“I met Michelle in the summer of 1988, while we were both working at Sidley & Austin, a large corporate law firm based in Chicago. Although she is three years younger than me, Michelle was already a practicing lawyer, having attended Harvard Law straight out of college. I had just finished my first year at law school and had been hired as a summer associate.”
The problem is that this is demonstrably wrong. According to the Illinois State Supreme Court Web site, Michelle Robinson, later Michelle Obama was not admitted to the Illinois bar until May 1989, the following year. She was not licensed to practice law in 1988. https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=896974623
Thanks for all the work. I found the mother's birth certificate to be unreadable. Then you basically lost me at beloved Negroes. Pursuing a PhD is not the same as getting a PhD, and thousands of student with ABD would tell you that. Then there is just a lot of criticism of style, and dates which are less than a year off. The Michelle bar thing is worth looking at.
As it turns out, in Illinois, a law student, like Michelle, can "practice law", although they cannot call themselves Esq or Attorney at Law, etc.
STUDENT COURT APPEARANCES FOR REQUESTING CONTINUANCES
In Cook County many branch courts sit simultaneously and many pretrial and motion calls are held at the same time. It is often difficult or impossible for an attorney to answer every call for which he is attorney-of-record. This problem is occasionally solved by the use of clerks or law students to anser such calls, explain the attorney's absence, and request a continuance. The question is at what point do such appearances constitute the unauthorized practice of law?
Specifically, the question is whether law students, other than those licensed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 711, may make court appearances on behalf of attorneys to request continuances. Such students are not authorized to practice law, so the question becomes, does such action constitute the practice of law? The Illinois Appellate Court, First District, has held that requesting a continuance does not amount to the unauthorized practice of law.
The definition of practice of law is the province of the courts, rather than the legislatures. Lowell Bar Assn. v. Loeb, 315 Mass. 176, 52 N.E. 2d 27 (1943); People ex rel. Chicago Bar Assn. v. Goodman, 366 Ill. 346, 8 N.E.2d 941 (1937). The courts have not attempted to arrive at a comprehensive definition of the practice of law. Id. At 351. The line drawn by the courts usually divides between ministerial or preparatory matters and activities amounting to "management" of the litigation. Law Clerks and The Unauthorized Practice of Law, 46 Chi [-] Kent L. Rev. 214 (1969). (See EXHIBIT H1-H9). The Supreme Court of Washington, in defining the limits of clerk's participation stated:
The line of demarcation as to where their work begins and where it ends cannot always be drawn with absolute distinction or accuracy. Probably as nearly as it can be fixed, and it is sufficient to say that it is work of a preparatory nature, such as research, investigation of
details, the assemblage of data and other necessary information, and such other work as will assist the employing attorney in carrying the matter to a completed product, either by his personal examination and approval thereof, or by additional effort on his part. The work must be such, however, as loses its separate identity and becomes either the product, or else merged in the product, of the attorney himself.
Ferris v. Snively, 172 Wash. 167, 176-77, 19 P.2d 942, 945-946 (1933).
If the work of the student clerk is such that it assumes an identity of its own, that is it reflects his own management of the litigation rather than ministerial work under the direction of an attorney, it constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. One is practicing law when s/he "assumes the general control of the action." Tom Edwards Chevrolet, Inc. v. Air-Cel, Inc., 13 Ill App. 3d 378, 379, 300 N.E.2d 312, 313 (2d Dist. 1973).
The legal profession, perhaps wisely, has declined to attempt to define the nature of legal services. It only asserts a monopoly over the exercise of 'professional judgement' on behalf of clients.....
Siegfried Hesse, "General Practitioners and Legal Assistants: A Position Paper," 36 Unauthorized Practice News, 1, 2 (March, 1971).
It would seem that a purely ministerial act, such as asking for a continuance date at the direction of an attorney would not amount to management or control of the litigation, or the exercise of professional judgment. This view was adopted in Illinois in the case of People v. Alexander, 53 Ill. App. 2d 299, 202 N.E.2d 841 (1st Dist. 1964). (See EXHIBIT Il-I3). The Alexander case involved an appeal from a judgement adjudging defendant guilty of contempt of court for the unauthorized practice of law. Alexander, a law student clerk, had appeared and advised the court that the trial attorney was engaged in a trial in the federal court. The appellate court, in reversing the contempt conviction, stated:
We agree with the trial judge that clerks should not be permitted to make motions or participate in other proceedings which can be considered as 'managing' the litigation. However, if apprising the court of an employer's engagement or inability to be present constitutes the making of a motion, we must hold that clerks may make such motions for continuances without being guilty of the unauthorized practice of law. Certainly with the large volume of cases appearing on the trial calls these days, it is imperative that this practice be followed.
