Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren kept a private law practice in her Harvard office in Cambridge for years, despite the fact that she does not appear to be licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. William Jacobson of the blog Legal Insurrection does the heavy lifting on this story:
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. Warren refused to disclose the full extent of her private law practice when asked by The Boston Globe. If Warren denies that she has practiced law in Massachusetts without a license, Warren should disclose the full extent of her private law practice. The public has a right to assess whether Warren has failed to comply with the most basic requirement imposed on others, the need to become a member of the Bar of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in order to practice law in and from Massachusetts.
Be sure to read the whole thing, including Jacobson's methodical exploration of several possible scenarios regarding Warren's practice of law.
Warren's opponent, Republican senator Scott Brown, has a new ad out documenting the controversy over Warren's claim of Native American heritage. The ad ends with a clip of a reporter asking Warren if the public will learn anything else about her. "You know, I don't think so," Warren replies in the clip. "But who knows?"