Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed judgments disbarring Barbara C. Johnson from practicing law and holding her in civil contempt for failing to comply with the disbarment judgment. The court rejected her constitutional, procedural, and substantive challenges, including claims concerning equal protection, protective orders, subpoenas, impounded materials, confidentiality, and First Amendment rights. It also upheld the contempt judgment after she failed to close her IOLTA account, provide notice of disbarment, and submit a required compliance affidavit.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the disciplinary process violated Johnson's equal-protection rights by selectively disciplining her while not disciplining other attorneys involved in the underlying matters.
- Whether Johnson could challenge a protective order and the underlying court orders requiring the removal or return of impounded material for the first time in the disciplinary proceeding.
- Whether the hearing officer improperly closed the disciplinary hearing to the public after Johnson repeatedly violated the protective order by using the parties' real names.
- Whether the hearing officer improperly quashed subpoenas seeking to relitigate the underlying cases and attack the disciplinary process.
- Whether Johnson's publication of impounded or confidential information was protected by the First Amendment or otherwise could not support professional discipline.
- Whether the disbarment sanction was markedly disparate from sanctions imposed in comparable cases.
- Whether the single justice properly found Johnson in civil contempt for failing to comply with the disbarment judgment, notwithstanding her appeal from that judgment.
- Whether Johnson was entitled to a jury trial because the contempt order required incarceration until she complied.
Holdings
- Johnson failed to establish a class-of-one equal-protection violation because she presented no evidence that she was intentionally treated differently from similarly situated attorneys without a rational basis.
- Johnson could not complain about the protective order or the closure of the disciplinary hearing where she failed to challenge the order and repeatedly violated it by using the parties' real names; the hearing officer properly cleared the public when impounded material was at issue.
- The hearing officer properly quashed Johnson's subpoenas because the requested witnesses were irrelevant to the disciplinary proceeding and the subpoenas sought to relitigate underlying matters and attack the disciplinary process.
- Johnson could not ignore or collaterally challenge court orders concerning impounded materials in the disciplinary proceeding, and her publication of confidential, highly sensitive information was not protected by the First Amendment in the circumstances presented.
- The disbarment sanction was affirmed because Johnson did not argue, and the court did not conclude, that it was markedly disparate from sanctions imposed in similar cases.
- The single justice properly found Johnson in civil contempt for failing to comply with the disbarment judgment, and her appeal did not deprive the single justice of jurisdiction to enforce that judgment.
- Johnson was not entitled to a jury trial because the contempt was civil rather than criminal; her ability to obtain release by complying with the disbarment judgment established that she held the key to the jail.
Key quotations
“she was not free to ignore them and challenge them for the first time in the disciplinary proceeding.” (450 Mass. at 170)
“Whatever rights she may have had to “defend herself against false accusations” regarding the fee dispute, those rights did not include publishing highly sensitive personal information regarding allegations that the father had sexually abused his mentally retarded daughter.” (450 Mass. at 171)
“Here the single justice merely acted to enforce the disbarment judgment.” (450 Mass. at 172)
Factual background
Johnson, an attorney, posted impounded and confidential information concerning child-sex-abuse, paternity, custody, protective-services, and fee-dispute matters on her website, including names, photographs, pleadings, and sensitive allegations. She ignored court orders requiring removal or return of impounded materials, mishandled a client retainer and disputed funds, and used the possibility of removing website material to pressure clients to withdraw a bar complaint. In an unrelated wrongful-termination case, she filed bad-faith motions, failed to pay court-ordered fees and penalties, repeatedly pursued improper retransfer motions instead of an appeal, and was held in contempt. After disbarment, she failed to comply timely with required disbarment-related obligations.
Procedural history
After a disciplinary hearing, a special hearing officer recommended disbarment. The Board of Bar Overseers adopted the findings and conclusions and filed an information in the county court. The single justice adopted the board's findings and entered a judgment of disbarment. In a separate proceeding, the single justice found Johnson in civil contempt for failing to close her IOLTA account, notify clients of her disbarment, and file an affidavit of compliance; she was jailed until she complied and was released four days later. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed both judgments.