Lawyer Agrees to Stayed Suspension after Clashes with Clients, Courts, Officials
A Susquehanna County lawyer recently agreed to imposition of a suspension stayed in full by probation after admitting to a pattern of misconduct committed years prior while undergoing a mental health crisis, now treated.
Jason G. Beardsley of Montrose admitted to misconduct committed during a period when he became convinced that judges, court officials, the entire bar, and even clients were engaged in a conspiracy to destroy him. He filed motions to disqualify the entire Susquehanna Court of Common Pleas, the Court Administrator, and the District Attorney’s Office from all his cases. When this relief was denied, he filed motions to withdraw from representation of twenty-six clients. He alleged that several of his clients were complicit in the plot to destroy him. He admitted that he did not speak to any of the clients to inform them of his motions to disqualify or withdraw. He told the court he would not represent clients even if ordered to do so. He failed to appear on behalf of twenty-one clients scheduled for hearings and refused to refund any fees. He accused one client of being a “government snitch” in league with the plot and told another, days before a guilty plea hearing, that he would not represent him or refund his fee. He sent an obscenity-filled text to one client and later pled guilty to two summary harassment charges for abusive communications he had sent to clients.
When contacted by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel about the cases, he responded, “Don't contact me again because now you are part of the conspiracy, and I will pray that you get charged and lose everything that you have loved or ever could love.”
Subsequently, Disciplinary Counsel filed a motion to have Beardsley placed on Emergency Temporary Suspension, and the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause why he should not be suspended. On the last day allowed by the rule, he contacted Disciplinary Counsel and stated that his conduct was a result of severe mental distress and that he did not intend to respond to the rule because he knew he was currently unfit to practice law. He was temporarily suspended by the Supreme Court on October 11, 2023.
He subsequently underwent a course of psychiatric treatment and began taking medication for his condition. Eventually, he repaid fees owed to clients and apologized to judges, court officials, the DA’s office, and clients.
Beardsley and Disciplinary Counsel agreed that the appropriate disposition was a suspension for a year and a day, which would require him to petition for reinstatement, with the suspension stayed in full and a two-year period of probation. As a term of the probation, he must continue his psychiatric treatment and submit a letter from his treating professional on a quarterly basis.
By Order dated November 14, 2025, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted the Joint Petition and imposed the requested discipline. It also dissolved the order of temporary suspension entered October 11, 2023, so Beardsley is restored to active status.
If you or someone you know is suffering from a mental health crisis, contact Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers’ 24/7 confidential hotline at 1-888-999-1941. You are not alone.
DC Bar Offers Ethical Advice on Law Firm Contracts with Government
The District of Columbia Bar has issued its Ethics Opinion 391, addressing the ethical obligations of lawyers and law firms considering entering into agreements with governments that may limit or shape their law practices.
The Opinion identifies three issues that a lawyer’s contract with a government agency may raise: (1) conflicts of interest for current or future matters adverse to that government, (2) improper restrictions on a lawyer’s practice, and (3) interference with a lawyer’s professional independence.
The Opinion notes that the lawyer’s entry into representation of a government may involve several District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct, including:
- RPC 1.3 (Diligence and Zeal)
- RPC 1.7 (Conflicts of Interest)
- RPC 1.10 (Imputed Disqualification: General Rule)
- RPC 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation)
- RPC 5.4 (Professional Independence of a Lawyer)
- RPC 5.6 (Restrictions on Right to Practice)
The potential for conflicts of interest when a lawyer represents a government agency are significant. The Opinion states that a lawyer may proceed despite the existence of such a conflict only if two conditions are satisfied. First, the lawyer must “reasonably believe” that he or she can “provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client.” Second, the lawyer must “disclose the possible conflict to [his or her] client” and receive the client’s “informed consent” to the conflict “after full disclosure of the existence and nature of the possible conflict and the possible adverse consequences of such representation.”
The opinion recognizes that such consent may be difficult to draft and obtain. Government typically comprises multiple agencies. In some circumstances, such a structure may mean that a conflict with one agency needs not be measured against the government as a whole. The current position of the U.S. Department of Justice, however, is that a private lawyer’s adversity to any element of the federal government constitutes a conflict with the entire executive branch, if not the entire U.S. government.
