United States Supreme Court Interesting Fact

[Gregory Matthews]

Did you know that in the past, one could be a U.S. Supreme Court judge and not be a law school graduate.

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

Robert Houghwout Jackson (February 13, 1892 – October 9, 1954) was United States Attorney General (1940–1941) and an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1941–1954). He was also the chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials. A "county-seat lawyer", he remains the last Supreme Court justice appointed who did not graduate from any law school (though Justice Stanley Reed who served from 1938 to 1957 was the last such justice to serve on the court), although he did attend Albany Law School in Albany, New York for one year. He is remembered for his famous advice that "any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to the police under any circumstances"[1] and for his aphorism describing the Supreme Court, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."[2] Many lawyers revere Justice Jackson as one of the best writers on the court, and one of the most committed to due process protections from overreaching federal agencies.

Judges Jackson and Reed are both interesting people as to their working lives. Wikepedia has a lot to say about both, for those who are interested.

Both did attend law school. But, neither graduated. NOTE: I Believe that there were other Supreme Court judges who also did not graduate from law school. But, these were the two last ones who did not so graduate.

The bottom line is: One does not, even in the present, nave to graduate from law school on order to practice as a lawyer.

[phkrause]

Well that's interesting!

[Tom Wetmore]

The bottom line is: One does not, even in the present, nave to graduate from law school on order to practice as a lawyer.

Actually not exactly correct. All states require a license to practice law. Almost all states require lawyers to have graduated from law school in order to take the bar exam, a prerequisite to being licensed to practice law. A few states don't require it to have been an accredited law school (California is one of those states.) A few states allow a person to take the bar exam without graduating from any law school, but may allow it to be taken after some study of the law under the supervision of a judge or a practicing lawyer for an extended period of time, sometimes referred to as "reading the law". And at least one state allows taking the exam after two years of law school (usual 3 required to graduate) and serving an apprenticeship with a practicing lawyer.

Once a lawyer is licensed to practice law in one state, other states may have reciprocity rules that allow being admitted to practice law without taking the full exam again in the new state after having practice law in the first state for a period of years. Some states have no such reciprocity and require one to pass the bar exam regardless of years of practice or even being a Justice of the Supreme Court.

Which brings us to judges. Being a judge is not practicing law as a lawyer. Some states and particular courts (like the US Supreme Court) still do allow non-lawyers to be appointed or elected as judges. (Not a great idea, IMHO) But if that judge retires from the bench, even after many years as a judge, he or she still could not practice law without a license.

[Gregory Matthews]

This is what I had in mind.

Quote:

A few states allow a person to take the bar exam without graduating from any law school, but may allow it to be taken after some study of the law under the supervision of a judge or a practicing lawyer for an extended period of time, sometimes referred to as "reading the law".

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Being a judge is not practicing law as a lawyer.

Exactly.

And, representing a client before a judge may not be "practicing law" and therefore may be done by one who is not an attorney.

I had a friend (She has now died.) who when her health deteriorated gave up her license to practice law. She continued, until just prior to her death, to represent Social Security clients before Social Security Administrative Law Judges.

Litigation was her expertise and law firms hired her to do the litigation. They prepared the case and she represented the client.

As she did not prepare the case, she did not practice law.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Quote:

Some states and particular courts (like the US Supreme Court) still do allow non-lawyers to be appointed or elected as judges.

O.o scary!! wouldn't it be rather like assigning a milkman to do complex chemical analysis of each pint of milk he sells?

[Tom Wetmore]

A couple technicalities on your friend. At an administrative law level hearing, the particular agency sets qualification for representatives. For example, At administrative level, a CPA can represent a client before the IRS. And the situation you describe may have technically been allowed since she was working under supervision of licensed lawyers who assume responsibility for the representation. A paralegal under supervision can do quite a bit for clients in terms of legal practice.

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes, it is true that the licensed lawyers prepared the case and dwelt with the client and she only litigated it.

However, let me give another example: Again my example comes from the Administrative law side.

NOTE: For others reading here, law has a number of branches. There is civil law, criminal law, maritime law, administrative law, space law (I once worked with a person who married to an attorney who was trained and degreed in space law--form a Canadian University.) and other areas of law.

In the field of employment law and in litigating before administrative law judges a representative of a Federal labor union may under the laws that apply to Federal labor unions represent clients before Federal administrative law judges without supervision by a licensed attorney. In addition, this is also true for people who are not licensed lawyers and who are not representing clients in a labor union role.

In the Denver area such people who are not licensed lawyers and are not representing clients in a labor union role have a standard charge of about $5,000 to litigate such a case before the Merit Systems Protection Board or the Federal Labor Relations Board. NOTE: I have only listed two such administrative courts and there are others. NOTE: Labor unions would not charge the employee that $5,000 fee. NOTE: For a licensed attorney to take such a case, outside of a contract with a labor union would likely cost the client about $75,000.

The above is also true for Federal Workman's Compensation cases with a major exception. In such a case, the representation has to be done by a labor union representative who is representing a member of that specific labor union. It cannot be done by someone else.

How are such people trained, if they never have gone to law school? They are given specialized training. In the Denver area that local people charging the $5,000 are generally former labor union people who have litigated hundreds of cases. The labor unions give specialized training to the people who represent their members generally conducted by non-lawyers who have personally litigated hundreds of cases.

Also the administrative law judges and law employment law firms conduct training of such people. About three years ago, a major Federal Employment Law Firm, who litigates over the Western United States and further East, offered a week of training to such labor union representatives. During this training senior judges of Federal administrative law courts lectured as to how they expected clients to be represented in their courts. Almost 70 people attended that training, non of whom were licensed lawyers and they came from as far away as Hawaii.

Some labor unions have outside lawyers on a retainer to advice. Other labor union have their own staff lawyers to litigate.

NOTE: My comments here all apply to the Federal employment area. They may not be accurate for other employment areas.

[Tom Wetmore]

Another example is the role of what is known as guardian ad litem appointed by the court to serve the interests of children, and other vulnerable people in court and administrative proceedings. Depending on the state/court rules the guardian need not always be a lawyer.