ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Advanced search

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network


Chinese Immig. Daily


Connect to us

Make us Homepage



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free

Immigration LLC.

< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

Dear Editor:
David Murray's letter today commenting on your article "Lawyer Without Texas Bar Card Fights for Right to Practice", linked in the August 20, 2002 issue of Immigration Daily, is exactly correct. I wish I had written it myself.

Peter Williamson and the Texas Bar are completely wrong, both legally and morally, in trying to bully a New York- licensed lawyer from practicing solely federal immigration law in Texas. They are legally wrong because this issue is absolutely controlled by U.S. Supreme Court precedent. See Sperry v. Florida Bar, 373 U.S. 397 (1963) (the Florida bar had no power to discipline a lawyer residing in Florida who was duly admitted to practice before a federal tribunal, citing the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution). See also my article on this topic: "Counterpoint: State Bar Admission is Not Required to Practice Immigration Law In a State," 12 AILA Monthly Mailing 685 (Sept. 1993).

They are morally wrong because they should be aiming their big guns at incompetent con artists, consultants and notarios who really are engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, instead of trying to muscle competent and duly authorized competitors. The immigration bar should be an advocate for the underdog, but here the Texas Bar looks like a pompous, greedy, hypocritical pig.

I predict the Texas Bar is going to get annihilated in this stupid battle, unless they manage to squash a poor, self-employed lawyer who does not have the resources to fight indefinitely.

Bruce A. Hake
Attorney at Law
Damascus, Maryland