Cursing Out Staff Violates Ethics Rules
Finding, among other things, an “offensive personality” violation, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered a six-month suspension of a previously disciplined attorney
Attorney Johnson was admitted to practice law in Wisconsin in July 2005 and practices in Appleton, Wisconsin. He has a disciplinary history. In August 2008, he received a private reprimand for being convicted of one count of misdemeanor battery as a domestic abuse incident. Private Reprimand No. 2008-21.8 In May 2010, he received a public reprimand for being convicted of one count of felony child abuse (recklessly causing harm), which related to an incident occurring at Attorney Johnson’s home involving his 12-year-old son.
Here
The behavior in question took place from late 2018 to late 2020. As mentioned above, Attorney Johnson’s behavior gave rise to five counts of misconduct.
Treatment of staff
Specifically, the referee found that, starting in late 2018 and continuing to April 2020 Attorney Johnson repeatedly used the words “bitches,” “stupid bitches,” “whores,” “idiots,” “retard,” and “retarded” when addressing staff. The referee further found that Attorney Johnson yelled at staff, sometimes for an extended period of time, and occasionally hit the counter or wall when upset. The referee further found that Attorney Johnson yelled at three of his staff members, “I hope you and all your fucking children die,” causing one staff member to quit immediately because she had a young child suffering from cancer. The referee further found that on one occasion, Attorney Johnson uttered a racial slur that was overheard by two employees. Finally, the referee found that at least five of Attorney Johnson’s staff members left their employment primarily because of Attorney Johnson’s behavior.
Failure to supervise
The referee noted that it was very uncommon for Attorney Johnson to review the documents his staff prepared in criminal cases before they affixed his signature and e-filed them.
Regarding Attorney Johnson’s personal injury caseload, the referee found that he instructed nonlawyer staff to draft demand letters——which he did not review——and negotiate with insurance companies.
He was found to lack candor in his own small claims action.
The remaining counts involved a client
In Count Four, the OLR alleged, and the referee agreed in a summary judgment order, that by failing to discuss the defendant’s waiver of preliminary examination form with D.P. prior to having D.P. sign the document, Attorney Johnson failed to explain matters to his client in violation of SCR 20:1.4(b).
In Count Five, the OLR alleged, and the referee determined in her report, that by filing with the court a waiver of preliminary examination form on which he falsely attested that he had personally explained and discussed the waiver with D.P. and answered his questions, Attorney Johnson made a false statement to the court in violation of SCR 20:3.3(a)(1).
Sanction
Considering all of these factors, the recommended six-month suspension is merited. Although we are not unsympathetic to the personal difficulties Attorney Johnson has faced in recent years, these circumstances cannot serve as carte blanche for him to disregard his professional obligations in the manner proven here. His misconduct is blatant; his two prior reprimands clearly failed to have their intended effect. We agree with the referee that a more severe sanction is warranted this time around. And the fact that a six-month suspension will require him to go through a formal reinstatement proceeding is a plus, not a minus. See SCR 22.28(3). For the benefit of the public and the bar, it is important that Attorney Johnson be fully vetted before being allowed to practice law again.
(Mike Frisch)