Do Attorneys Truly Hold a "License" to Practice Law? Unpacking the Semantics, Structures, and Constitutional Debates

By Soulality

A Research Journalistic and Educational Point View

Attorney Certificate of good standards from the United States District Court of New Jersey that they call a licences. It say they are admitted to practice law.

As you can read it for yourself-does not say license.

This discussion critiques mainstream accounts of the BAR (their body of certificate and bar card id holder admitted to practice law, push off onto people as licensed attorneys). The Bar Associations, might argue that they overlook America's colonial roots. It highlights how truths have been obscured since European contact in 1492, emphasizing the imposition of European legal systems on indigenous copper-colored peoples native to the land long before 1776. The Indigenous peoples had diverse names for their lands (like Turtle Island for North America), and European explorers used various terms; the continent was officially named America by German mapmaker Martin Waldseemüller in 1507, honoring Amerigo Vespucci who recognized it as a new continent. Later, the territory of the future United States was called the "United Colonies," becoming the "United States of America" during the Revolution.

The question is whether attorneys perpetuate indoctrinated narratives, serving as intellectual control that misleads the public about the superiority of these imported ideologies.

"I fundamentally oppose the structure of the legal profession in the United States, as state bars and associations appear to operate through self-appointment mechanisms that contravene constitutional mandates on government authority and separation of powers. Ultimately, their quasi-governmental status renders them without legitimate jurisdiction, reducing much of their regulatory framework to unsubstantiated rhetoric and procedural obfuscation."

In the spirit of "We the People," a growing chorus of voices is questioning the foundational authority of attorneys in America's legal system. Do lawyers wield undue power over individuals' legal and lawful matters? Who delegated them this authority, and does it stem directly from the Constitution? These concerns, often voiced by citizens frustrated with the profession, highlight a deeper debate: whether attorneys possess a genuine "license" to practice law or if the system is built on semantic sleight-of-hand, monopolistic gatekeeping, and potential constitutional overreach. The State Supreme courts and BAR ASSOCIATION are ran and oversee by attorneys who give their own professional certificates and bar cards with number that is impersonating a licences to practice law.

The State BAR is an unconstitutional monopoly and an illegal and criminal enterprise that violates Article 2, Section 1, Separation of Powers clause of the Constitution. There is no power or authority for joining of Legislative, Judicial, or Executive branches within a state as the BAR is attempting. BAR members have invaded all branches of government.

(read: LAWYER DECEPTIONS)

Drawing from personal experiences, legal definitions, and landmark cases, this post explores these issues through a lens of legal journalism, examining the facts, the critiques, and the realities of bar admission, with a focus on New Jersey as a case study.

Sample of an attorney bar card with their number. As you see it does not say license.

A Personal Encounter at the Heart of the Debate

The skepticism isn't abstract; it's rooted in real-world interactions. Consider one individual's visit to the Rutgers Law Library in search of information on "officers of the court", a term often synonymous with attorneys or lawyers. The librarian at the information desk insisted on recommending a licensed attorney for assistance, emphasizing the need for professional help. But the researcher pushed back, expressing strong disdain for attorneys, whom they viewed as prone to stealing, lying, extorting money from clients, and engaging in corruption, labeling them the "true criminals" in the system.

This wasn't mere rhetoric. The individual recounted hiring eight different attorneys for the same legal matter in New Jersey, only to face mistreatment, deceit, and even disbarment for some of them, with their supposed "licenses" revoked. This experience fueled a broader disillusionment: New Jersey attorneys, in this view, prioritize money over justice for clients. When challenged on whether attorneys truly hold licenses, the librarian produced a book authored by a statutory lawyer, a specialist in laws enacted by legislatures, such as federal codes or state statutes, who drafts, interprets, and applies them in areas like tax or environmental regulation.

Yet, the researcher dismissed this as biased, arguing that the author's perspective was shaped by law school curricula and the Bar Association, which requires membership after passing the bar exam. Attorneys receive a bar card with a number, swear an oath to uphold state and federal constitutions, and obtain a certificate of good standing, ethics, and admission from bodies like the New Jersey Supreme Court. They also pledge allegiance to the bar guild as statutory lawyers. But does this equate to a "license"? Critics say no, pointing to a system that may favor codified statutes over common law, natural law, or constitutional principles, the "true law of the land" that protects people's rights.

The state does not accredit the law schools or hold BAR examinations. They do not issue state licenses to lawyers. The BAR Association accredits all the law schools, holds their private examinations and selects the students they will accept in their organization and issues them so-called licenses but keeps the fees for themselves. The BAR is nothing but a Fraternity. According to Judge John F. Molloy he says the BAR is an insider's critique of the American legal system, accusing it of becoming a closed, self-enriching club at the public's expense, and advocates for significant changes to restore balance and fairness (read:The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion) One attorney says that he was told by his law professor

that he has now receive a license to steal,

(This screenshot is from an attorney who has been

practicing forty years. He tell you that the

American Bar Association in not ran by government.

It operates under none for profit organization).

(The courts law judge, prosecutor and attorneys

is not part of the Constitution and these people of the

legal profession are making legal decision for the people

who are part of the ABA (American Bar Association).

a non for profit club.

Only the BAR Association, or their designated committees, can remove any of these lawyers from public office. The State Legislature will not change this system as they are also a designated committee of the BAR. (read: the history of the BAR and the BAR Association)

(This screenshot is written by a forty-years-old practice attorney Dr. Graves)

Law schools, the argument goes, fail to teach these foundational laws adequately, leaving attorneys ill-equipped to defend clients' rights effectively. Even constitutional law practitioners remain statutory and administrative lawyers at their core, bound by the same framework.

The License Conundrum: Definitions Matter

What is the purpose of the meaning, terminology and definition of words?

The essence of definitions, terminology meanings of a word is for clarity, precision, consistency and understand in communication, It reduce amgiguity and ensure accrate understanding facilitate efficient translation, and build professional credibility, acting as the essential language for sharing complex ideas and knowledge. It is not for misinterpretation, manipulate or confession.

At the crux of this debate is terminology. Do attorneys have a "license" to practice law is indoctrinate lies? According to definitions in Black's Law Dictionary 4th Ed., a reference widely used in courts, a license is "a permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal." Cornell Law School's resources similarly define it as permission from a qualified authority to engage in otherwise prohibited activities, often revocable and limited in scope.

A certificate, by contrast, is a "written assurance" that a fact or requirement has been met and admission means based on Cornell Law School definition is "Admission by a party-opponent: an out-of-court statement by a party that is against the party's interest and that is admissible against the party, because admissions by party-opponents are not considered hearsay."

Based on these, critics contend attorneys lack a true license; they gain "admission" to the bar, often via a certificate or court order. Courts may refer to practitioners as "admitted to the bar," not licensed. This distinction is crucial, as "legal vampires," in the colorful language of detractors, exploit legalese, specialized legal jargon, to drain clients financially while playing word games.

Sample of New Jersey attorney's Supreme Court certificate that they call a license.

"Admission to the bar" means gaining official legal authority to practice law, or grant permission. The word admission to the bar is originating from the English tradition where lawyers were "called to the bar," meaning they could cross a physical rail separating the public from the judges' area in courtrooms and Inns of Court; today, it signifies being licensed by a state's court system to represent clients. It granting the right to represent clients in court, with "the bar" also referring to the collective body of State Supreme Court certificate and bar card holder that are pass off as licensed attorneys. typically after law school, passing the bar exam, and character/fitness review.

Courts counter that practicing law without this admission is a crime, akin to unauthorized practice. But who crafts these laws? Often, lawyers themselves, as legislators and bar members, creating what some see as a monopoly. It's a "club," they argue: Join via the bar exam, oaths, and dues, or you're out. The Constitution, in this view, doesn't grant attorneys the right to dictate who practices law, state statutes do, potentially turning a right into a privilege enforceable by jail time. The motive? Control over those who know the law but aren't bar members. Well critics are saying No Such Thing As BAR License

Sample of an attorney's bar card identification

In the overseers of the Supreme Court who are lawyers in their reality, admission to the bar is considered licensure, even if labeled a certificate. Courts prioritize substance over labels, enforcing it through contempt powers rather than administrative agencies. For instance, the American Bar Association (ABA) and New Jersey Bar Association are non-for-private business, and many state bars, like New Jersey's, are voluntary. Lawyers don't carry plastic licenses like driver's permits; they have bar cards. Nor do they obtain licenses from New Jersey's Division of Consumer Affairs, which handles professions like engineering or medicine via portals like newjersey.mylicense.com. ( read: Secrets of The Florida Bar by David Arthur Walters

The Role Of The New Jersey Supreme Court

The New Jersey Supreme Court's role is NOT to OPERATE as a LICENSE BUREAU OR GIVE OUT LICENSES; its primary purpose is judicial, to interpret laws and hear appeals. It does issue certificates for attorney admission and specialty certifications as part of overseeing the legal profession.

