Alex Wallenwein, JD?

[Demosthenes]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/oped ... ers_fe.htm

[Imalawman]

I believe the name is Alex Wallenwein, not Wallenstein. He runs a legal research business. Apparentely he doesn't engage in any litigation. (which is good, because he could find himself facing sanctions based on his articles.) But what was your question mark about?

[Dezcad]

From his website at

http://www.expert-legal-research.com/

Alex does not currently practice law and is not licensed in any state - but he has never stopped researching and briefing highly complex and contentious legal issues.


Anyone know why?

[Demosthenes]

I believe the name is Alex Wallenwein

Oops, I fixed the error in the name.

Anyone heard of him?

[Demosthenes]

Now that I have the correct spelling ofhis name (doh!), finding his disbarment was simple.

ALEXANDER R. D. WALLENWEIN

Bar Card Number*: 20782200


Work Address 1412 WESTHEIMER
HOUSTON, TX, 77006


Work Phone Number (713) 522-2514

Primary Practice Location HOUSTON , Texas

Current Member Status
Not Eligible To Practice In Texas (click for detail)

License Information
State Bar Card Number*: 20782200
Texas Licensed*: 11/01/1991


Practice Information
Firm: No information reported by attorney
Firm Size: None Specified
Occupation: Private Law Practice
Primary Practice Areas: No information reported by attorney
Services Provided:
No information reported by attorney

Assistance available in languages:
No information reported by attorney
Courts of Admittance:
Federal Courts of Admittance:
No Federal Courts reported by attorney
Other Courts of Admittance:
No information reported by attorney
Other States Where authorized to practice:
No Other States reported by attorney


Education and Certification History
Law Schools:
Law School Graduation Date Degree Earned
South Texas College Of Law
Texas Board of Legal Specialization Certifications:
No profile data on file for Texas Board of Legal Specialization Certification


Public Disciplinary History
Public Disciplinary History - Texas*:
Sanction Date of Entry Sanction
Start Date Sanction
End Date Probation
Start Date Probation
End Date
Partially Probated Suspension 03/28/2000 07/01/2000 07/31/2000 08/01/2000 06/30/2001
Disbarment 11/17/2003



*NOTE: Only Texas disciplinary sanctions within the past 10 years are displayed. For sanction information beyond 10 years, please contact the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel at (877)953-5535.



Public Disciplinary History - Other:
No information reported by attorney

Statutory Profile Last Certified On:

For information about a specific disciplinary sanction listed above, please call (877)953-5535.

The Texas Attorney Profile provides basic information about Attorneys licensed to practice in Texas. Attorney profile information is provided as a public service by the State Bar of Texas as outlined in Section 81.115 of the Texas Government Code. The information contained herein is provided "as is" with no warranty of any kind, express or implied. Neither the State Bar of Texas, nor its Board of Directors, nor any employee thereof may be held responsible for the accuracy of the data. Much of the information has been provided by the attorney and is required to be reviewed and updated by the attorney annually. The information noted with an asterisk (*) is provided by the State Bar of Texas. Texas grievance/disciplinary information will not appear on the profile until a final determination is reached. Access to this site is authorized for public use only. Any unauthorized use of this system is subject to both civil and criminal penalties. This does not constitute a certified lawyer referral service.

[Demosthenes]

Looks like he's been drinking the kool-aid for quite some time. Here's a case where he represented a tax protester from 13 years ago.

Wallenstein acted as the legal counsel to a Mr. Edwards in a civil suit against "The Internal Revenue Service of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico."

By virtue of the privileges and immunities attendant to his self-proclaimed position in life as a free, white, Christian, natural, sovereign, Preamble, organic common law, de jure citizen of Texas and the resultant entitlement to freedom from the burdens of taxation placed upon lesser de facto citizens, Arvil L. Edwards quite understandably felt no need to render income taxes to the federal government. One can only imagined how shocked and surprised Edwards must have been when that "upstart" creature of statute, the Internal Revenue Service, daringly seized his property pursuant to some legal fiction called a "tax lien" and sold it to satisfy some fictitious debt for unpaid income tax liability. Finding such action an affront to his highborn, blue-blooded station, Edwards petitioned the Texas courts, pro se, to undo the villainous and larcenous act perpetuated against one of its privileged citizens. The Defendants, likewise, sought the refuge of a friendly forum and timely removed this litigation to the United States District Court where it was quite promptly dismissed.

Edwards then sought out and, quite incredibly, found an attorney, Alexander R. Wallenwein, to champion his elitist cause.

To read more:
http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/edwards1.pdf

And true to my stat research, Wallenwein has declared bankruptcy and has an outstanding federal tax lien.

[webhick]

Hehe, from the About page on his site:

In 2002 he closed his law practice

More like "In 2003 the state bar association forced him to close his practice"

Then, on the "What We Do" page:

In early 2003, he closed his solo-practice

We're getting a little closer to the truth.

Our secret at Expert Legal Research.com is that we never work on more than two cases at the same time.

Probably because it's only him and his wife. That, and he hasn't gotten one yet, let alone two.

I also find it funny that he claims you're going to get the experience of a Juris Doctor, but when he hires research staff, it's all going to be law students - supervised by his wife, which does not appear to have that fancy little JD after her name or any other law experience.

And, his only contact number is a cell phone. Yep, I'd feel more comfortable contacting a legal research company that won't shell out for a landline.

I have an issue about the Juris Doctors thing. Wiki says it's a special degree, but Alex only cites "South Texas College of Law in 1990" as his educational background. And Wiki also says that you need a JD before you can be admitted to the bar. So, in my mind, if you're disbarred your previous educational background in law shouldn't hold much water.

[grixit]

He's laundering his legal status. AFAIK a practicing lawyer is not required to disclose to a client if they are using a defrocked adviser to help write briefs. This of course, assumes that there are practicing lawyers out there who'll hire him. I'm guessing he's trolling for pro se defendants.

[LPC]

I have an issue about the Juris Doctors thing. Wiki says it's a special degree, but Alex only cites "South Texas College of Law in 1990" as his educational background. And Wiki also says that you need a JD before you can be admitted to the bar. So, in my mind, if you're disbarred your previous educational background in law shouldn't hold much water.

I'm not sure what you mean by "special." I hope you don't mean "special" as in "Special Olympics" or "special education."

And aren't all academic degrees "special" to someone?

Anyone, the first law schools were really undergraduate schools, meaning that you could go from high school to law school, and the schools granted an LL.B., or "Bachelor of Laws." When law schools began requiring undergraduate degrees as a requirement for admissions, and so became graduate schools, they invented a new degree to reflect their graduate school status, namely the J.D. or Juris Doctor.

The weird part is that additional post-law-school degrees are masters degrees, such as an LL.M. in taxation. So, first you get your doctor degree and then you get your masters?

And as far as I know, there is no doctorate in law, but there are Ph.D.s in jurisprudence (which is slightly different).

To answer your other questions:

1. I believe that some law schools still grant LL.B.s and not J.D.s, so the statement that you must have a "J.D." to be admitted to the bar is not literally correct.

2. I believe that there are still some states that allow people to be admitted to the bar by "reading the law" (i.e., studying under the apprenticeship of a practicing lawyer or judge), so there may be some states that don't require a legal degree at all.

3. Whether or not a J.D. has value to a disbarred lawyer depends on why the lawyer was disbarred and what qualifications might be needed for the new job. For example, a lawyer who is disbarred for stealing client funds might be fine as a consultant, or as an underwriter for a title insurance company, but a bank would probably not want to hire him as a trust officer.

[Cpt Banjo]

And as far as I know, there is no doctorate in law, but there are Ph.D.s in jurisprudence (which is slightly different).

Dan, I believe the S.J.D. degree (some law schools call it the J.S.D.), known as the Doctor of Juridicial Science or the Doctor of the Science of Law, is the equivalent of a Ph.D. in law. It requires a dissertation.

Here’s a description of Harvard’s S.J.D. program:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/gr ... ms/sjd.php

[webhick]

I'm not sure what you mean by "special." I hope you don't mean "special" as in "Special Olympics" or "special education."