The Committee notes that D.C. Rule 5.6(b) prohibits lawyers from entering into an agreement in which a restriction on the lawyer's right to practice is part of the settlement of a client controversy. The Committee cites a 2002 decision of the D.C. Court of Appeals which stressed the need to prohibit conditions whose effect is to limit the access of future clients to lawyers of their choosing—particularly “lawyers, who by virtue of their background and experience, might be the very best available talent to represent [such] individuals.”
Lastly, the Committee states, “Lawyers and law firms that contemplate agreeing with a government to conditions that may limit or shape their law practices must examine whether such conduct will create issues under the Rules of Professional Conduct. This might include conflicts of interest for engagements (existing or new) adverse to that government, improper restrictions upon the lawyers’ right to practice, or interference with the lawyers’ professional independence. If a conflict is found to exist, obtaining a valid waiver may be difficult. Lawyers who represent the government in seeking, negotiating, or implementing such agreements also must consider their responsibilities under the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
Lawyer Mediating for Unrepresented Parties Must Explain Role Clearly, ABA Ethics Opinion States
A new ethics opinion published by the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility,
Formal Opinion 518, considers the responsibilities of a lawyer serving as mediator in a case involving unrepresented parties.
The Opinion primarily addresses a lawyer’s responsibilities under
Rule 2.4 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, “Lawyer Serving as Third-Party Neutral.” Pennsylvania’s
Rule 2.4 is identical to the Model Rule. Rule 2.4(a) states, “A lawyer serves as a third-party neutral when the lawyer assists two or more persons who are not clients of the lawyer to reach a resolution of a dispute or other matter that has arisen between them.” This term includes mediation, arbitration, and other decision-making processes. Rule 2.4(b) imposes two duties on the lawyer acting in this role: to “inform unrepresented parties that the lawyer is not representing them,” and, if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that a party does not understand the lawyer’s role, to “explain the difference between the lawyer’s role as a third-party neutral and a lawyer’s role as one who represents a client.”
Comment 3 to the Rule notes that this responsibility is particularly applicable for parties who are using the dispute resolution process for the first time. It adds, “Where appropriate, the lawyer should inform unrepresented parties of the important differences between the lawyer’s role as third-party neutral and a lawyer’s role as a client representative, including the inapplicability of the attorney-client evidentiary privilege.”
The Opinion states that the lawyer-mediator should avoid communicating in a manner that might be taken as legal advice, or otherwise suggesting to a mediation party that the lawyer mediator’s role is to protect or advance a party’s legal interests or to help the party to attain a particular desired result. A lawyer-mediator may offer an opinion as to how a tribunal is likely to rule on an issue but should not state or imply that a settlement is in the party’s best interest because a tribunal is likely to decide adversely to the party.
The Committee warns that a lawyer-mediator does not have the same leeway as a lawyer negotiating for a client to make statements that are immaterial or of questionable veracity. It states, “Given the lawyer-mediator’s neutrality, parties are likely to trust the lawyer-mediator to play it straight, and to not exaggerate or make false statements designed to lead the parties to an agreement.” For this reason, “a lawyer-mediator must be both thoughtful and cautious in communicating information from one party to the other and in answering questions that may be asked about the information communicated or about the lawyer-mediator’s views of the information.”
In conclusion, the Committee states, “Unless the parties are sophisticated consumers of mediation services, it is prudent for the lawyer-mediator not only to inform all parties that the lawyer-mediator does not represent them but also to afford them an opportunity to discuss what this means.”
Note that this Opinion is advisory only. It is not binding on the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania or any other Court.
All Shook Up: Judge Agrees to Retirement After Elvis Cosplay in Court
A Missouri judge agreed to a disciplinary disposition that provided for his retirement after
admitting to a course of conduct that included dressing up as Elvis Presley for Halloween and conducting court sessions with an Elvis flair.
