Does Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth “Sitting Bull” Warren have a “law license problem”?

Once again, blogger and law professor William Jacobson takes on the investigative work the mainstream media won’t touch.

Warren represented not just Travelers, but numerous other companies starting in the late 1990s working out of and using her Harvard Law School office in Cambridge, which she listed as her office of record on briefs filed with various courts.  Warren, however, never has been licensed to practice law in Massachusetts.

As detailed below, there are at least two provisions of Massachusetts law Warren may have violated.  First, on a regular and continuing basis she used her Cambridge office for the practice of law without being licensed in Massachusetts.  Second, in addition to operating an office for the practice of law without being licensed in Massachusetts, Warren actually practiced law in Massachusetts without being licensed.

As Jacobson points out, Warren is not licensed to practice law in Massachusetts, though she used her Cambridge office address when filing Supreme Court briefs. Does that constitute a violation of the law?

Read the whole thing and decide if Fauxcahontas speak with forked tongue. Either way, the opportunity to mock Elizabeth “Running Joke” Warren is irresistible.

A conservative previews the left-wing push-back:

If Lie-awatha will pass herself off as a licensed Cherokee lawyer, what else is she hiding?

Seriously, where does she get this stuff?

Warren admitted this morning that she is not licensed to practice law in Massachusetts.

But there remains some question about whether Warren broke the law while filing briefs from her 1/32 authentic Cambridge wigwam.

One of Jim Geraghty’s readers writes:

You do not need to be licensed to practice law in Massachusetts to practice law in federal courts located in Massachusetts or anywhere else.  Federal courts decide who can practice before them, and individual states can’t tell federal courts that an attorney cannot practice before them.  It’s that whole supremacy clause thing.  Constitution 101 and all that.

Other lawyers weigh in:

We’re sure the loyal lapdog media will be all over this in 3 … 2 … never.