I misread the "first professional degree" of the Wiki. But, in his case it's the "Short Bus Special" pre-law degree

And aren't all academic degrees "special" to someone?

I don't know what you mean. My Certificate of Idiocy (high school diploma) ain't done me no good

1. I believe that some law schools still grant LL.B.s and not J.D.s, so the statement that you must have a "J.D." to be admitted to the bar is not literally correct.

I skipped the part in the Wiki where it said "(or equivalent)", since he said he is a JD.

3. Whether or not a J.D. has value to a disbarred lawyer depends on why the lawyer was disbarred and what qualifications might be needed for the new job. For example, a lawyer who is disbarred for stealing client funds might be fine as a consultant, or as an underwriter for a title insurance company, but a bank would probably not want to hire him as a trust officer.

That thought had crossed my mind. But I'm thinking he got disbarred for general legal stupidity, which should negate any of his previous legal education (in my eyes). Would he have to disclose to potential clients that he was disbarred? I find it a bit misleading for him to imply that he voluntarily quit lawyering.

I need to stop getting my info at Wiki.

[Demosthenes]

On Nov. 17, Alexander Wallenwein [#20782200], 44, of Houston was disbarred. An evidentiary panel of the District 4-G Grievance Committee found Wallenwein violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 5.05(a), 8.01(b), and 8.04(a)(1) and (a)(8). He was ordered to pay $5,000 in restitution, $1,200 in attorney’s fees, and $475 in costs.

1.01 Competent and Diligent Representation
(b) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not:
(1) neglect a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer

5.05 Unauthorized Practice of Law
A lawyer shall not:
(a) practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction

8.01 Bar Admission, Reinstatement, and Disciplinary Matters
An applicant for admission to the bar, a petitioner for reinstatement to the bar, or a lawyer in connection with a bar admission application, a petition for reinstatement, or a disciplinary matter, shall not:
(b) fail to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter, or knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admission, reinstatement, or disciplinary authority, except that this rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.05.

8.04 Misconduct
(a) A lawyer shall not:
(1) violate these rules, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another, whether or not such violation occurred in the course of a client-lawyer relationship

8.04 Misconduct
(a) A lawyer shall not:
(8) fail to timely furnish to the Chief Disciplinary Counsels office or a district grievance committee a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, unless he or she in good faith timely asserts a privilege or other legal ground for failure to do so

[Prof]

Here is the Texas Bar Journal "disbarrment" announcement:

On Nov. 17, Alexander Wallenwein [#20782200], 44, of Houston was disbarred. An evidentiary panel of the District 4-G Grievance Committee found Wallenwein violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 5.05(a), 8.01(b), and 8.04(a)(1) and (a)(8). He was ordered to pay $5,000 in restitution, $1,200 in attorney’s fees, and $475 in costs.

For those of you interested, R. 1.01(b) deals with neglect of a matter; 5.05(a) is uanauthorized practice (probably while suspended); 8.01(b) refers to failure to correct a misapprehesion about his status (suspension?); 8.04 (a) (1) is knowing violation or assitance in knowing violation of the rules; and, 8.04(8) is failure to timely respond to disciplinary authorities.

DEMO BEAT ME TO IT!

[Demosthenes]

Slow poke.

[Prof]

Comments:

I have an issue about the Juris Doctors thing. Wiki says it's a special degree, but Alex only cites "South Texas College of Law in 1990" as his educational background. And Wiki also says that you need a JD before you can be admitted to the bar. So, in my mind, if you're disbarred your previous educational background in law shouldn't hold much water.

I'm not sure what you mean by "special." I hope you don't mean "special" as in "Special Olympics" or "special education."

And aren't all academic degrees "special" to someone?

Anyone, the first law schools were really undergraduate schools, meaning that you could go from high school to law school, and the schools granted an LL.B., or "Bachelor of Laws."

In all countries other than the US and Canada, the study of law is an undergraduate discipline, followed by graduate school, in the BA/JD/PH.D. progression. The first "professional" law school was Harvard, where Christopher Columbus Langdell discovered the case method. There had been earlier free-standing law schools, including one in New Haven, but these were just sort of better organized methods of reading for the bar, and not true professional schools. However, as far as I know, it was not until well-after the turn of the century that law schools, like medical schools, began to require an undergraduate degree, as opposed to say two years of college. Folks continued to read law, with no formal education requirements, until the last quarter of the 20th Century.

