I don’t know if this is applicable to the field of law, but I’m a mechanical engineer by education and license, however I currently work in finance, not at all in mechanical engineering anymore, not for years. BUT I still consider and call myself a mechanical engineer, and I still hold the state licensure.
). I see her trying to get revenge on those she feels have wronged her. You can tell how much she cares about other people's opinions about her life decisions. I'm sure she reads here religiously and fumes at the truth we speak . I see her manipulating her lovers into all manner of scenarios, and always ready to throw another under the bus in order to make herself look innocent. I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her, and I'm sure her "friends" sense that tit too. Actually, now that I think about it “lawyer” is really a job role, not a degree, right? So technically she could continue to call herself a “JD” (not sure if she is one) and that would be correct, but not “lawyer” since she ISN’T A LAWYER. I think? Like someone with a PhD is still Dr. XYZ, but not a “lawyer” if working at Starbucks currently. Someone who knows, please weigh in.
Rick T. Miller
I agree with your point, my dad is a ceramic engineer but mostly does sourcing now, when people ask it is is easier to say he is a ceramic engineer, same for other engineers I know who don't directly engineer anymore, being an engineer helps them with their job. But I think in elle's case a lawyer is a job title. In a case where you have to be licensed to work in that area I think calling yourself a lawyer when you don't have that job title is wrong. There are lots of healthcare jobs where pharmacists, nurses, physicians etc can work and aren't doing typical day work to what you expect, but in their job description it still requires you to be licensed to do that job. In those cases you are still a physician or nurse or pharmacist, bc your job requires that for you to keep your license do your job. With elle's job yeah it helps that she did law degrees but it isnt necessary and when you have a job where you have to pass the bar/board/licensure exam and you do a job that doesn't require that licensure that's when I think you can't really call yourself xyz.
To call yourself a lawyer, you MUST pass the bar. But in almost all jurisdictions, you are additionally required to pass a second exam called the MPRE (Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam), which is basically a test on lawyers' ethics and standards of conduct. Without passing BOTH of those exams, one cannot call themselves a lawyer as they have not met the prerequisites to practice law in their respective jurisdiction. After you pass these two exams, you get sworn-in to the State Bar (some Bar Associations do HUGE swearing-in ceremonies, but you can always do a private ceremony with a judge who may have been a mentor to you). Then you get your bar card, and congrats, you're a full-fledged attorney!
Lol! Basically you’re saying she ain’t young OR professional
100% she's running around town playing dress up in tie dye and chunky sandals, YET AGAIN like she did as a Florida resident in Lily and as a lawyer in blazers and dresses, as what? In house counsel at a tech company? Okay Eleanore Lecocq.
I agree with this analysis and also the assertion that it is a bit pedantic, but it's still a commonly-held belief in the industry. I graduated law school and then had a few months before I could take the bar, and my mom would joke that I was a lawyer, but it was truly uncomfortable to refer to myself as that when I didn't yet have my license. And I wouldn't refer to myself as that when people asked. It was always "I'm in the process of licensure." Because the job requires the license, the idea is that a person who is qualified to "lawyer" is someone who has passed these certain milestones and has proven themself in this way. So when a person doesn't have the licensure or isn't doing the job that the licensure allows them to do, it's almost like "because you have the license which is supposed to mean you're qualified to do X, and then you choose to go and do Y, then how can you say you're X because you're choosing to do less than you're qualified to." I think because lawyers are required to have the license, we take the license seriously.
Not on the first day of law school but rather Orientation Day, all the Deans gave brief speeches welcoming my class to the school, etc. We were all floating on a cloud, all bright-eyed, bushy-tailed idealists thinking we were going to save the world.
For me, I think once you go through the required education and are actually licensed, then you are a lawyer. It is such a right of passage that after going through all that hard work, I wouldn't want anyone taking that away from me just because I don't fit what they think of as a lawyer.
@LegalEagle5 So I’m now a corporate litigator, but before I was a commercial transactional attorney, which I believe is a lot like in-house but for a multitude of clients as opposed to one. And I still consider that the work of a lawyer. In fact, it never crossed my mind that it wasn’t because I was hired as a “lawyer,” paid like a lawyer, and someone without a law degree and certification could not have done the job. So I didn’t at all mean to imply that in-house is not a real lawyer job. I think it’s a job most lawyers would love! But you’re still a lawyer. I just see a difference between doing that and say, working as an interior designer and saying you’re a lawyer because you have a law degree.
