NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: August 13, 2024
S24Y1070. IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY O. VAN JOHNSON
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the report and
recommendation of Special Master Samuel Rusbridge, who
recommends that the Court grant the petition for voluntary
discipline filed by respondent Anthony O. Van Johnson (State Bar
No. 392232) pursuant to Bar Rule 4-227 (c) after the filing of a
formal complaint. Van Johnson, a member of the State Bar since
1996, filed the petition seeking the acceptance of his voluntary
surrender of license to practice law for his admitted violations of
Rules 1.2 (a), 1.3, 1.4, 1.15 (I), 1.16 (d), 5.5 (a), and 8.4 (a) (4) of the
Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (“Rules”) found in Bar Rule
4-102 (d). The maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 1.2 (a), 1.3,
1.15 (I), 5.5 (a), or 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment. The maximum penalty
for violation of Rule 1.4 or 1.16 (d) is a public reprimand. The
voluntary surrender of Van Johnson’s license to practice law is
tantamount to disbarment. See Rule 1.0 (s). Having reviewed the
record, we agree to accept Van Johnson’s petition for voluntary
discipline.
1. Petition for Voluntary Discipline
(a) Admissions of Fact and Conduct
The petition concerns four underlying disciplinary matters,
and Van Johnson admits to the following facts. With regard to State
Disciplinary Board Docket (“SDBD”) Nos. 7777 and 7778, Client One
retained Van Johnson to represent her in connection with a personal
injury action in November 2021. During the course of that
representation, Van Johnson was suspended from the practice of law
for six months beginning in February 2022 related to a different
disciplinary matter. See In the Matter of Van Johnson, 313 Ga. 151
(868 SE2d 794) (2022). Van Johnson failed to inform Client One of
his suspension and continued to represent her. During his
suspension, Van Johnson settled Client One’s claims in April of 2022
2
but falsely told the client in May 2022 that he was still engaged in
negotiations with the insurer even after receiving a settlement
check for $47,000 from the insurer. The check was made jointly
payable to Client One and Van Johnson, and Van Johnson forged
Client One’s signature on the check and cashed it, retaining the
funds for himself. After receiving no communication from Van
Johnson, Client One contacted the insurer directly and learned that
her case had been settled and a check had been issued. Client One
confronted Van Johnson, who wrote a check to Client One for
$28,759. Client One deposited the check, but Van Johnson had put
a stop-payment order on it, so her bank was unable to honor the
check. Client One has not received any payment from Van Johnson,
nor has Van Johnson paid any of Client One’s medical liens, which
have negatively affected Client One’s credit.
With regard to SDBD No. 7811, in October 2022, Client Two
paid Van Johnson a $3,000 retainer to represent her in a divorce
case. Client Two met with Van Johnson in November or December
2022 to review a draft of her divorce petition. Van Johnson promised
3
to correct errors pointed out by Client Two, but he never contacted
her again and never filed her divorce petition. Client Two was forced
to hire a new attorney to handle her divorce. Van Johnson sent a
letter to the State Bar in December 2022 stating his intention to
refund Client Two’s $3,000 retainer, but had not done so by the time
he filed his petition.
With regard to State Disciplinary Board File No. 230071, in
October 2021, Client Three hired Van Johnson to represent her in a
criminal matter and paid him in installments. On the same day she
made her final payment, Client Three turned herself in for arrest.
Van Johnson assured her that he would attend her bond hearing,
which was scheduled for the following day, but he failed to do so.
Client Three did not hear from him again until December 2021,
when he told her that he had been out of the country. Van Johnson
promised to follow up with her the next day, but he did not. Despite
taking $3,500 from Client Three and promising to represent her in
her criminal case, Van Johnson never filed an entry of appearance
or took any other action on Client Three’s behalf.
4
On or about December 23, 2021, Client Three informed Van
Johnson in an email that there was a new case pending in juvenile
court related to her criminal charges. Van Johnson responded that
that it would cost $4,500 for his representation in that case. Client
Three paid Van Johnson $1,500 in January 2022, but a few days
after she paid him, the Georgia Division of Family & Children
Services (“DFCS”) returned Client Three’s children to her custody.
