In re Van Johnson

Decision Date01 February 2022
Docket NumberS22Y0282
Citation313 Ga. 151,868 S.E.2d 794
Parties In the MATTER OF Anthony O. VAN JOHNSON.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

William Van Hearnburg, Jr., Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel, Jenny K. Mittelman, William Dallas NeSmith, III, Deputy General Counsel, State Bar of Georgia, 104 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 100, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2934, for Appellant.

Warren Raymond Hinds, Warren R. Hinds, P.C., 1303 Macy Drive, Roswell, Georgia 30076, for Appellee.

Herman Maddox Kilgore, Kilgore & Rodriguez LLC, 36 Ayers Avenue, Marietta, Georgia 30060, Samuel Jeffrey Rusbridge, Dyer & Rusbridge, P.C., 291 East Main Street, Canton, Georgia 30114, for Other Party.

Per Curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court pursuant to the report and recommendation issued by Special Master S. Jeffrey Rusbridge, who recommends that the Court accept the petition for voluntary discipline filed by Anthony O. Van Johnson (Bar No. 392232) and impose a six-month suspension from the practice of law and conditions for reinstatement for Van Johnson's multiple violations of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in Bar Rule 4-102 (d) in conjunction with his representation of two clients in civil matters. The Bar filed a formal complaint as to each client. Pursuant to Bar Rule 4-227 (c) (1), Van Johnson filed a petition for voluntary discipline, which he amended, admitting certain violations and agreeing to accept a suspension of three to six months. The Bar responded by recommending acceptance of Van Johnson's amended petition for voluntary discipline and that Van Johnson receive a suspension of three to six months. The parties consented to entry of a final report and recommendation as to both complaints, which the Special Master entered.

The Special Master found the following facts to be established by the record, and we agree that the record supports his findings. Van Johnson has been a member of the State Bar since 1996. In State Disciplinary Board Docket ("SDBD") No. 7295, after settling a personal-injury client's case for $9,000 and depositing the settlement proceeds in his Lawyers Trust Account, Van Johnson did not, at that time, notify his client that he had received the funds and did not deliver to his client and to his client's medical-care providers the funds they were entitled to. Instead, Van Johnson paid himself $3,000 as his representation fee and transferred all the remaining funds in his trust account (except $1) to his law firm operating account, despite his client's making numerous requests for his portion of the settlement funds. Van Johnson responded to some of those requests with inaccurate information and did not respond at all to others. After the client filed a grievance with the Bar, Van Johnson responded by filing this petition and admitting a violation of Rule 1.15, explaining that he had been dealing with public allegations of sexual assault that had negatively impacted his law practice, and stating that he would waive his representation fee and make the client whole by January 31, 2019. On or around February 27, 2019, Van Johnson paid the client and the client's medical-care providers the amounts they were owed, and Van Johnson has since refunded his $3,000 representation fee to the client.

In SDBD No. 7315, a client paid Van Johnson $1,500 in November 2018 to represent her in a contempt action against her ex-husband and to obtain a name change for her eldest son. Van Johnson delayed filing the contempt action on his client's behalf until March 2019, and did not file the name-change petition until April 2019. In the interim, Van Johnson failed to adequately communicate with his client regarding the status of her matters. Van Johnson has since refunded his $1,500 representation fee to the client.

Based on these facts, the Special Master found that Van Johnson had violated Rules 1.3, 1.4 (a), and 1.15 (I) and (II). The maximum punishment for a violation of Rule 1.3 or 1.15 is disbarment, whereas the maximum punishment for a violation of Rule 1.4 is a public reprimand.

The Special Master considered the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions. See In the Matter of Morse , 266 Ga. 652, 470 S.E.2d 232 (1996) ; ABA Standard 4.0 and 4.41. The Special Master then considered the existence of mitigating or aggravating factors. See ABA Standard 9.0 et seq. The Special Master found in mitigation that Van Johnson did not have a prior disciplinary record, had experienced personal or emotional problems that negatively impacted his law practice, and exhibited a cooperative attitude toward the proceedings.1 See ABA Standard 9.32 (a), (c), and (e). The Special Master found in aggravation that Van Johnson had multiple offenses as part of this case and substantial experience in the practice of law. See ABA Standard 9.22 (c) and (i).

After acknowledging that an attorney's misuse of a client's funds is punishable by a maximum penalty of disbarment and that under the ABA Standards, disbarment is appropriate for a knowing conversion of client property that causes potential injury to the client, the Special Master noted that penalties in Georgia cases for misusing client funds range from reprimands to various lengths of suspension to the ultimate penalty of disbarment. Compare In the Matter of Turner , 289 Ga. 563, 564, 713 S.E.2d 867 (2011) (imposing Review Panel reprimand for lawyer who admitted to unauthorized manipulation of client contract and funds, but who was remorseful, cooperated with disciplinary proceedings, had no prior disciplinary history, made restitution, and provided evidence of good character), with In the Matter of Storrs , 300 Ga. 68, 68-69, 792 S.E.2d 664 (2016) (imposing three-month suspension for lawyer who misappropriated $11,150 of client funds and had one prior disciplinary matter, but suffered from emotional and mental distress, cooperated with disciplinary proceedings, made restitution, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • In re Whiteside
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • May 31, 2023
    ... ... judgment); In Matter of Golub, 313 Ga. 686 (872 ... S.E.2d 699) (2022) (one-year suspension for lawyer who failed ... to complete legal work and failed to adequately communicate ... with client; one instance of prior discipline); In the ... Matter of Van Johnson, 313 Ga. 151 (868 S.E.2d 794) ... (2022) (accepting petition for voluntary discipline and ... imposing six-month suspension for lawyer with no prior ... disciplinary history who misappropriated, but repaid, client ... funds and who failed to perform diligently or to ... ...
  • In re Inquiry Concerning Hays
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • February 1, 2022
1 books & journal articles
  • Legal Ethics
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 74-1, September 2022
    • Invalid date
    ...GA. RULES OF PRO. CONDUCT r. 5.5.53. In re Palmer, 313 at 116, 868 S.E.2d at 235.54. Id. at 117, 868 S.E.2d at 235.55. In re Van Johnson, 313 Ga. 151, 154, 868 S.E.2d 794, 797 (2022). 56. Id. at 151-52, 868 S.E.2d at 796.57. Id. at 152-53, 868 S.E.2d at 796-97.58. Id. at 152, 868 S.E.2d at ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT