“Lawyer, Engineer, Genius”

A Louisiana Hearing Committee recommends that readmission be denied to a petitioner who the committee found to have held himself out as an attorney.

[Petitioner] was conditionally admitted to the bar by the Louisiana Supreme Court. His conditional admission was subsequently revoked by the Court after a committee hearing. He then filed a request for readmission directly with the Louisiana Supreme Court which was denied. This Hearing Committee proceeding, and Hearing Committee Recommendation follows the new filing of a petition/application for readmission wherein Mr. Montgomery seeks to regain the valuable privilege that he previously lost to be able to practice law in the State of Louisiana.

The report largely blacks out the information relating to the conditional admission and revocation.

The primary problem involved his various assertions concerning his status

He was not admitted to practice in any other state. The key date therefore is September 29, 2020, the date of his revocation, and his actions thereafter. Exhibit ODC 7 is the key exhibit that reflects Mr. Montgomery’s failures on E2 [unauthorized practice] These documents reflect multiple online advertisements pertaining to Mr. Montgomery—wherein he refers to himself at “Dr.” Montgomery. These documents reflect the following:
1. November 2021 Open Sea submission on Cryptocurrencies wherein Mr. Montgomery states “I am a lawyer, cryptoeconomist, engineer and educator who is passionate about teaching economics and politics in a practical manner.”
2. November 2021 submission as “Doc’s Political Art and Education.” Mr. Montgomery testified he created this submission. He includes his picture holding an AR-15 rifle, peering through blinds and it states: “Pictured (left): Jamar “Doc”

3. A submission for a conference of April 3-5, 2024 with NFT. Mr. Montgomery is referred in the LEGAL presenter sections as “Dr. Jamar Montgomery” of “The Office of Jamar Montgomery.” There was no “Office of Jamar Montgomery.” The inference is that it is his law office. In the submission by Mr. Montgomery he states: “As we delve deep into the intricate labyrinth of NFT regulations, we’ll unravel the cases shaping the digital asset narrative. In a world bursting with digital potential, it’s crucial to understand the legal underpinnings that protect creators, consumers, and innovators.”
4. In a further NFT submission Mr. Montgomery refers to himself as “Lawyer, Engineer, Genius” under the heading “Served via the Blockchain: The Future of Legal Service of Process Through NFTs”. “In this session, we explore the revolutionary potential of using NFTs for legal service of process. Imagine a world where legal notices are securely and verifiably served through blockchain technology. This would delve into the legal and ethical considerations, as well as the technical feasibility of such a system. In addition, we would explore NFTs being used in the notarization process.” Montgomery: lawyer, professor, and 2020 United States Senate Candidate.
5. An internet publication in the Fall of 2023 for The Scalable Business Series. Mr. Montgomery is depicted as “Dr. Jamar Montgomery Lawyer, Politician, USA”.
6. NFT.NYC 2024 submission by Jamar “Doc” Montgomery wherein he states” Excited to announce that I’m a Legal Track speaker for NFT.NYC.”
7. MINNECT submission wherein he chargesfees for a Quick Question or a Video Call. It is $18 for a text, $48 for a video answer, or $13 per minute for a Video Call with am15- minute minimum. Under the heading Where I can help, includes Legal. Under About Me he states: “Multidisciplinary Genius who ran for US Senate in 2020, International Speaker during the 2024 World Economic Forum. I started college at 11, and had 3 degrees before 30. If Kanye would have listened to me, he would have saved Billions. US Navy Weapon Systems Engineer Former Juvenile Public Defender Political Scientist and Political Science Professor Startup Advisor and Mentor Campaign Advisor.”

In his prehearing sworn statement Mr. Montgomery denied referring to himself as a lawyer except in Linked In and in connection with his political campaign. ODC Exhibit 1, Bates 85. The information in ODC 7 is troubling. The Hearing Committee concludes that these actions are contrary to the Rule of Professional Conduct and the law. Rule 5.5(b) prohibits a lawyer, not admitted in Louisiana, from holding out to the public or otherwise represent that the lawyer is admitted to practice in Louisiana.

Mr. Montgomery’s actions are a criminal violation of La. R.S. 37:213 which prohibits a lawyer not duly and regularly licensed and admitted to practice law by the Louisiana Supreme Court from (1) practicing law; (3) holding himself to the public as being entitled to practice law; (4) rendering or furnishing legal services or advice; (5) assuming to be an attorney at law or counselor at law; (6) assuming, using or advertising the title of lawyer, attorney, counselor, advocate or equivalent terms in any language, or any phrase containing any of these titles in such a manner as to convey the impression that he is a practitioner of law; or (7) in any manner advertise that he . . .has, owns, conducts or maintains an office of any kind for the practice of law.

At the Hearing Mr. Montgomery attempted to escape his actions by suggesting that a person need not be an admitted and licensed attorney to use the term “lawyer.” He suggested that the designation of “attorney” is what connotes that a person is licensed and admitted. The Hearing Committee does not believe that he in good faith believed he used the term lawyer with this absurd theory in mind. He simply has been caught.

Finding

Section E2 has been egregiously and unequivocally violated and alone is worthy of denial of admission.

Denial recommended

It is concluded that Mr. Montgomery cannot satisfy the requirements of “competency to practice” required by E7 and the requisite “honesty and integrity” to practice law of E6.

It is not a close call on whether readmission should be allowed. The burden on Mr. Montgomery was to prove all elements with clear and convincing evidence. He failed to meet his burden. The evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Montgomery should not be granted readmission.

Considering the requirements of the Rule XIX, Section 24 collectively and individually the Hearing Committee has concluded that Mr. Montgomery should not be readmitted to the practice of law.

A lot of time and resources have been utilized to date in considering Mr. Montgomery. This starts with the original bar admission evaluation and those lawyers and staff that were involved in that process; two committee hearings involving committees, ODC personnel, reporters and witnesses; ODC involvement in his post-revocation; as well as multiple justices and their staffs. No doubt many have spent countless hours in matters pertaining to Mr. Montgomery. It is confounding that Mr. Montgomery cannot even take care of the administrative requirements under Louisiana Supreme Court Rule XIX, Section 24 (E). It is disappointing that Mr. Montgomery did not maintain his person and his affairs with the integrity to which we hold members of the legal profession. The Committee did not have the impression that Mr. Montgomery takes these issues seriously. His overall approach was one in which he wanted to suggest his support obligation is in order and that should end the inquiry.

The committee proposes that a renewed attempt be precluded for three years and that he be required to pass the bar examination again. (Mike Frisch)