road.<\/p>\n

Unless you’re a conservative and you wander into Karl Bremer’s attention span.<\/p>\n

Second, the Rules provide several different categories of lawyers \u2013 some actively practicing law and some not \u2013 for the excellent reason that some people may want to take a break from representing clients day-to-day in order to do something else (missionary work, for example, or perhaps public service)\u00a0[Or serve in Congress – Ed.]\u00a0<\/em>but also want to be able to resume practicing law later, without having to retake the Bar Exam. This regulatory scheme is designed to let lawyers \u201cpark\u201d their licenses for a time. It\u2019s perfectly legal and commonly used.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Another friend of mine, also an attorney, raised some eyebrows when she let her Minnesota license go inactive. \u00a0It seemed odd – except her firm was giving her nothing but cases in Iowa and the Dakotas. \u00a0It only made sense to keep her active <\/em>licenses there, but keep her MN license inactive until she really needed it. \u00a0Does it mean she’s “not following the rules”, as Bremer would claim?<\/p>\n

Rep. Bachmann, with her LL.D in Tax Law from William and Mary, practices a fairly abstruse flavor of law. \u00a0Since she’s not currentlytrying cases, the license renewal is, at this moment in her life, an unneeded extra complication and expense – especially since it’s a relatively simple matter to get it back should she need it again.<\/p>\n

My pseudonymous lawyers aren’t good enough for you? \u00a0Fair enough; I called the Minnesota Judicial Branch, and <\/em>the Board of Continuing Legal Education. \u00a0They confirmed it. “Lots of attorneys go inactive when they are out of state, not practicing, or not in a position to do their Continuing Legal Education” due to, say, being in Congress, said a MJB employee who asked not to be named.<\/p>\n

Paid Up<\/strong>:\u00a0Bremer wrote:<\/p>\n

Lawyers licensed to practice law in Minnesota are required to register annually with the Lawyer Registration Office in the Minnesota Judicial Branch. They\u2019re also required to pay an annual registration fee that varies depending on the lawyer\u2019s active\/inactive status, income level, residence and years in the profession.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And – mirabile dictu <\/em>\u00a0– she paid her fee! \u00a0Check out her MJB record<\/a>; third line down? \u00a0“Last Payment: \u00a07\/11\/11”.<\/p>\n

Joe Tucci – a lawyer and member of the Minnesota Bar – notes:<\/p>\n

I would add that the dues you are required to pay when you are on voluntary restricted status are about $100 less than on active status. If you have no prospect of representing clients in your jurisdiction because you are working in a different career out of state (which also hinders your ability to keep up on your CLEs), it just makes sense to to go on voluntary restricted status.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Hm.<\/p>\n

States Of Existence<\/strong>: \u00a0Remember when Bremer insisted that there is something in Bachmann’s status that is deeply prejudicial?<\/p>\n

Now, it appears that Bachmann\u2019s license to practice law in Minnesota should not only be unauthorized, but suspended and placed on \u201cnot in good standing\u201d status for failure to comply with the \u201cRules of the Supreme Court on Lawyer Registration.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

He even quoted\u00a0the letter of the law…:<\/p>\n

\u201cA lawyer or judge who fails to meet all of the criteria to be on either active or inactive status is placed on non-compliant status, and the right to practice law in this state is automatically suspended,\u201d the Supreme Court Rules state. \u201cA lawyer or judge on non-compliant status is not in good standing. A lawyer or judge on non-compliant status must not practice law in this state, must not hold out himself or herself as authorized to practice law, or in any manner represent that he or she is qualified or authorized to practice law while on non-compliant status. Any lawyer or judge who violates this rule is subject to all the penalties and remedies provided by law for the unauthorized practice of law in the State of Minnesota.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Wait a minute – where on the record does it say that Bachmann is in any sort of “non-compliant status?” \u00a0Check for yourself!<\/p>\n

If you can’t find anything but the phrase “Not Authorized to Practice”, join the club. \u00a0Doakes notes that there is nothign to Bremer’s claim but, well, Bremer being Bremer:<\/p>\n

Third, the phrase \u201cNot Authorized to Practice\u201d is not as ominous as it sounds. It has no negative connotation. The Rule is binary \u2013 you\u2019re either Authorized or you\u2019re Not Authorized.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And Doakes offers something Bremer didn’t – context:<\/p>\n

For comparison purposes, here\u2019s Michelle Bachman\u2019s information<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

And\u00a0here\u2019s the information<\/a>\u00a0for [another prominent local attorney].<\/p>\n

And here\u2019s the information about\u00a0former Court of Appeals Judge Rollie Amundson<\/a>, who was convicted of stealing from his clients and sent to prison.<\/p>\n

You\u2019ll notice all their licenses both are listed as Not Authorized but for different reasons: Ms. Bachmann\u2019s because she\u2019s chosen to stop representing clients while she serves in government, Mr. Shadduck\u2019s because he\u2019s dead, and Mr. Amundson\u2019s because he hasn\u2019t paid his annual fees. \u201cNot Authorized\u201d doesn\u2019t mean \u201cbad lawyer;\u201d it simply means \u201cnot authorized.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Because award-winning journalists \u00ae\u00a0don’tneed\u00a0<\/em>to give complete, accurate context, I guess:<\/p>\n

