A former law school student as Ohio State University Moritz College of Law has been hit with an order barring her from doing legal work in the state and imposing a $1000 fine. Paige N. Casey got off fairly lightly since many states allow for much more severe penalties, including jail time.
Casey was a law student at Ohio State until October 2010. The opinion below says that the next year, Casey told a friend with a traffic ticket that she could represent him and told both a prosecutor and judge that she was a lawyer. She said that she was a certified legal intern allowed to do such practice. She also filed papers with “J.D.” after her name. The Supreme Court concluded that “[t]he evidence also demonstrates that Casey held herself out as a licensed attorney to Fishman and that she represented to … employees of the Euclid Municipal Court that she had the authority to practice law as a certified legal intern.”
She is fortunate given the false statements made to the court and prosecutor that the penalty was not heavier.
Here is the opinion: 2013-ohio-5284
The author is false in his reporting. Never did she hold herself out to be a lawyer. She said she was an intern who had the right through legal aid to accompany a friend to court with a traffic violation. And PS She got it moved down to a non-moving violation. 😉
‘The charges resulted from an August 2012 incident when officers
from Ontario Police Department received an anonymous
phone call that a cockfight was in progress,’ said Deputy District Attorney Debbie Ploghaus, who prosecuted the
case. A higher salary may not go very far in a city with higher transportation, food, energy, housing and health
care costs. This is especially true in the field of healthcare law, upon which medical ethics are founded.
Yes! Finally something about adult add diagnosis.
One thing that is nice is you can see how people have reviewed the
roof gutters that they have and be able to avoid some
of the pit falls that can happen with cheep or poorly made roof gutters.
Why struggle for space in your van when the answers lies up above,
courtesy of Rhino Roof Bars. This brief is to help homeowners learn how to estimate the costs of replacing their roofs.
PRACTICE OF LAW IS A RIGHT, NOT PRIVILEGE:
#?. “We need not enter into a discussion whether the practice of law is a “right” or “privilege.” Regardless of how the State’s grant of permission to engage in this occupation is characterized, it is sufficient to say that a person cannot be prevented from practicing except for valid reasons. Certainly the practice of law is not a matter of the State’s grace. Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 71 U. S. 379.” (verified source: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/353/232/case.html)
#?. “CERTIFICATE” IS NOT A LICENSE to practice Law AS AN OCCUPATION, nor to DO BUSINESS AS A LAW FIRM!!!
III.The “STATE BAR” CARD IS NOT A LICENSE!!! A.It is a “UNION DUES CARD”. (source: )
#?.The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/State… “Whether the practice of law is a “right” or a “privilege” need not here be determined; it is not a matter of the State’s grace, and a person cannot be barred except for valid reasons. P. 353 U. S. 239, n 5.” … “A State cannot exclude a person from the practice of law or from any other occupation in a manner or for reasons that contravene the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ” Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239 (verified source: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/353/232/case.html)
#?. “The right to engage in an employment, to carry on a business, or pursue an occupation or profession not in itself hurtful, or conducted in a manner injurious to the public, is a common right, which, under our Constitution as construed by all our former decisions, can neither be prohibited or hampered by laying a tax for state revenue on the occupation, employment, business, or profession.” (verified source: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/authorities/Circuit/SimsV.Ahrens2…)
PRO SE COMPLAINTS MUST BE AIDED BY COURT:
#?. “the Supreme Court has instructed the district courts to construe pro se complaints liberally and to apply a more flexible standard in determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint than they would in reviewing a pleading submitted by counsel. See e.g., Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10, 101 S.Ct. 173, 175-76, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (per curiam); see also Elliott v. Bronson, 872 F.2d 20, 21 (2d Cir.1989) (per curiam). AND: In order to justify the dismissal of a pro se complaint, it must be ” ‘beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’ ” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. at 521, 92 S.Ct. at 594 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)).” … “Platsky, however, premised his actions on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). AND: “Bivens established that the victims of a constitutional violation by a federal agent have a right to recover damages against the official in federal court despite the absence of any statute conferring such a right.” Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 18, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 1471, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980). As the district court recognized, even in Bivens actions jurisdictional limitations permit a plaintiff to sue only the federal government officials responsible for violating the plaintiff’s constitutional rights; a plaintiff cannot sue the agency for which the officials work. See Mack v. United States, 814 F.2d 120, 122-23 (2d Cir.1987). Cf. Leonhard v. United States, 633 F.2d 599, 618 n. 27 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 908, 101 S.Ct. 1975, 68 L.Ed.2d 295 (1981). AND: Instead of simply dismissing the complaints for naming federal agencies as the defendants, it would have been appropriate for the district judge to explain the correct form to the pro se plaintiff so that Platsky could have amended his pleadings accordingly.” 953 F.2d 26; 21 Fed.R.Serv.3d 97; Henry PLATSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Defendant-Appellee.; Henry PLATSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FBI; and Department of Defense, Defense Intelligence Agency, Defendant-Appellees. Nos. 216, 217, Dockets 91-6109, 91-6113. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued Oct. 3, 1991. Decided Nov. 25, 1991. (verified source: http://openjurist.org/953/f2d/26/platsky-v-central-intelligence-age…).
Isn’t the unlicensed practice of law one of the first topics they cover in law school?
Speaking of practicing thuh lahw:
(Guardian).
Please, can someone explain to me why an Attorney can practice law without a license and be called a licensed Attorney, when all he has is a Bar Association Card and a permit to practice in a particular STATE?
“Stupid lady who got off easy. It is not a good rule of thumb to lie to judges.”
Especially if you know the derivation of the term “rule of thumb”, raff.
Dog:
Typo, I should have wrote [control] [ – ]
Stupid lady who got off easy. It is not a good rule of thumb to lie to judges.
Dogbiscuitguy:
If you are using Windows and IE you might try holding the control key down on your keyboard then rotating the wheel on your mouse away from you at the same time, it will adjust the font. Or, you can do at the same time [control] + (the plus symbol with control)
Isn’t Barratry taught in lawschool 101?
Anyone who passes a basic competency exam in their chosen field
of law – traffic, landlord-tenant etc. and procedure and evidence, should be allowed to represent people in court.
One of the key functions of the ABA is to protect their members’ monopoly on who can legally practice law.
I’m good with people being free to practice law (or hairdressing or whatever) without a license…. Most official licensing schemes I’ve heard of are basically protection rackets for the providers against competition, not an assurance of quality.
But it’s absolutely “not” OK to misrepresent yourself as something you arent, or that you have credentials or education you dont actually have… and that’s where I suppose this case is different than most.
In an ideal world, she would be subject to fraud/misrepresentation charges (or whatever the legal verbiage is) instead of “practicing without a license”.
Practicing what without a license?
It should be illegal to practice T-Bagging without a license, not thuh lahw.
What is up with the HUGE FONT ON THE BLOG?
How did she do for the client?
Probably better than some …. But still a shame…..
What is the problem? She is just an undocumented lawyer trying to get ahead. She even speaks lawyer too and is doing work that many lawyers won’t do since it is nickel and dime stuff.