The Judiciary Act of 1789 expressly provided that "there shall also be appointed a meet person, learned in the law, to act as attorney-general for the United States, who shall be sworn or affirmed to a faithful execution of his office; whose duty it shall be to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments, touching any matters that may concern their departments..."
Pretty clear the AG would have to be a lawyer.
That provision isn't in the US Code any more, and the current provision simply says that there is to be an AG and the AG is head of the Justice Department. This has led some people to conclude that the AG doesn't have to be a lawyer (and, for what its worth, courts in Canada have concluded that country's AG doesn't have to be a lawyer).
But the US Code still contains provisions directing the AG to provide advice and counsel to the President and other top federal officials. The AG, not the Department of Justice. And that means, in effect, the AG has to engage in the practice of law. And as far as I know, every state in the country makes it illegal for someone to practice law without a valid law license.
= new reply since forum marked as read