Who Gave Attorneys Authority Over the People?

The United States Constitution, adopted by the People, is the supreme law of the land. Under the Supremacy Clause, state constitutions, statutes, and judicial actions must conform to its requirements. Attorneys are regulated by the judiciary as officers of the court. That status does not confer sovereign authority over the People, but rather imposes duties of fidelity to the Constitution, ethical conduct, and service within the bounds of law. Any exercise of authority by attorneys or courts that exceeds constitutional limits or infringes upon the rights of the People raises serious constitutional concerns and warrants careful scrutiny.

Attorneys do not receive a license in the traditional regulatory sense. They sit for a bar examination administered by professional bodies of their peers, are admitted to the bar by court order, receive a bar identification card with a number, and may be issued certificates of good standing and ethical compliance. These instruments, admission, identification, and certification, are not defined as licenses under standard legal dictionaries.

Sample of an attorney certificate of admitted to practice law in Delaware. As you see in another state that attorneys do not have license to practice law. It does not say license on the document.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey oversees attorney discipline and ethics, but oversight is not authorship of authority. Oversight regulates conduct; it does not create sovereignty. The New Jersey State Bar Association itself is a private nonprofit corporation, not a governmental licensing bureau. Referring to these processes collectively as “licensing” collapses distinct legal concepts into a single term in a way that can be misleading.

The Real Structure: Who "Licenses" Lawyers?

Who truly authorizes attorneys? Not the ABA, not voluntary state bars (often private nonprofits), who can be looked at as secretive "club" for attorneys. The Bar is a private association it can not license anyone on the behalf of the state. The state Bar is a non-governmental private association and due must be currant.

In New Jersey, it's the state, acting as a business entity, through its Supreme Court. The process unfolds step by step:

The State Supreme Court sets admission rules.
The Board of Bar Examiners administers the exam and character review.
The Board certifies eligibility.
The Supreme Court issues an order of admission not license.
This order grants legal authority to practice.

This certificate of admission functions as a license, judicially issued and enforceable via court powers. Critics question this: Isn't the Supreme Court overstepping by administering so called "licenses" to its own profession, violating separation of powers? Legislatures, they argue, convert inherent rights, to learn, interpret, and apply law for personal defense, into privileges via administrative law. States regulate professional representation of others, not self-use of law. The certificate that the attorney received from the Supreme Court only authorize to practice law "in court" as a member of the state judicial branch of government. Attorneys only can represent ward of the court, infant person of a unsound mind ( see Corpus Juris Secundum, (C.J.S) volume 7 section 4).

The New Jersey Supreme Court wasn't directly created by "the people" but evolved from the 1776 colonial . It derives its authority from the New Jersey Constitution of 1947, which was ratified by the people through public referendum. Justices are appointed by the governor with senate confirmation, not elected, reflecting representative democracy. By this logic the State of New Jersey Supreme Court is not the organic law of the land Constitution. Because it was not organized by Congress. In essence, the people, through representatives, did not established these systems.

Unlike the federal judiciary U.S. Supreme Court stems from Article III of the United States Constitution, whose authority originates from there and was organized by Congress pursuant to the Judiciary Act of 1789. In essence, the people, through representatives, established these systems.

Yet, detractors claim misalignment with the U.S. Constitution, viewing state courts as "invaded" entities not fully representing American people. The New Jersey Supreme Court exists as a creature of state constitutional law within a system of representative democracy.

While the State of New Jersey retains sovereignty over its internal judicial structure, that sovereignty is not absolute. Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, any state constitution, statute, or judicial act that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution is void and without legal effect.

The framers of the United States Constitution established a system designed to prevent the concentration of power and to protect the people from governmental overreach. This principle government as a trustee of the people was later echoed by President Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address, affirming that legitimate government derives its authority from the people and exists to serve them.

Accordingly, while state courts may lawfully exercise judicial power, that power remains constitutionally constrained. When a state court exceeds those limits or acts contrary to federally protected rights, its actions lose legitimacy under the supreme law of the land.

The American people must stop thinking that lawyers are better than they are and can do a better job than they can before the courts of America. Under the Common Law and the Laws of America, nowhere is it expressly given for anyone to have the power or the right to form a Corporation.

Corporations are given birth because of ignorance on the part of the American people and are operating under implied consent and power which they have usurped and otherwise stolen from the people. By right and by law they have no power, authority or jurisdiction, and must be put out of business by the good citizens of America in their fight for freedom.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees to every state in this union a republican form of government. Any other form of government is forbidden! No public officer or branch of government can be limited to a ruling class of any kind, or the states become aristocracies and not Republics. Also, the lawyers have made themselves 1st class citizens, where many public offices and branches of government are open to lawyers only. All other people are limited to only two branches of government and to only certain offices in those two branches of government, making all people who are non-lawyers into 2nd class subject citizens.

When the courts belong to the people, as the United States Constitution requires, (Article IV, Section 4), We the People, will never rule against themselves. In these unconstitutional foreign tribunals "courts" (hoodlum centers), men in black dresses, that are unconstitutional robes of nobility. (Article 1, Section 9 and 10) dispense a perverted ideology, where the people are terrorized by members of the Black Robe Cult (lawyers and lawyer judges in the courtrooms).

The legislative branch of government does not have the Constitutional power to issue Court Orders or any other kind of orders to the people, as a "fiction court" or a "court/corporation for profit and gain" cannot reach parity with a lawful man.

Only Presidents and Governors have the Constitutional power to grant pardons, but lawyers and lawyer-judges are unconstitutionally granting pardons with "immunity from prosecution." Citizens are not permitted to act like people in the courts. The Citizen (2nd class) is told that he does not know how to fill out fancy lawyer forms; that he is not trained in the law; that he does not know court rules and procedures; etc.

This is an unconstitutional "lawyer system"; only hearsay substitutes (lawyers), not under oath, have access to the fiction/for profit and gain courts, even though only sworn testimony and evidence can be presented in court. Anything else is "Bill of Attainder," not permitted under the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Sections 9 and 10).

The U.S. Constitution does not give anyone the right to a lawyer or the right to counsel, or the right to any other hearsay substitute. The 6th Amendment is very specific, that the accused only has the right to the assistance of counsel and this assistance of counsel can be anyone the accused chooses without limitation. Lawyers and lawyer-judges: Created unconstitutional "lawyer system" pre-trial "motions" and "hearings" to have eternal extortionistic litigation, which is BARBARY and also is in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, as this places defendants in double jeopardy a hundred times over. Defendants only have a right to trial, not trials.

All lawyers are automatically in the judicial branch of government, as they have the unconstitutional title of nobility (Article 1, Section 9 and 10), as officers of the court.

Citizens have to be elected or hired to be in any branch of government, but non-lawyer citizens are limited to only two of the three branches of government. Lawyers, as 1st class citizens, can be hired or elected to any of the three branches of government. Lawyers, as officers of the court, in the Judicial Branch, are unconstitutionally in two branches of government at the same time whenever they are hired or elected to the executive or legislative branches. This is a violation of the separation of powers, checks and balances, and the conflict of interest laws.

District attorneys and STATE attorneys have taken over the Grand Juries from the people, where the people are denied access to the Grand Juries when they attempt to present evidence of crimes committed in the courtrooms by the lawyers and lawyer-judges. The U.S. Constitution, being the supreme fundamental law, is not and cannot be ambiguous as to be interpreted, or it would be a worthless piece of paper and we would have millions of interpretations (unconstitutional amendments) instead of the few we have now. That is why all judges and public servants are sworn to support the U.S. Constitution, not interpret it.

Please watch the referenced video carefully, and listen with the intent to comprehend the points presented by the litigation attorney, who explains her position on why the Supreme Court is unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court is unconstitutional based on this attorney’s presentation, a critical question follows: does that mean attorneys lack delegated authority, and that their so-called licenses and admissions to practice law by the Supreme Courts are themselves unconstitutional? In her presentation, the attorney explains that judicial opinions and case law should not override the Constitution as created by the Framers. She emphasizes that judges do not take an oath to uphold Supreme Court precedent; rather, they take an oath to uphold the Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land.