When law schools began requiring undergraduate degrees as a requirement for admissions, and so became graduate schools, they invented a new degree to reflect their graduate school status, namely the J.D. or Juris Doctor.

This really is not correct; the JD was substituted because the US Civil Service paid those with doctorates more than those with AB/BS. During the Depression, schools changed the degree name (at least, that is what Harold Gill Reuschlein, founding deal of the Villanova law school, told me years ago).

The weird part is that additional post-law-school degrees are masters degrees, such as an LL.M. in taxation. So, first you get your doctor degree and then you get your masters?

Yes, said Prof, LLM, Harvard, '79.

And as far as I know, there is no doctorate in law, but there are Ph.D.s in jurisprudence (which is slightly different).

As someone pointed out, there are SJD's -- and some schools may still grant those to Americans. Harvard's SJD program was terminated with the class before mine, although Collin Mangrum was admitted with me as an SJD candidate, because he already had a BCL from Oxford or Cambridge. He was the last American SJD from Harvard, as far as I know. Students from countries other than Canada are still admitted to the Harvard LLM/SJD program, but they generally arrive with only an BA/BS degree or sometimes an MA or PHD. Most will go into government service or academia (most German judges have advanced degrees, for example).
To answer your other questions:

1. I believe that some law schools still grant LL.B.s and not J.D.s, so the statement that you must have a "J.D." to be admitted to the bar is not literally correct.

I think (but have never looked to see) that Washington & Lee was the last school to cling to the LLB, and it now gives a JD.

2. I believe that there are still some states that allow people to be admitted to the bar by "reading the law" (i.e., studying under the apprenticeship of a practicing lawyer or judge), so there may be some states that don't require a legal degree at all.

I do not think any state still allows "reading" -- the last Texan permitted to take the bar by "reading" took the bar with me in 1975, although Texas continued to let folks who had two years of law school "read" for the last year until some time later, when that, too, was abolished.

3. Whether or not a J.D. has value to a disbarred lawyer depends on why the lawyer was disbarred and what qualifications might be needed for the new job. For example, a lawyer who is disbarred for stealing client funds might be fine as a consultant, or as an underwriter for a title insurance company, but a bank would probably not want to hire him as a trust officer.

Ask Clarkson, "the Great One."

[Neckbone]

Prof:

I had Dr. Robert A. Leflar for Conflicts when I attended the best law school in Arkansas. He was always addressed as "Dr. Leflar", but I never knew (or bothered to ask) why. I don't think he held a PhD. Do you know the answer, Prof?

Neckbone

P.S. Best Leflar story ever:

Dr. L taught the graduate conflicts program at NYU during the summer. One of his students during the 70s was the Saudi Arabian Oil Minister, Sheik Yamani. The case being discussed concerned an auto accident that occurred in Saudi Arabia. Both drivers were American and suit was filed in federal court in (I think) Arkansas or Oklahoma. The question in the case was what traffic/negligence/comparitive fault law should apply. One party argued that the court should apply Saudi law and the other party argued, as I remember, that Saudi law pertaining to rules of the road was, at best, unsettled. Dr. Leflar called on Sheik Yamani and asked: "Mr. Yamani, you're from Saudi Arabia, how would this case be decided under Saudi law?" Yamani thought for a few seconds and replied: "Professor, I do not know, but my Uncle, the King, he could tell you!"

Good answer, huh, Prof?

Neckbone

[The Observer]

Which proves that it is good to be king.

[Imalawman]

Prof:

I had Dr. Robert A. Leflar for Conflicts when I attended the best law school in Arkansas. He was always addressed as "Dr. Leflar", but I never knew (or bothered to ask) why. I don't think he held a PhD. Do you know the answer, Prof?

