Biblical Sacrifice

A veteran attorney with a significant history of prior discipline should be disbarred, according to the recommendation of a Louisiana Hearing Committee

The Committee specifically finds that Respondent, Laura Johnson, an attorney practicing for approximately thirty-eight years, knowingly and intentionally, fabricated a false receipt for Kenneth Stanford in the sum of $24,500.00 for restitution in his criminal case. Laura Johnson did not attend court with the Kenneth Stanford on his court date but, instead, stated that she had pains and went to the hospital of which she submitted proof of a hospital visit in a post-trial memorandum. Laura Johnson never actively appeared in a courtroom but gave the receipt with the knowledge that it would be presented to the Department of Probation and Parole and/or the Court.

The Committee found that she, after that date, appeared at the Winn Parish Sheriffs Office and claimed to have received the $24,500.00 and disposed of the money. She was subsequently arrested for Felony Theft and other charges; however, the case was turned over to the Louisiana Attorney General and she eventually pled to criminal mischief. The $24,500.00 cash or check never existed to provide restitution; hence, Laura Johnson did not commit a felony theft as there was never any funds. Respondent, both in court and in a post-trial memorandum, specifically acknowledges her deceit and that “she told a lie”.

Sanction analysis

Respondent has a lengthy history of prior offenses as set forth in her years of the practice of law, specifically in 1985, 1990, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2007 and 2014. This is an aggravating factor under ABA Standard 9.22 (a). Further, there was a dishonest motive in that Respondent wrote out a false receipt knowing that such would be presented to Probation and Parole and the Court (although this Committee declines to find a selfish motive) thus aggravating factor 9.22(b). This Committee further finds she has 38 years of legal experience, thus aggravating factor 9.22(i). Further, she committed a crime of which she pled guilty and has another aggravating factor of 9.22(k).

This committee does find mitigating factors of 9 .32(b) absence of selfish motive, 9.32 (c) personal or emotional problems, and 9.32(1) remorse as set forth below.

Disbarment should noy be permanent as the motive remained elusive

This committee is still perplexed at the true reasoning for Respondent’s actions. This Committee has listened to hours of recordings and the reading of transcripts searching for an answer. One was not to be found. Respondent gained nothing personally from her actions other than the “satisfaction” of keeping the criminal defendant out of jail and continuing his probation (although only for a short time longer). Although the lengthy recordings submitted into evidence were admitted to show that she acted knowingly and intentionally, it does appear she was under some sort of pure manipulation by this criminal defendant. She states that she was “laying her life down for another” in the aspect of Biblical speaking. However, she gives no reason as to why she felt that she needed to do that. She claims (and the Committee found no evidence otherwise) that she was not in a romantic relationship with the defendant although she was in love with his “alter-ego” and the phone recordings seem to suggest such. Even more perplexing is she never met this “alter- ego”. Further the recordings appear to support her claim that she thought she was talking to two different individuals, although this Committee could tell after listening to audio, that this was obviously the same individual and cannot understand how Respondent was not aware of such. Further, Respondent testified that she had given thousands of dollars of her own money to the defendant. It appears that this defendant manipulated Respondent to the point that she was sacrificing her own career simply for his benefit. One wonders how a person of her experience, knowledge and age could have been so “mesmerized” for an individual to possibly give up her career and possibly face jail time just so a third person (of no relation or apparent romance) could stay out of prison.

The Committee takes notes at some of the lengthy recordings wherein Kenneth Stanford (or his alter-ego) discussed a type of “knight in shining armor” – although this Committee acknowledges it could not follow the meanings of all recordings, it appears that he convinced her that the truth would come out and she would be released of any wrong-doing. Kenneth Stanford, apparently, played on her emotional state.

While the Committee is cognizant of her lack of personal gain, she still acted in a fraudulent way and knew what she was doing. It is concerning that she wrote a receipt knowing it would be presented to the Court or Probation Department and knowing (at the time) that she had no money in her hands. Respondent testified that she felt that eventually this “attorney from Texas” would come in with the money and all would be cleared up – in fact, some of the recordings between Respondent and Kenneth Stanford seem to suggest that. But, even if this Committee chooses to believe that she thought there was money coming, she took it a step further to go to the Sheriffs office and falsely attest that she had the money and disposed of it – still hoping to keep the defendant, Kenneth Stanford, out of prison. She had the opportunity, at the very least, to immediately admit to the court that she was “duped” into believing the funds were immediately coming and wrote a false receipt, but when she realized they were not, she could have immediately confessed to the court of her actions. She did not do that. She intentionally took a second step in her deceit. She was criminally charged with felony theft but eventually pled to a misdemeanor charge. This Committee does not lessen their opinion on the severity of her actions simply because she pled to a lower charge from felony theft (although there were no funds), conspiracy, etc. Plea bargains are part of the judicial system.

She had self-reported and expressed remorse. (Mike Frisch)