This position is not being asserted by me in my role as a research journalist and educator. Instead, it is articulated by a member of the legal profession itself. I am highlighting the litigation attorney’s arguments because they directly relate to and support the central inquiry of this blog topic. Her statements raise significant questions about the constitutional foundation of judicial authority and the nature of attorney licensure. This leads to the broader inquiry: do attorneys, in fact, possess a constitutionally delegated license to practice law, or is their authority derived solely from institutional structures that may themselves be constitutionally questionable?

Attorney Must Provide Appearance Bond

The legal status and obligations of attorneys and judges. It states that when attorneys take an oath to the bar, they expatriate from the US and become foreign agents that must register with the Secretary of State. As such, they can only "practice" in courts pro bono and cannot make a profit unless they post a bond. It argues that judges and courts also operate in bankruptcy, so judges must file tax returns if they receive a salary. The document outlines the differences between civil tort claims, which require direct evidence, and contract disputes, which are matters for state courts. It claims federal judges lack jurisdiction over contracts and can only operate in admiralty, where an accusation is treated as proof.

Broader Critiques: Is the Bar a Monopoly in Disguise?

Beyond the mechanics of admission and certificates, some independent analyses challenge the very foundation of attorney authorization. For instance, the document "Lawyers and Attorneys Are Not Licensed To Practice Law: The LEGAL CRAFT," available on Scribd, argues that what passes for licensing is actually a private monopoly orchestrated by bar associations, not a true state-granted license. It cites U.S. Supreme Court precedents like Schware v. Board of Examiners (353 U.S. 232, 1957), which states that "the practice of law cannot be licensed by any state," and Sims v. Ahrens (271 S.W. 720, 1925), affirming it as "an occupation of common right." The piece portrays bar membership as akin to a "union dues card" for a non-governmental association, one that accredits schools, administers exams, and enforces discipline without genuine oversight, violating separation of powers and creating an "unconstitutional monopoly." It even traces the American Bar Association's roots to foreign influences, labeling the system a "fraud and conspiracy" that elevates lawyers to a privileged class while subverting plain constitutional law.

This perspective resonates with insights from within the profession itself. An attorney with over 30 years of experience, holding a certificate of admission from her state Supreme Court, shared that state Supreme Courts are not inherently part of the Constitution to be Superior. Applying this to New Jersey, she reasoned that its Supreme Court does not fully align with the true law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, which was not directly organized by Congress. In essence, the people, through their representatives, did not establish these judicial systems via the Judiciary Act of 1789. She further emphasized that case law is not true law but merely a judge's opinion, and that state Supreme Courts often overlook foundational documents like the Federalist Papers in their rulings.

These views, while contentious, underscore the ongoing debate: If admission is not licensing, and courts prioritize substance over constitutional labels, are we witnessing a system that privileges insiders at the expense of "We the People"?

Constitutional Rights vs. Regulated Privileges: What the Cases Say

The U.S. Constitution declares governments derive "just powers from the consent of the governed." But is practicing law an inherent right or a regulated privilege? Precedents like Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners (353 U.S. 232, 1957), In re Griffiths, and Konigsberg suggest it's the latter: a court-regulated privilege requiring authorization, revocable with due process. The Supreme Court doesn't frame it as a natural right.

However, critics cite counterpoints. In the "Common Law Handbook for Jurors, Sheriffs, Bailiffs, and Justices" (page 25, XVI. Right to Practice Law), it references Schware: "A State cannot exclude a person from the practice of law or from any other occupation in a manner or for reasons that contravene the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Some interpretations add,

"The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State" (attributed to Schware, pages 238-239), though this phrasing isn't in the official text—it's a paraphrase emphasizing due process limits.

Sims v. Ahrens (271 S.W. 720, 1925) states: "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."

And Sherar v. Cullen (481 F.2d 946, 1973) affirms: "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional Rights."

These indirectly challenge licensing as applied to law occupations, though not explicitly barring it.

Non-bar members, critics note, aren't bound by oaths or dues, preserving their "right" to practice, unlike attorneys, who face ineligibility, loss of good standing, pro hac vice denial, reinstatement penalties, and discipline for unpaid fees. It's "all about money," they charge, not public protection.

MEMO-RIGHT TO PRACTICE LAW

The memorandum argues that individuals have an unalienable right to practice law without a license from the state bar. It provides background on how the American Bar Association (ABA) is a private organization that accredits law schools and issues bar exams, but does not have the authority to license lawyers on behalf of states.

The memorandum cites several court cases that established individuals have a constitutional right to pursue their chosen occupation, including the practice of law, and cannot be excluded by legislative or regulatory means. It asserts that statutes and bar rules are unconstitutional if they infringe on individuals' right to represent themselves or others in legal proceedings.

Is Legal Practice Licensing A Myths?

Attorney License Fraud? The longer it takes the better it gets! All BAR Attorneys violate the Organic Law and are operating illegally in the United States of America! They are the enemy with in whether they know it or not for they are the ones that foisted an illegal law form on the American people to steal our land - labor and commercial energy. In many cases - our lives and children! How do you think UNLAWFUL laws can be made when the constitution specifically bars the making of laws that infringe it.... that where the BAR Fly come in. The Powers that were rely on these corrupt Psychopaths that operate a closed UNION Shop (Monopoly) to foist unlawful laws on the people. Then the brain dead sheriffs and Police rely on them cos they no longer no the law or ever their own constitution!

In the US justice system caused by lawyers and bankers. It argues that lawyers have gained too much power through the American Bar Association and their dominance of Congress. This has allowed them to pass laws that benefit themselves at the expense of citizens' rights. It also claims that most lawyers belong to a secret brotherhood that requires them to prioritize loyalty to each other over upholding the law or constitution. The large number of lawyers in the US has led to over-regulation and higher taxes while failing to protect people from abuses. See Judges, Lawyers and Other Destroyers (Corrupt Judicial System) (1992)

Final Thoughts: A System Ripe for Scrutiny?

This debate underscores tensions between professional regulation and individual rights. While courts uphold admission as effective licensure to ensure competence, skeptics see a self-serving monopoly eroding constitutional freedoms. As "We the People" continue to probe these structures, one thing is clear: Understanding the words, license, certificate, right, privilege, empowers citizens to navigate, and perhaps challenge, the system. For those disillusioned like our Rutgers researcher, self-education in common and constitutional law might offer an alternative path. What do you think, privilege or right? Share in the comments.

Historical Facts About Lawyer and Attorney

Historically, in the U.S., lawyers often became attorneys through apprenticeships (reading law) with experienced lawyers, not formal law school, with figures like Abraham Lincoln and John Adams following this path; law schools only became dominant and required by the late 19th/early 20th century due to American Bar Association (ABA) advocacy, though a few states still allow "reading law" today.

No Law School Needed (Historically): As late as 1891, only 20% of U.S. lawyers had law school degrees; most states didn't require law school. There isn't one single year when law school became universally mandatory; it was a gradual shift, but the American Bar Association (ABA) began pushing for formal law school and bar exams in the 1920s, with requirements solidifying in the 20th century, replacing older apprenticeship models, though some states still offer alternatives to law school today. S.616 - Foundation of the Federal Bar Association Charter Amendments Act of 2025

Early U.S. (Colonial Era to 19th Century)

Apprenticeship: The main method was an extended clerkship or apprenticeship (reading law) in a lawyer's office, studying texts like Blackstone's Commentaries.
Early Law Schools: Formal law schools emerged later, with Litchfield Law School (1784-1833) being the first, but they supplemented, rather than replaced, apprenticeships initially.
Famous Examples: Presidents Abraham Lincoln, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson learned law this way.

Early History (Pre-1800s)

Informal Admission: Often based on character and a period of apprenticeship with an established lawyer, with judges granting permission.
No Standardized Test: No written bar exam; admission was often by court order after an oral examination or recommendation.

Colonial Era: There were no formal bar associations in the modern sense during the colonial times, but all the colonies had established their own professional bars with standards for entry by the mid-1700s, usually involving an apprenticeship system. An agreement by a group of New York attorneys from 1756 is a rare early example of a local legal group.

The bar associations are created by groups of lawyers, with the prominent American Bar Association (ABA) founded by 75 lawyers in 1878 to promote legal uniformity, ethics, and justice, following earlier local and state efforts by legal professionals to organize and improve their standards.

An attorneys don't "have" a bar license; they're admitted to a state's Bar Association, and the "bar card" is their physical ID showing active membership, allowing courthouse access, expedited security, and proof of authority to practice law within that jurisdiction, distinguishing them from non-lawyers barred from the courtroom's inner section.

The Bar Card (the ID): A plastic ID card issued by the Bar Association or court, confirming you're a alleged licensed, active attorney. The bar card is perpetrates as a licensed to practice law

Key Functions of a Bar Card:

Identification: Proves you're a lawyer to judges, court staff, and sheriffs.
Access: Allows entry into restricted areas of courthouses, sometimes with faster security checks (like in NJ).
Privilege: Signifies your authority to practice law and represent clients.

Why It Matters:

Legal Practice: Only licensed attorneys (those with a bar card/license) can provide legal services, pass through the bar in court, and hold themselves out as qualified.
Security & Efficiency: It streamlines the judicial process by quickly identifying authorized personnel, as seen in New Jersey's system.

So, while you might say "bar license," it's technically being admitted to the Bar and holding that official Bar card that grants the privilege to practice.

The Bar (State Bar Association): In many states, like New Jersey, this is a mandatory, government-created entity (or functions like one) where all practicing attorneys must pay annual fees (dues/registration) to maintain their license to practice law in that state. These funds cover attorney discipline, licensing, and other regulatory functions.

Bar Associations (Voluntary): These are professional organizations, like the American Bar Association (ABA) or state-level voluntary groups (e.g., NYSBA), where membership is optional. Lawyers choose to join for networking, CLE (Continuing Legal Education), practice resources, and advocacy.

How does New Jersey BAR Association Get Funded?

The New Jersey State Bar (NJSBA) and its Foundation (NJSBF) are funded through attorney registration fees, IOLTA (Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts) proceeds, corporate sponsorships, individual donations, and fundraising events like the Medal of Honor Award, all supporting public legal education, pro bono initiatives, and lawyer development programs. The key driver for many NJSBF grants is the IOLTA Fund, while the main Bar Association relies on mandatory annual fees from licensed lawyers for its operations and client protection

Funding Sources:

Attorney Registration Fees: A mandatory annual fee paid by all New Jersey-licensed attorneys funds the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (to reimburse theft victims) and operations, not general taxes.
IOLTA Fund: Interest earned on lawyers' trust accounts is distributed by the NJSBA to the NJSBF to support grants for legal aid, law-related education, and public service programs.
Donations & Events: The NJSBF raises money through individual contributions and events, such as the annual Medal of Honor Award, to fund scholarships and fellowships.
Sponsorships: Corporate sponsors and partners support specific NJSBF programs and initiatives.

How Funds Are Used:

NJSBF Grants: Support non-profits for public legal education, summer associate/fellowship programs, and law school scholarships.
Client Protection: The Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection uses attorney fees to protect clients from attorney misconduct.
Professionalism & CLE: Funds support the Commission on Professionalism and the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education (NJICLE).

An Attorney Bar is the collective body of certificte holders and bar card that are pass off as a licensed lawyers in a jurisdiction, while a Bar Association is the professional organization for those lawyers, regulating ethics, education, and practice; a Bar Charter is the foundational document outlining that specific Bar Association's rules, vision, and governance, much like a constitution for the group. In short, the "Bar" is the profession/licensing, the "Bar Association" is the club, and the "Charter" is the club's rulebook.

Etymology breakdown

Historical Origin: The term comes from medieval England, where lawyers were "called" to speak at the "bar" (railing) of royal courts.
Authorization: It's formal permission from a court to practice law in a specific jurisdiction, allowing representation of clients in court.
Formal Admission: It's a public, official recognition by a court or law society that you are now a barrister or solicitor.
Requirements: In the U.S., this usually involves graduating from law school, passing the state's bar examination, and a character and fitness assessment.

Physical Rail: The term "bar" comes from the wooden railing separating the public gallery from the well of the court where judges, lawyers (barristers), and parties sat.
The "Bar" (Physical): In early English law, a wooden barrier or railing divided the courtroom (or the hall in the Inns of Court).
- The area behind the bar was for judges, barristers (lawyers), and the accused.
- The public sat in the gallery on the other side.
"Called to the Bar": Historically, it meant being called to advocate in court, a term still used in some legal systems (e.g., for barristers). To be "admitted" or "called to the bar" meant being permitted to pass this barrier and speak in court, a tradition dating back to English legal history.
Barristers: The word "barrister" (a type of lawyer) also derives from this same "bar".

