U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART III— COURT OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES › Chapter CHAPTER 57— GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO COURT OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

28 U.S.C. § 955

Practice of law restricted

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

The clerk of each court and his deputies and assistants shall not practice law in any court of the United States.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1959–2025 · leading case: United States v. Edgar Rivas
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Edgar Rivas (2004) ca2 “Jury deliberations began in the afternoon of January 7, 2003.”
Uzoukwu v. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (2013) dcd · cites it 2× “, 28 U.S.C. § 955 ; Mala v. Crown, Bay Marina, Inc.”
James Henry Audett v. United States (1959) ca9 “28 U.S.C. § 955 . 12 . 28 U.S.C. § 604 (a) (6).”
Uzoukwu v. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (2012) dcd “) The Clerk’s office has no duty to educate parties about how to interpret federal EEO statutes and regulations on timeliness.”
Vilela v. Office of Recovery Services (2023) utd · cites it 2× “”40 Under 28 U.S.C. § 955 , “[t]he clerk of each court .”
Atkins v. Vilt (2021) kywd “She cites 28 U.S.C. § 955 , which states that “[t]he clerk of each court and his deputies and assistants shall not practice law in any court of the United States.”
Atkins v. Stivers (2021) kywd “She cites 28 U.S.C. § 955 , which states that “[t]he clerk of each court and his deputies and assistants shall not practice law in any court of the United States.”
OKOGUN v. CREEGAN (2025) njd “TheClerk’sOffice,underTitle28U.S.C.§955,isprohibitedfromprovidinganytypeoflegaladvice.”
Russell v. Turino (2025) ned “Gerrard enior United States District Judge 2 The employees of this Court's Clerk's Office are all thoroughly aware of their obligation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 955 , to refrain from giving any legal advice.”
Webster Dawkins v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (2014) ca9 “Dawkins’ contentions that the district court had a conflict of interest, that the district court improperly suppressed evidence, and that the court clerk violated 28 U.S.C. § 955 are unpersuasive and not supported by the record.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.