About Simple J. Malarkey

  • …pops off on his blog and the national media that Warren is violating standards of legal ethics.  Yet, as the link points out, Jacobson has not filed a formal complaint with the Bar Overseers.  That is because it is a very big deal for one lawyer to formally state another lawyer is acting unethically.  Jacobson’s 1st amendment right allows him to post whatever political drool he wants, but his is bound by the code of legal ethics to not file false charges against another lawyer.  That, no doubt, is why Jacobson is limiting his fire to his blog posting and not filing a formal complaint.  If he did and it was determined that it was a false and frivolous complaint, it would be Jacobson’s legal reputation that would be hurt.  

    That is why you may see Jacobson continue this assault in the political arena and will not have the guts to formally accuse Warren within the bounds of the legal arena, because not only will he lose, but he will be left with a legal black-eye.  

  • This is the top conservative law blog.


    A post from the ABA Journal:


    Legal Ethics Forum:


  • It seems she let both of her state licenses go to inactive status (or ineligible in NJ) when she got the Harvard job, and didn’t want to pay the dues or fulfill the requirements to become licensed in Massachusetts. Why didn’t she get licensed in Massachusetts? Is she that cheap and lazy? Does she think tenured Harvard professors are automatically licensed and eligible to file amicus briefs in federal courts, and don’t need to do any of that union dues stuff?

    She got paid lots of money on these cases, working for corporations against unions, and also not paying the union dues, and yet she’s got the unions behind her. Hopefully the actual dues-payers will take note that she’s so anti-union when she is not a Democratic candidate. She’s their candidate because the feminists liked her work for divorcing women.

  • The Massachusetts (Defense) Lawyers Weekly poll is running 87-13 in favor of a BBO investigation.  Maybe it’s not a non-issue afterall.



  • Now is the time to make bets about whether Brown mentions the law license thing during the debate.  That should speak a bit to just how bullshit this all is.

    I go with it not being mentioned by Brown in debate.

  • edfactor

    I plan to vote for Senator Brown with great enthusiasm because of his positions on the issues in contrast to those of Professor Warren.

    It would be nice to see online conservative activists, like Rob Eno, using their influence, to make the case for the ideas and voting record of the guy they support. But…. that doesn’t raise traffic numbers, I suppose.

    What we have instead is a never-ending frantic search for some gotcha moment, some minor issue, that will reveal some quintessential truth about Professor Warren that will relieve us from the responsibility of actually learning about the issues and thinking about the candidates.

    (It isn’t that positions and votes are everything. For instance, I think it matters that Professor Warren is both a sometime-cheerleader for OWS and yet worked on behalf of large corporations as a lawyer. I don’t want to go as far as calling her a hypocrite, but I would hope a debate moderator would ask her – and Scott Brown – for their underlying views on how we should deal with corporations in America.)

    As for this story, my first reaction was ‘who cares?’. What lawyers can do, where they are licensed, what is and is not legal work – is complicated stuff. If Professor Warren has violated some rule, I am sure there will be some consequences. Does this matter in the campaign? I don’t think so. If there is some black-and-white major problem, I haven’t seen it. If it does come to light, it will be impartial observers whom I will believe.

    I know what the disciples of Brietbart will say, “THIS GOES TO HER CHARACTER!” I hate this ploy in politics. You ask some minor issue that someone wasn’t paying attention to some years back, and if they don’t have an immediate, crystal-clear, well-documented explanation, you fan the flames for a few days, and when the public is confused, you claim that this person can’t get their story straight, and then shout they are a bad person because of this. (This is what happened with the native American thing. Oh – if anyone here wants a comprehensive, neutral look at that story, this is the best I have seen online  on this issue.)

    There are plenty of legitimate issues to raise regarding this senate race. Professor Warren should be under great scrutiny and so should Senator Brown. I would hope that conservative activists would dedicate time to discussing the important issues and finding new ways to explain them to voters. But no – all they want is to is hold up the pitchforks and torches and put Professor Warren on trial for being a witch, instead of putting her on trial as a senate candidate.

  • Rob “EaBo Clipper” Eno

    Grab an article from the 24th.  The first day of the story.  Before I dug up the fact she hasn’t be licensed in Texas as she said, and from Before the person from the BBO said it was his personal, not professional opinion to Legal Insurrection, and before it was uncovered that she did work for a Massachusetts client in massachusetts.  

    Who is obfuscating and blowing smoke?