In Re: J. Shelby Sharpe
4:24-mc-00007
N.D. Tex.Jun 3, 2025Background
- J. Shelby Sharpe, an attorney with nearly sixty years of practice, represented Dale and Linda Behan in extensive federal litigation after a multimillion-dollar judgment was entered against them.
- Sharpe was suspended from practicing in the Northern District of Texas due to multiple violations of court orders relating to collection efforts on the judgment.
- Despite suspension, Sharpe continued to file documents on behalf of the Behans and their companies, and gave legal advice in violation of court and panel directives.
- The court appointed investigators to review whether Sharpe engaged in conduct unbecoming an attorney, complied with ethical rules and court orders, and was fit to continue litigation.
- The panel found credible evidence of Sharpe’s lack of candor, filing while suspended, inconsistency in legal positions, and involvement in actions to thwart federal judgment enforcement.
- Sanctions were imposed, including mandatory withdrawal from representing the Behans or their affiliates, prohibition from giving them legal advice, and a bar on new representations without panel approval.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Filing after suspension | Sharpe defied court orders | Claimed misunderstanding, mistake, and no bad faith | Filing was misconduct warranting sanction |
| Filing state court actions | Sharpe undermined federal orders | Actions didn’t violate orders; lawsuits weren’t by Behans | Violated turnover order and court directives |
| Involvement in property sale | Sharpe helped hide violation | Claimed lack of actual knowledge until late stage | Sharpe participated and failed disclosure |
| Lack of candor to investigators | Sharpe lied, evidence conflicted | Statements not material, did not affect outcome | Lack of candor was material and sanctionable |
Key Cases Cited
- Sealed Appellant 1 v. Sealed Appellee 1, 211 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2000) (attorney discipline requires clear and convincing evidence)
- Shafer v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 376 F.3d 386 (5th Cir. 2004) (clear and convincing evidence defined)
- In re First City Bancorporation of Tex. Inc., 282 F.3d 864 (5th Cir. 2002) (sanctions should be least restrictive means)
- In re Sealed Appellant, 194 F.3d 666 (5th Cir. 1999) (factors in imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct)