In re Johnnie L. Johnson, III

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviews disciplinary proceedings against Johnnie L. Johnson, III. The court upholds findings that Johnson violated multiple D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct through improper fees, false statements, dishonesty, inadequate communication, and conduct interfering with the administration of justice, and imposes disbarment.

Holdings

1. The Board's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and therefore had to be adopted.
2. Johnson violated Rule 1.4(b) by failing to inform H.G. of the statutory restrictions governing attorney's fees in the workers' compensation claim.
3. Johnson violated Rule 1.5(a) by accepting a fee prohibited by statute, charging an unreasonable fee for the work performed, and seeking compensation for work not performed.
4. Johnson violated Rule 3.3(a)(1) by submitting an inflated fee petition containing assertions about work he knew he had not performed.
5. Johnson violated Rule 8.4(c) through his false fee petition, dishonest statements about his representation to successor counsel, and evasive responses concerning the fee he received.
6. Johnson violated Rule 8.1(b) by denying that he had taken the erroneously stated fee without disclosing that he had taken a different, still unlawful fee.
7. Johnson violated Rule 8.4(d) because his mishandling of H.G.'s case, unlawful fee conduct, dishonest fee petition, and frivolous appeal seriously interfered with the administration of justice.
8. Disbarment was warranted for Johnson's flagrant dishonesty and related misconduct, with full restitution of $19,350.21 to the Clients' Security Fund as a condition of reinstatement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Board's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence.
2. Whether Johnson violated D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4(b), 1.5(a), 3.3(a)(1), 8.1(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d).
3. Whether disbarment, with restitution as a condition of reinstatement, was a consistent and warranted sanction.
4. Whether Johnson's constitutional and misidentification arguments warranted reversal of the disciplinary findings.

Disposition

other