Circuit Judge Matthew Thornhill of St. Charles County, Missouri agreed to a
disciplinary disposition with the Missouri Commission on Retirement, Removal, and Discipline. Thornhill admitted that he had dressed like Elvis and wore an Elvis wig in court on October 31
st. The allegations stated that he had allowed litigants to be sworn in using Elvis music played on his phone, played Elvis songs while entering the courtroom and while doing court business there, and made Elvis references in court “when such statements were irrelevant to the proceedings.” The Commission concluded that this conduct violated rules requiring a judge to maintain “order and decorum” and “promote confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.” The Commission also found that Thornhill had inappropriately discussed his political opinions in court proceedings and hand-delivered an affidavit vouching for a party in an adoption case, in violation of Missouri Supreme Court rules.
Thornhill wrote that he intended “to add levity at times when I thought it would help relax litigants” but conceded that he now recognizes “that this could affect the integrity and solemnity of the proceedings.”
The disposition provides that Thornhill will serve a six-month unpaid suspension. He will be allowed to return for an eighteen-month stint but must retire after that and commit to never seek reelection. This will allow him to retire after twenty years of service with full benefits. The disposition is pending before the Supreme Court of Missouri.
Not So Fast: Disgraced Judge Who Covertly Hung Portrait in Courtroom Gets Called Out
A former Arkansas judge who resigned under disciplinary inquiry thought he could
sneak his portrait into his former courtroom while the other judges were away at a judicial conference. That didn’t sit well at all with the circuit’s administrative judge.
Former Judge Chris Williams resigned from the bench on March 30, 2024 while under investigation by the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission (JDDC) for multiple allegations that he violated judicial rules. In a
press release at the time, the JDDC said Williams’ resignation terminated the JDDC investigations. Due to his resignation, the nature of the alleged rules violations was never made public. The release further said Williams’ resignation included an agreement that he would no longer be eligible to be elected, appointed, or otherwise serve in the judiciary of this state.
When judges in the circuit retire under normal circumstances, the local bar association pays for the creation of a portrait and it is installed in the courtroom in a ceremony. Given the circumstances of Williams’ departure from the bench, that did not happen.
But Williams would not be denied. He paid for the painting of a portrait himself and arranged for a secret ceremony to hang it in his former courtroom on a date when the other judges in the circuit were away at the fall Judicial Council Meeting.
When Administrative Judge Stephen Shirron learned of the covert installation, he was enraged. “We cannot stand idly by and allow a celebration of corruption in our courtrooms without speaking up,” he wrote.
Judge Shirron could have simply ordered the portrait removed, but he had a different treatment in mind. He directed that a framed copy of the official JDDC Press Release be hung in the courtroom, immediately below the portrait of Chris Williams.
After Judge Shirron’s order was carried out, District Justice of the Peace Ralph Williams, who happens to be Chris Williams’s brother,
requested at a meeting of county officials that the press release be removed. When his request was met with no objection from any county official present, he proceeded to take it down directly following the meeting. The press release was reinstated and removed at least once after that.
The Keystone Lex has no information and has not traveled to Hot Springs, Arkansas to ascertain the current status of the disputed posting.
Psychics Let Me Down on Bar Examination: K. Kardashian
Socialite, professional celebrity, and occasional actress Kim Kardashian has longed for at least half a decade to become a lawyer, but her legal ambitions hit a snag when she
failed the California bar exam. She was pretty irate about it, but her anger was directed not at the bar but rather at a
team of four psychics who all predicted she would pass the exam.
Kardashian took an unconventional path to her goal of bar admission. Beginning in 2019, she served an apprenticeship at a San Francisco law firm which, in California, is an acceptable alternative to attending law school. In 2021, she revealed that she had passed the “baby bar,” or the First-Year Law Student's Examination (on her fourth try).
She vented her frustration in a video on TikTok (recorded on her phone while sitting for eye makeup). She commented, “All of the [bleep] psychics that we have met with, and that we're obsessed with, are all [bleep] full of [bleep].”
The
adjusted passage rate for the California Bar was 63%.
Undaunted, Kardashian announced she intends to keep studying and pass the bar in the future.
Maybe it’s not our place to say, but perhaps law school or at least a good bar review course would be a better investment than those psychics.
