In re Berg (Pa. bar)

TexasFilly
Posts: 17964
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#151

Post by TexasFilly » Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:29 am



"On" consent or "by" consent.  I prefer the latter.  


I love the poorly educated!!!

I believe Anita Hill! I believe Dr. Ford!

User avatar
magdalen77
Posts: 5384
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:43 pm
Location: Down in the cellar

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#152

Post by magdalen77 » Wed Jun 17, 2015 1:09 pm



On the disciplinary board's website it says, "Disbarred on consent".  It's kind of not surprising since his suspension was due to be up this month and a few weeks ago he was blathering about being "retired".  I guess he wasn't willing to do whatever he needed to do to get re-instated.



User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 14783
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#153

Post by ZekeB » Wed Jun 17, 2015 1:42 pm



Wasn't his previous suspension due to a similar reason?  Didn't he fail to notify a client of a dismissal or failed to file something on time?


Ano, jsou opravdové. - Stormy Daniels

Nech mě domluvit! - Orly Taitz

User avatar
bob
Posts: 25224
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#154

Post by bob » Wed Jun 17, 2015 3:11 pm



Wasn't his previous suspension due to a similar reason?  Didn't he fail to notify a client of a dismissal or failed to file something on time?​Berg was suspended for failing to notify a client.  Berg then consented to disbarment.We don't know why Berg consented.  But suspended attorneys are required to do many things, including informing your clients and the courts that you have been suspended.  Like magdalen77, I'm guessing Berg decided he was done with the law, so he figuratively flipped the table, didn't comply with the rules, and agreed to be be disbarred so it would just end.To Berg's credit, it does sound like a PITA to comply with the rules and seek reinstatement, just to then "officially" retire.  Of course, that raises the issue of why didn't Berg do this two years ago?  Or why did he bother fighting the discipline in the first place?  But Berg, being Berg, does many stupid things.Regardless, the results are the same: Berg can no longer practice law.  But he can continue to tout his book.  And the three remaining birthers will still lap up whatever he spews. Too, also: Berg does not need a license to represent himself in the birther civil war against Taitz (yes, that case is still lingering).  Berg's clients, however, will need new counsel, but (IIRC) they had already obtained that.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
magdalen77
Posts: 5384
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:43 pm
Location: Down in the cellar

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#155

Post by magdalen77 » Wed Jun 17, 2015 4:47 pm



If I were Phil I'd be more worried about pissing off Hell's Angels than the PA Bar.  The PA Bar won't break your kneecaps.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43903
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#156

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Jun 17, 2015 5:25 pm



Classic Berg. He couldn't be bothered.When he was practicing he couldn't be bothered to keep his accounts, couldn't be bothered to communicate the status of cases with his clients, couldn't be bothered to draft his own pleadings, couldn't be bothered to prosecute the vases he had filed.  Oh, the practice of law was all these little details and Berg couldn't be bothered.Now when it's time to get reinstated, Berg can't be bothered.Bye birther.



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 15130
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#157

Post by Reality Check » Wed Jun 17, 2015 6:48 pm



Maybe this was posted before but I found that Berg was suspended then resigned from practice before the Supreme Court in 2013. I assume that;s what this was about.No. 13D2738 Title:BERG, PHILIPAtty Name:Philip J. BergCity/State:Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania  Sex:M  Barno:217277Mailing Info:  Filing Party:Samuel C. Stretton   301 S. High Street P.O. Box 3231   West Chester, PA 19381Lower Ct:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District  Action:Suspended ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Jul 2 2013Suspense FiledNov 4 2013Suspense OrderNov 15 2013Return FiledDec 31 2013Response FiledDec 31 2013Resignation FiledJan 21 2014Final Order - Resigned


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#158

Post by mimi » Wed Jun 17, 2015 7:25 pm




User avatar
realist
Posts: 34570
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#159

Post by realist » Thu Jun 18, 2015 7:15 am



Birther Report / ORYR is on it: http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/06/di ... bmits.html

​I stopped by there yesterday and saw their article.  The first comment was the usual ignorance and stupidity that is BR commenters.. blaming JARRET for Phil's disbarment.  Because, You know... there's no difference in the PA Supreme Court and SCOTUS.... or something.  It was ridiculous but the usual stupidity.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
bob
Posts: 25224
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

In re Berg (Pa. bar)

#160

Post by bob » Thu Jun 18, 2015 12:05 pm



 Birther Report / ORYR is on it: http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/06/di ... its.html​I stopped by there yesterday and saw their article.  The first comment was the usual ignorance and stupidity that is BR commenters.. blaming JARRET for Phil's disbarment.  Because, You know... there's no difference in the PA Supreme Court and SCOTUS.... or something.  It was ridiculous but the usual stupidity.​It has gotten to the point where I can't be bothered anymore to copy over to here the birthers' usual stupidity. Extraordinary stupidity is what I now seek.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

Post Reply

Return to “Phil Berg”