THe Constitutionality of Unauthorized Practice of Law Rules?
Do any laymen here understand this Babelfish from our highest court? Could this affect a ruling on the first & second amendments in the future?
serf
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/is-it-time-to-revisit-the-constitutionality-of-unauthorized-practice-of-law-rules
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, characterized the law as a content-based regulation of speech that would usually be subject to strict scrutiny, but it discussed whether a lower level of scrutiny should be applied to the law because it was a regulation of ?professional speech.?[16] The Court held that it had not ?recognized ?professional speech? as a separate category of speech,?[17] although it did not foreclose the possibility that a reason might exist for treating content-based regulations of professional speech differently from content-based regulations of other kinds of speech.[18]
NIFLA casts grave doubt on both of these possibilities. It notes that certain lower courts have recognized professional speech as a separate category, defining it as speech by individuals who provide personalized services to clients based on their expert knowledge and judgment and who are subject to a generally applicable licensing scheme.[58] But the Court asserts that any lower level of scrutiny for professional speech in its own cases had nothing to do with the fact that professionals were speaking.
In the age of electronic communication, why would a state need to have attorneys admitted to its bar maintain a physical office in its jurisdiction in order to serve them with process?[63] A cynic might think that the rules primarily serve the purposes of restricting competition in the legal profession and lining the coffers of bar associations.
serf
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/is-it-time-to-revisit-the-constitutionality-of-unauthorized-practice-of-law-rules
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, characterized the law as a content-based regulation of speech that would usually be subject to strict scrutiny, but it discussed whether a lower level of scrutiny should be applied to the law because it was a regulation of ?professional speech.?[16] The Court held that it had not ?recognized ?professional speech? as a separate category of speech,?[17] although it did not foreclose the possibility that a reason might exist for treating content-based regulations of professional speech differently from content-based regulations of other kinds of speech.[18]
NIFLA casts grave doubt on both of these possibilities. It notes that certain lower courts have recognized professional speech as a separate category, defining it as speech by individuals who provide personalized services to clients based on their expert knowledge and judgment and who are subject to a generally applicable licensing scheme.[58] But the Court asserts that any lower level of scrutiny for professional speech in its own cases had nothing to do with the fact that professionals were speaking.
In the age of electronic communication, why would a state need to have attorneys admitted to its bar maintain a physical office in its jurisdiction in order to serve them with process?[63] A cynic might think that the rules primarily serve the purposes of restricting competition in the legal profession and lining the coffers of bar associations.
0
-
I think your assumption to be basically correct.
In this particular case, the defendant was physically in Ohio, though working for clients in Kentucky where she was a member of the bar. I seems Kentucky was fine with this, but some in Ohio wanted her application to the Ohio bar rejected because of the work she had done. It seems odd that Ohio would care whether a lawyer who was a member of the bar in Kentucky was working for clients in Kentucky, but apparently someone got his shorts in a wad.
I don't see this so much as a freedom of speech issue as a licensing issue, as you suggested.
To compare this to a 2nd Amendment issue, one only need review the regulations as to where and to whom a FFL holder can sell firearms. This type of case would be fairly well covered under current law.0 -
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Unfortunately policy and wrong interpretation of precedent have changed the meanings and intent of the the first amendment so it no longer looks acts and protects as it should.
Same is happening to the second and all the principles this nation was founded on.
In regards to the "bar", just another self proclaimed good ole boys club to protect their own interests.
For instance, if you had enough influence, you could band together and create your own police force, judicial system and rules as long as you had the means to defend yourself. You would then defacto be the law of the land.
Money definitely changes the landscape, money buys power. Power keeps the little people in line, thus they are lawmakers, enforcers and rulers of the land. No piece of paper or contract is valid unless the opposing side can force them to abide.
The "second" is only as good as the men who are willing to defend it. The "first" is all lawyer talk, manipulation, misdirection and lies.
So really, there are a couple of ways to look at it. Play by THEIR rules, or not. The illegals crossing to border do not care to play by the rules and are winning.0 -
With special speech being a new weapon upon we the people as a whole to seek justice then it's just another tool to thwart any attempt to seek justice in a court of law in The District of Columbia. It's slick Babelfish with special courts and even has special speech now.
serf
https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/JLPP/upload/Fraser-et-al-final-3.pdf
Finally, Congress tends to grant the D.C. Circuit exclusive jurisdiction over matters that are likely to have a national effect.
The preceding sections demonstrate in detail what most administrative law students, scholars, and practitioners already know: the D.C. Cir-cuit plays a special role in administrative law, as well as in otherimportant, quintessentially federal subject matter areas like national defense. After digging past this initial clarity, however, the meaning is hard to come by.Why exactly is the D.C. Circuit special?
Senator Charles Schumer of New York remarked:[W]e are talking about nothing less momentous than a lifetime appointment to what is generally regarded as the second-most important court in the land, a court of great importance to those of us who sit in the Senate or the house, because it has such jurisdiction over governmental issues, and years after this nomination, this court is going to influence a great deal what this Congress and future Congresses have done.0 -
These long winded rulings do more harm than good. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
4 comments