Neckbone

Although its not addressed to me, I'll answer if you don't mind. It is acceptable to call a J.D. doctor in an academic setting. Most rules of ethics permit such a designation. Here's a sample of such rules:

The use of the title "Dr.," "Doctor," "J.D." or "Doctor of Jurisprudence" is not, in itself, prohibited as constituting a false or misleading communication. The Committee recognizes that other professions, such as educators, economists and social scientists, traditionally use title "Dr." in their professional names to denote a level of advanced education and not to imply formal medical training.

There is no reason in these circumstances to prohibit lawyers with a Juris Doctor or Doctor of Jurisprudence degree from indicating the advanced level of their education.

- Texas Bar Assoc. committee on ethics.

It is considered appropriate to use " J.D." in most circumstances, but "Dr." should be reserved for use in a educational environment where such use is commonplace

- Maryland Bar Assoc. committee on Ethics

[Prof]

Prof:

I had Dr. Robert A. Leflar for Conflicts when I attended the best law school in Arkansas. He was always addressed as "Dr. Leflar", but I never knew (or bothered to ask) why. I don't think he held a PhD. Do you know the answer, Prof?

Neckbone

P.S. Best Leflar story ever:

Dr. L taught the graduate conflicts program at NYU during the summer. One of his students during the 70s was the Saudi Arabian Oil Minister, Sheik Yamani. The case being discussed concerned an auto accident that occurred in Saudi Arabia. Both drivers were American and suit was filed in federal court in (I think) Arkansas or Oklahoma. The question in the case was what traffic/negligence/comparitive fault law should apply. One party argued that the court should apply Saudi law and the other party argued, as I remember, that Saudi law pertaining to rules of the road was, at best, unsettled. Dr. Leflar called on Sheik Yamani and asked: "Mr. Yamani, you're from Saudi Arabia, how would this case be decided under Saudi law?" Yamani thought for a few seconds and replied: "Professor, I do not know, but my Uncle, the King, he could tell you!"

Good answer, huh, Prof?

Neckbone

Bob Leflar, SJD, who taught one of my favorite Prof's, William S. McAninch, JD Ark, LLM Yale, earned his doctorate at Harvard in 1932 (BA/LLB Ark.).

I should have added that some LLM's and almost all SJD's were professors, who need to enhance a lesser school degree with a degree from Yale or Harvard or Columbia or Michigan (Chicago never offered a degree, but had a Fellowship which was considered an equivalent to an LLM). However, most folks who earn LLM's are TAX lawyers, who take LLM's at NYU or its retirement home, the University of Florida. (Other schools offer great Tax LLM's, but NYU is generally considered the top school.)

[Prof]

In CA there are schools that are accredited by the state bar, NOT the ABA, at which you can earn a JD and even sit for the CA bar.

However, this is a huge caveat, that JD and license to practice law (if you pass the bar) is only good in CA, as no other state recognizes it, as the ABA does not recognize it.

These schools are mainly mail order/internet schools.

I have been doing research in this area for certain personal reasons. My conclusion - don't be a chump, bite the bullet, pay the bill, set aside the time to go to an ABA accredited school. Evening and weekend tracks available for us working stiffs.

Also the pass rate for the bar exam is 3 to 4 times higher for ABA accredited school attendees than it is for the internet/mail order schools. I mean if you are going to get the JD you might as well sit for the bar.

The biggest hassle is not the cost, not the commute, or any of that stuff, it is getting transcripts from your university that you graduated from 20+ years ago.

Many of the Supreme Court of California (not Cal. Bar) accredited schools look like regular law schools but with generally poorer quality students. However, if you pass the California bar and practice in California for "X" years, states like Texas will let you sit for the Texas Bar Exam. (Texas requires 5 years of practice for a graduate of a school not ABA accredited; there is no reciprocity; the 5 year lawyer must sit for the bar, etc.) Other states with law schools that are only accredited by the state Supreme Court include Georgia and Tennessee.

New law schools are often formed and seek state accreditation status only if the ABA will not provisionally accredit them in time for the first class to graduate. Only in California is there an industry of "for profit" law schools which have never sought ABA accreditation. There are other investor owned law schools, however; there is a relatively new one in Charleston, SC, but it has either provisional or complete ABA accreditation.