What is the difference between Federal Lawyers and State Lawyers?
2007-01-25 05:24:50 · 6 answers · asked by lovinmyboosp 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Ok let me explain a little:
I have a friend who is incarcerated. He has both a Federal Lawyer and a State Lawyer. The crime comitted was in one state.
Drugs were involved too, as well as the crim he is in prison for.
Hope this helps.
2007-01-25 05:36:46 · update #1
As has been correctly noted, the basic difference has to do with the court the laywer is admitted to practice before. All States require candidates for practice to pass a bar examination (though some states accept exams from other states) and be admitted to the State Bar (or equivalent). That allows the attorney to practice in that State only, but in every court in that state.
Every different federal court requires an attorney to be admitted to practice before that court. That is each district (there are hundreds), each circuit (there are 12, I think), and the Supreme Court. However, this does not take an examination, just payment of a fee and, in some cases, sponsorship by another attorney.
However, just because you are admitted to practice in a court does not mean you are qualified to do so. For example, I am admitted to a federal district court, because I sometimes have to file a habeas corpus petition there. However, I know nothing about federal criminal law. So if a client I was representing on State criminal charges also had federal charges pending, I would not represent him on those charges, but would defer to an attorney with the necessary knowledge and experience.
2007-01-25 08:58:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no difference. A lawyer is licensed to practice by his or her respective state. Once admitted to the State Bar, a lawyer need only apply to the federal court to be admitted. Admission to the US Supreme Court requires a more detailed application process and at least 5 years of practice. If your friend has two lawyers, he probably has charges in two seperate jurisdictions and is potentially facing time in both jurisdictions.
2007-01-25 05:53:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Federal Lawyers represent the Country--State attorneys only represent their State--Like I used to be an attorney for the State of Arkansas. If my Department got sued, I represented the State in Court. If the United States got sued, I couldn't have done that because I don't work for the Federal Government.
While I was a State attorney, I practiced in both State and Federal though.
Am I understanding your question?
2007-01-25 05:31:50 · answer #3 · answered by kathylouisehall 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The federal prosecutors who conduct federal criminal trials and sentencing hearings are also usually very experienced, and have virtually unlimited resources at their disposal. The judges who preside in federal courts have lifetime appointments and their dockets are not nearly as crowded as those of most state court judges who handle many different types of criminal offenses. Federal courts have generally been very expansive in their definition of what constitutes interstate commerce. The reality is that the federal government now prosecutes many crimes that were traditionally prosecuted only in state court. This trend is likely to continue to grow for the foreseeable future.
2014-11-17 12:49:17 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 9⤊ 0⤋
Federal criminal investigations and prosecutions are handled much differently than similar criminal cases in state courts. First of all, the law enforcement agencies that investigate federal crimes are generally well-funded and staffed by experienced agents and investigators.The federal prosecutors who conduct federal criminal trials and sentencing hearings are also usually very experienced, and have virtually unlimited resources at their disposal. The judges who preside in federal courts have lifetime appointments and their dockets are not nearly as crowded as those of most state court judges who handle many different types of criminal offenses.
2014-11-12 14:56:12 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 12⤊ 0⤋
we've the youngsters Authority for little ones 12 - 25 who're felons. they are phasing out the females in spite of the undeniable fact that it remains in place for boys. they are the worst of the worst. regrettably, 10 years olds are as hardened as 25 300 and sixty 5 days olds. situations are changing. while i grow to be a Juvenile corridor youngster, it grow to be for being incorrigible or below the impact. no longer for homicide, tried homicide, or attack with a detrimental weapon. that's in all danger time to do away with that old forms yet there are too many human beings making too plenty funds off it to close it down..
2016-09-27 23:37:19 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