Comments on: Montgomery Blair Sibley suspended in DC

By: Montgomery Blair Sibley suspended in D.D.C.

Montgomery Blair Sibley suspended in D.D.C. — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:15:47 +0000

[…] As we noted, it was a foregone conclusion under Local Rule 83 after the District of Columbia suspended Sibley, but we now have written confirmation (see Exhibit A at pp. 6-7). […]

By: Suspended Montgomery Blair Sibley still getting press coverage

Suspended Montgomery Blair Sibley still getting press coverage — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:34:30 +0000

[…] It’s not clear why anyone is still covering the press releases of Mr. Sibley, who has been suspended from practice in the District of Columbia, and thus has no basis to be filing anything in court. […]

By: BREAKING…BREAKING…BREAKING! « THE MITCH AND NAN SHOW!!!

BREAKING…BREAKING…BREAKING! « THE MITCH AND NAN SHOW!!! — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:36:04 +0000

[…] states some very interesting bits of info: Keep in mind that Sibley’s law license has been suspended in Florida and the District of Columbia. Sibley is awaiting a ruling from the Supreme Court as soon […]

By: Larry Sinclair: Attorney Suspended by D.C. Bar | DBKP - The Worldwide Leader in Weird

Sat, 07 Jun 2008 02:19:05 +0000

[…] LBG Source – Overlawyered Bookmark and Share: sociallist_07a6de2e_url = […]

By: Ted Frank

Ted Frank — Sun, 25 May 2008 22:49:15 +0000

skeptical, did you read either the post or comments you responded to? The May 8 suspension order has been posted, and your questions about federal district courts were already answered.

By: sceptical

sceptical — Sun, 25 May 2008 22:28:06 +0000

Frank:

I understand your point. But what is the rule for practicing before a federal court?

By: sceptical

sceptical — Sun, 25 May 2008 22:24:25 +0000

Could you post the May 8, 2008 suspension order. Thank you.

This might indicate a serious problem down the road, but it does not prevent him for representing people in another juridiction, provided he is member of this local bar.

He should normally be able to practice in federal courts. There is nothing wrong with this in a federal system.

Mike:

Re: trust account. This is a matter for the local bar. Professional organizations are very touchy on this kind of thing. Most likely they have been or are looking into this matter.

By: Ted Frank

Ted Frank — Sun, 25 May 2008 22:18:22 +0000

Mike: a New York law license does not entitle an attorney with an office in DC to practice law in DC when she has been suspended from the bar. See DC Bar Rule 49(c)(7)(iii) and D.D.C. Local Rule 83.8(a). See also Local Rule 83.15(b)(2) and 83.16(c)(1). If an attorney is still filing documents in D.D.C. while she is suspended from the District of Columbia, she is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law (see Rule 49(b)(2)(C)); if the victims of such an attorney find that objectionable, they can report it to the D.C. Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law as well as with the appropriate authorities in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia.

By: mike

mike — Sun, 25 May 2008 21:51:36 +0000

I checked on Sibley and it says he also has a New York license. It appears that was his original state in getting his license. That license shows him in good standing. So who now tells NY that both Florida and DC has suspended his ability to pratice there? and I was told he may not practice in the DC courts but still can practice in the federal court in DC if his NY license is good. is that true. if so, that’s a travesty, two courts tell a guys he sholdn’t practice and he can still practice everywhere else. If his main office and residence is in the DC district, why wouldn’t that be his primary license. It all doesn’t make sense and seems to allow bad lawyers to play the system.

By: mike

mike — Wed, 21 May 2008 01:39:26 +0000

it’s nice that the DC courts finally did something to Sibley. but I noticed after checking out his “client” Sinclairss site that Mr Sibley is supposely still collecting money for “legal cost” in a trust fund he is maintaining for Sinclair. I would not suppose that is legal or proper.