The Problem with Attorney Licensing
The California Supreme Court described the purpose of attorney licensing as follows:
(14) HN11 “The State Bar Act is designed to provide a procedure whereby those attorneys at law who prove recreant to their trust may be removed from the ranks of the profession. The public, as well as the legal profession and the courts must be protected from those who do not measure up to their responsibilities. [****21] Government largely depends upon the stability of the courts and, to a considerable extent, upon the integrity of the members of the legal profession. CA(15) (15) The purpose of disbarment proceedings is not to punish the individual but to determine whether the attorney should continue in that capacity” ( Dudney v. State Bar (1937) 8 Cal.2d 555, 563 [66 P.2d 1199]); “in short to reform the offender or else remove him from practice” ( Hill v. State Bar (1935) 2 Cal.2d 622, 625 [42 P.2d 629]). The principal objective is to protect the court and the public from the official ministrations of persons unfit to practice. ( Black v. State Bar (1972) 7 Cal.3d 676, 688 [103 Cal.Rptr. 288, 499 P.2d 968]; Zitny v. State Bar (1966) 64 Cal.2d 787, 790-791, fn. 1 [51 Cal.Rptr. 825, 415 P.2d 521].)
[Emslie v. State Bar of Cal., 11 Cal.3d. 210 (1974)]
In the above article, they use the phrase “recreant” to describe bad attorneys:
Recreant: Adjective
1 : crying for mercy : COWARDLY
2 : unfaithful to duty or allegiance
Recreant: noun
1 : COWARD
2 : APOSTATE, DESERTER
[Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Recreant]
What’s wrong with this picture? A licensed attorney who places allegiance to the court above that of his/her client ALSO qualifies as a “recreant” because they have conflicting allegiance. “No man can serve two masters” as Jesus said in Matt. 6:24 and Luke 16:13. This is ESPECIALLY true in cases where you are litigating against the government or a public servant. Attorney licensing revocation should be PROHIBITED in such cases but never is. This conflict of interest on the part of ALL licensed attorneys is why you should avoid ever hiring one to begin with. It is also why attorneys cannot argue your constitutional rights on your behalf. Only YOU can!
“The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person.” [Bold added.]
[United States v. Johnson et al., 76 F.Supp. 538 (1947)]
What we have concluded is that any profession where they continue to practice on you means you are never anything more than a Guinea pig. We request a return call when they FINALLY have figured it out and are ready for game time and not still practicing.
For more information on the evils of attorney licensing, see:
Unlicensed Practice of Law, Form #05.029** (Member Subscriptions)
https://sedm.org/product/unlicensed-practice-of-law-form-05-029/