Id. At 843.
In reaching this conclusion, the court recognized the necessity of protecting both the public and the legal profession against the dangers of the practice of law by those not professionally trained and educated. But when the activities performed by clerks or student are purely ministerial, these interests ate outweighed by the need to assure more efficient operation of the courts and to more properly allocate the skills and efforts of attorneys:
We cannot add to the heavy burden of lawyers who in addition to responding to trial calls must answer pretrial calls and motions calls - all held in the morning - by insisting that a lawyer must personally appear to present to a court a motion for a continuance on grounds of engagement or inability to appear because of illness or other unexpected circumstances. To reduce the backlog, trial lawyers should be kept busy actually trying lawsuits and not answering court calls.
Id. At 844.
Nice try, but you miss the point.
A law student who can go to court to request continuances under Cook County Local Rules is not a "practicing lawyer." A "practicing lawyer" has to have a license to "practice" law, even in Illinois. The Illinois State Supreme Court's web site is very clear on this point. Note that Obama says he worked at Sidley and Austin in 1988 after completing his first year at Harvard Law. Obama's official biography is that his first year at Harvard was from the fall of 1988 to the spring of 1989. This means that the summer after his first year at Harvard had to be 1989, not 1988. Are you saying that his official biography is wrong about when he attended Harvard? If you're defending his new version of the facts, that version is completely different from other, more official versions of his academic history.
Also, Obama says he was hired as a "
summer associate." Another lie. In the legal profession, the term "associate" has a very specific meaning, rather like the term "Intern" has a specific meaning in the Medical profession. In the legal profession, the term "associate" refers to a duly licensed practicing attorney who is an employee rather than a partner or principal in the law firm. In the medical profession, an "intern" is a Medical Doctor practicing medicine under the oversight of a hospital. Law students who get summer jobs at law firms are called "clerks," not associates. In the summer of 1989, Michelle was an "associate" because she was licensed to practice law. Obama, an unlicensed law student doing a summer job, was a "clerk". (Rhymes with jerk).
Any one can practice law in the sense of doing research or having an opinion, but this is not what the Obamas said in their book. Again,.... a law student is not a "practicing lawyer" except in Haiti or Zimbabwe. We haven't sunk that far quite yet, although if you take the trouble to read Michelle Obama's senior thesis from Princeton University, you may be shaken to see how far we have sunk when someone like her gets into Harvard Law School.
The point of my exercise is that Obama is vague to the point of deception about his background, even as to the most basic facts such as his birth date. You can bend yourself into a pretzel to find excuses, but the man is a fraud at many levels. His history was created for him by others, and that's why there are so many contradictions and why he sometimes screws up and gets confused about the life that has been created for him by others.
In 2009 he attended an international conference of Latin American leaders. After he was pummeled by them for all the sins of the dirty rotten white racist gringos and for the Bay of Pigs Invasion, Obama got up and said that it was wrong to judge him for the Bay of Pigs event because he was only 3 months old at the time. Well.....The Bay of Pigs invasion was staged in April 1961. His official date of birth, August 4, 1961, is 4 months after the Bay of Pigs.
If he was three months old in mid April 1961 as he publicly stated in 2009, that means his date of birth was in January 1961! 
Like many deceivers who live double lives, Obama sometimes gets confused under pressure and crosses over the line between them.
This is only one of Obama's public departures from his "official biography" and well established historical facts. There are many others...
He was quoted by a UPI reporter that he was born at "Queen's Hospital" in Honolulu. The official version of his birth is that he was born at Kapiolani Hospital. Another slip up by a double talking imposter who confused his double lives.
He stated that his uncle Payne, serving in the US Army, helped liberate Auschwitz. Well Auschwitz was in Poland....on the
Eastern Front and was occupied by the Red Army. The US Army was fighting on the
Western Front on the other side of the continent. This man does not know the most basic history of the facts of WW2. How do you get a degree in international relations from Columbia University and not know the most basic facts of the history of WW2 and the Cold War?
He is an imposter who signs and says whatever is put in front of him.
