Apologize in advance, don't mean to steal a thread.
Does it make you wonder why lawyers and doctors practice for years? When do they actually go play?
Printable View
Apologize in advance, don't mean to steal a thread.
Does it make you wonder why lawyers and doctors practice for years? When do they actually go play?
[QUOTE=GeoFisher;409206]I'm still not convinced..........
If she simply wanted to NOT practice law, that could have been handled via the Bar Association.[/QUOTE]Not true, and I've already posted this twice. I like you, so I'll do it one more time. Please read it: [B]"At the time, the only way you could get your license set to inactive was to get a court order.[/B]"
I don't think I need to tell you that bar associations cannot issue court orders. And really, if she simply wanted to not practice law, she could have just stopped taking cases. But like most other attorneys who have left the practice of law, she decided she'd rather not have to pay renewal fees on a license she wasn't using, or have to take continuing education classes.
[QUOTE=GeoFisher;409206]Lets, See.........Harvard Educated Lawyer (who took the bar 2 times), works for one of the best firms in Chicago, then goes to work for Daly, one of the most corrupt persons EVER in politics.[/QUOTE] Finally, a nugget of truth!
[QUOTE=GeoFisher;409206]THEN a year later, she decides to not renew her law license.........and uses 770 as a smoke screen[/QUOTE][B]"In the event that she did go on inactive status and she engaged in any disbarrable offenses, there would be a disciplinary case of public record." [/B][B]He continued, "Just because someone goes on inactive it doesn't deprive us of the jurisdiction to prosecute."[/B]
So just how is her using 770 a "smokescreen?" Even if she's inactive, she can still be disbarred.
[QUOTE=GeoFisher;409206]THEN 1 year later, they start looking into changing the 770 statute to be more CLEAR.[/QUOTE][B]Inundated by numerous 770 filings that each required a separate court ruling, the Illinois Supreme Court later simplified the inactivation process.[/B]
[QUOTE=GeoFisher;409206]HM.
Yea, I wonder.
Later,
Geo[/QUOTE]
I wonder something, too. Why is it that, instead of posting reasonable, fact-based criticisms of President Obama and his policies, you're posting LIES and INNUENDO to defame the man's WIFE? Seems to me if you just stuck to the facts about the POTUS, you'd still have plenty of material.