Where? <\/strong>Finally, Bremer attacked Bachmann’s attention to paperwork in re reporting her address:<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court Rules also require that \u201cEvery lawyer or judge must immediately notify the Lawyer Registration Office of any change of postal address. Every lawyer or judge who elects to use the online registration system must immediately update their online registration profile to reflect any change of their postal address and email address.\u201d<\/p>\n

That rule is clearly referenced on the Minnesota Judicial Branch website on Updating Lawyer Registration.<\/p>\n

Bachmann paid her most recent annual registration fee on July 11, 2011. Her address listed on her registration is 1801 Johnson Drive, Stillwater, MN. But Bachmann hasn\u2019t lived at that address for nearly four years.<\/p>\n

That would appear to put Bachmann in noncompliance with the Supreme Court Rules\u2014not just this year, but for at least the past three years.<\/p>\n

\u201cA lawyer or judge who fails to meet all of the criteria to be on either active or inactive status is placed on non-compliant status, and the right to practice law in this state is automatically suspended,\u201d the Supreme Court Rules state. \u201cA lawyer or judge on non-compliant status is not in good standing. A lawyer or judge on non-compliant status must not practice law in this state, must not hold out himself or herself as authorized to practice law, or in any manner represent that he or she is qualified or authorized to practice law while on non-compliant status. Any lawyer or judge who violates this rule is subject to all the penalties and remedies provided by law for the unauthorized practice of law in the State of Minnesota.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Doakes, however, notes that Bremer is just making stuff up now:<\/p>\n

Fourth, I know the plain English words in the Rule say you must update even an Inactive registration but nobody updates an Inactive registration while it\u2019s still Inactive; you update your registration when it goes Active again, when you want to resume practice. Take another look at Mr. Shadduck and Mr. Amundson\u2019s addresses – they use their last address from the time they last were in Active practice. That\u2019s the common and widely accepted practice and Ms. Bachmann is following it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And if that were not <\/em>the case? Well, Bremer’s gonna be one busy little award-winning\u00a0\u00ae wannabe muckracker:<\/p>\n

Finally, to address the major point of Mr. Bremer\u2019s column, the phrase \u201cpostal address\u201d in the Rule does not require you to list your HOME mailing address, the place where you eat and sleep, but only to list SOME mailing address at which the Court can send notices to you. In this age of wackos with instant Internet access to public records [heh heh – Ed.], NOBODY gives the home address where they actually spend their days and nights, on their registration.<\/p>\n

[Ramsey County Judge] Robert Awsumb\u00a0doesn\u2019t list his home address<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Nor does\u00a0the leading personal injury lawyer in the state and founder of Schwebel, Goetz and Sieben<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Nor even ordinary government bureaucrats, such as the Attorney General, Lori Swanson<\/a>.<\/p>\n

And\u00a0see United States Senator Amy Klobuchar, another Minnesota lawyer now serving in Congress<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Swanson and Klobuchar? Scofflaws?<\/p>\n

Er, Karl Bremer? \u00a0You’ve got some wrongdoing to expose! \u00a0Our Attorney General <\/em>and Senior Senator<\/em>\u00a0should both be chastised, shunned, and disbarred, by the logic in your own story!<\/p>\n

You get right on that!<\/p>\n

Doakes concludes:<\/p>\n

Not Authorized to Practice \u2013 Voluntarily Restricted \u2013 and showing an address where she doesn\u2019t actually eat and sleep on a daily basis (Senator Klobuchar lives somewhere closer to her job in Washington, DC, obviously, and simply maintains this condo in Minnesota for residency purposes). Nothing wrong with that \u2013 perfectly common practice for lawyers in government service. Such as Ms. Bachmann.<\/p>\n

Mr. Bremer may have read the Rules governing lawyer registration, but he doesn\u2019t understand them. Oh, and he still has to pay his mortgage, too.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The moral of the story? \u00a0If it’s the Twin Cities award-winning\u00a0\u00ae leftymedia, and they’re writing about conservatives? \u00a0Distrust, then verify.<\/p>\n

Then, almost inevitably, distrust some more.<\/p>\n

(And the very nice lady from the Minnesota Judicial Branch? \u00a0She confirmed everything Doakes and Tucci said).<\/p>\n

UPDATE: \u00a0Another rep from the Continuing Legal Education office called back. \u00a0“Someone who voluntarily suspends their license but keeps their fees paid up is in good standing”.<\/p>\n

As opposed to, y’know, bad standing.<\/p>\n

[*] Can’t find a Joe Doakes in the database of Minnesota lawyers? \u00a0That’s right – it’s a pseudonym. \u00a0“Joe” has seen what a pack of shrieking ninnies some Twin Cities leftybloggers can be, and opts not to expose his family and his job to their foamy depredations. \u00a0Can’t say as I blame him.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Question: \u00a0If you were storing a car in your garage for the winter, would you carry insurance on it? If you’d discovered you didn’t read the Strib anymore, would you continue to pay for the subscription? If you got an hour’s exercise a day by biking or running or swimming, would you pay for a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[63],"tags":[208],"class_list":["post-21476","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-lefty-alt-media","tag-a-klo"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21476","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=21476"}],"version-history":[{"count":23,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21476\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":76182,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21476\/revisions\/76182"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=21476"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=21476"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=21476"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}