"Passing the Bar": Refers to successfully completing the bar exam, a key step to gaining admission.
"Members of the Bar": Collectively refers to the legal community or a specific bar association (like the American Bar Association).
Licensing: It's a form of occupational licensing, granting a law license to practice in a jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction-Specific: Each state sets its own rules; admission in one state doesn't automatically grant admission in another.
Requirements: Typically involves earning a law degree (J.D.), passing a bar exam, and a character & fitness review.
The "Bar": It originating from the "bar" (railing) in medieval courts where lawyers argued. Refers both to the licensing body and the association of licensed lawyers (like the ABA).
"Admitted to the Bar": Symbolically, crossing this physical bar meant a student had achieved the qualification to act as a legal advocate, becoming a barrister or member of the "bar".
Modern Usage: The term persists in "bar exam," "bar association," and being "admitted to the bar," all referencing this historical barrier and the associated right to practice law.
Essentially, you weren't just allowed in the area; you were formally inducted by being called to the bar to speak.

Educational Purpose

From Fruit from a Poisonous Tree by attorney Melvin Stamper, JD

"The scheme also provided for the control of the courts via the 1913 creation of the American Bar Association, whose parent organization was the European International Bar Association, which was the creation of Rothschild. This allowed the International Bankers to control the practice of law, in that the only ones permitted to practice before the courts were those who were educated under their brand of law, which was only Admiralty and Contract law. Common law of the people was to be replaced as it gave the natural man many jurisdictional protections from the bankers’ legislation." (See Fruit from a Poisonous Tree, page 58. Available from Amazon.com)

From Fruit from a Poisonous Tree by attorney Melvin Stamper, JD

"Contract law is above the Constitution and under the jurisdiction of Equity/Admiralty courts, so the governments began to contract with everyone. The 1930s saw federal legislation providing for the registration of babies through applications for birth certificates. Government workers could get maternity leave with pay. The States pushed for registration of cars through applications for certificates of title and for registration of land through registration of deeds of trust. Constructive trusts were created secretly by adhesion contracts, giving benefits either present or future and as a result, each of the people blindly walked into the trap of United States democracy and its jurisdiction by the signing of contracts, thereby agreeing to be sureties for the debts of the United States and collateral for the Federal Reserve Bank, Inc." (See Fruit from a Poisonous Tree, page 74. Available from Amazon.com)

From Fruit from a Poisonous Tree by attorney Melvin Stamper, JD

"In the 1950s, the Uniform Commercial Code was adopted in most of the States as a means of unifying the generally accepted procedures for handling the new legal system of dealing with commercial fictions as though they were real. Security instruments replaced substance as collateral for debts. Security instruments could be supported by presumptive adhesion contracts. Debt instruments with collateral and accommodating parties could be used instead of money. Money and the need for money was disappearing, and a uniform system of law had to be put in place to allow the courts to uphold the security instruments that depended on commercial fictions as a basis for compelling payment or performance. All this was accomplished by the mid-1960s."( See Fruit from a Poisonous Tree, page 62. Available from Amazon.com)

From Judge Dale, a retired Federal Judge:

"Why is the BAR Guild so hell-bent on keeping everything on the private side? Because the public side invokes Constitutional issues and nothing they do can withstand a Constitutional challenge. The organic Constitution still exists in its original glory and authority and is buried in the US Printing Office. All amendments since 1871 do not exist. Why? It was the "corporate mission statement" for the District of Columbia that was written in 1871 to resemble the organic Constitution. Is it that corporate mission statement that has been amended since 1871 and chopped up as of late." (See Lawfully Yours, page 17. (see District of Columbia Act of 1871).

From Who is Running America

"The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), has been adopted in whole or substantially by all states. (See: Blacks Law, 6th Ed. pg 1531) In essence, all court decisions are based on commercial law or business law and has criminal penalties associated with it. Rather than openly calling this new law Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction, it is called Statutory Jurisdiction." (See Who is Running America, page 13. Available as a free download on AntiCrruptionSociety.com.)