Investors Hangout Stock Message Boards Logo
  • Home
  • Mailbox
  • Boards
  • Favorites
  • Whats Hot!
  • Login - Join Now!
Innovation Pharmaceuticals IPIX
Posted On: 06/30/2016 12:24:32 AM
Post# of 72447
Posted By: Darwinian
Anyone have knowledge enough to comment on this last part of Mr. Stern's response?

Federal Courts have the inherent power to sanction the unauthorized practice of law.
United States v. Johnson, 327 F.3d 554, 561 (7th Cir. 2003); Drake v. Ham, No. CIV.A. 3:06-
1611MJPJ, 2007 WL 2302575, at *2 (D.S.C. Aug. 9, 2007). Mr. Sullivan has unambiguously
committed the unauthorized practice of law. “‘Practice of law’ includes ‘the preparation of legal
instruments of all kinds, and in general all advice to clients and all action taken for them in
matters connected with the law.’”
United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of Am., AFL-CIO, No. 88 CIV. 4486 (DNE), 1996 WL 383237, *3
(S.D.N.Y. July 8, 1996) (quoting In re Schwerzmann, 408 N.Y.S.2d 187, 189 (App. Div. 1978)).
Mr. Sullivan committed the unauthorized practice of law by preparing, signing and serving upon
Plaintiffs a motion for sanctions without first obtaining pro hac vice admission before this Court.













(0)
(0)









  • New Post - Investors HangoutNew Post

  • Public Reply - Investors HangoutPublic Reply

  • Private Reply - Investors HangoutPrivate Reply

  • Board - Investors HangoutBoard

  • More - Investors HangoutMore

  • Keep Post - Investors HangoutKeep Post
  • Report Post - Investors HangoutReport Post
  • Home - Investors HangoutHome
  • Mailbox - Investors HangoutMailbox
  • Boards - Investors HangoutBoards
  • Favorites - Investors HangoutFavorites
  • Whats Hot! - Investors HangoutWhats Hot!
  • Settings - Investors HangoutSettings
  • Login - Investors HangoutLogin
  • Live Site - Investors HangoutLive Site