The juvenile court case was later dismissed. Client Three advised
Van Johnson accordingly and requested a refund of her $1,500
payment because her case had been resolved. In February 2022,
Client Three received a folder from Van Johnson containing her file
and a letter stating that he was no longer practicing law. The letter
advised her to find another attorney. Van Johnson promised to
refund her money, but he never did. Van Johnson denied to the State
Bar that he was ever retained for the juvenile court case, but he is
listed as Client Three’s counsel in court documents filed in January
2022, and the juvenile court judge confirmed that Van Johnson had
contacted the court on Client Three’s behalf.
5
(b) Admissions of Rule Violations
With regard to SDBD Nos. 7777 and 7778, Van Johnson admits
that he violated Rule 1.2 (a)1 when he engaged in settlement
negotiations and reached a settlement agreement without Client
One’s knowledge or participation. Van Johnson admits he violated
Rule 1.4 (a) (2), (a) (3), and (b)2 when he failed to consult with Client
One during settlement negotiations and failed to obtain her
approval on the settlement amount; when he failed to inform her
that he had settled her case and received payment for that
settlement; when he falsely told her that he was still engaged in
settlement negotiations even after he had settled the case and
1 Rule 1.2 (a) provides in part that “a lawyer shall abide by a client’s
decisions concerning the scope and objectives of representation and, as
required by Rule 1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which
they are to be pursued. A lawyer may take such action on behalf of the client
as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation. A lawyer shall abide
by a client’s decision whether to settle a matter.”
2 Rule 1.4 (a) (2) provides that a lawyer shall “reasonably consult with
the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be
accomplished.” Rule 1.4 (a) (3) provides that a lawyer shall “keep the client
reasonably informed about the status of the matter.” Rule 1.4 (b) requires
lawyers to “explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the
client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.”
6
received payment; and when he failed to explain the status of the
case and concealed the actual status of her case from her, which
prevented her from being able to make informed decisions.
Van Johnson admits that he violated Rule 1.15 (I) (a), (b), and
(c)3 when he failed to hold Client One’s funds separate from his own
3 Rule 1.15 (I) provides:
(a) A lawyer shall hold funds or other property of clients or third
persons that are in a lawyer’s possession in connection with a
representation separate from the lawyer’s own funds or other
property. Funds shall be kept in one or more separate accounts
maintained in an approved institution as defined by Rule 1.15 (III)
(c) (1). Other property shall be identified as such and appropriately
safeguarded. Complete records of such account funds and other
property shall be kept by the lawyer and shall be preserved for a
period of six years after termination of the representation.
(b) For the purposes of this rule, a lawyer may not disregard a third
person’s interest in funds or other property in the lawyer’s
possession if:
(1) the interest is known to the lawyer, and
(2) the interest is based upon one of the following:
(i) A statutory lien;
(ii) A final judgment addressing disposition of those funds or
property; or
(iii) A written agreement by the client or the lawyer on
behalf of the client guaranteeing payment out of those funds
or property.
The lawyer may disregard the third person’s claimed interest if the
lawyer reasonably concludes that there is a valid defense to such
lien, judgment, or agreement.
7
funds by converting them for his own use; when he disregarded the
third-party interests of health care providers by failing to pay Client
One’s medical liens; when he failed to inform Client One that the
insurer had sent him a settlement check; and when he failed to
promptly deliver her funds by sending her a check and then stopping
payment on the check before she could deposit it. Van Johnson
admits that he violated Rule 5.5 (a)4 when he engaged in
negotiations and/or held himself out to Client One to be engaged in
negotiations on her behalf, during a period in which he was
suspended from the practice of law. Van Johnson admits that he
(c) Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third
person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or
third person. Except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted
by law or by agreement with the client, a lawyer shall promptly
deliver to the client or third person any funds or other property
that the client or third person is entitled to receive and, upon
request by the client or third person, shall promptly render a full
accounting regarding such property.
4 Rule 5.5 (a) provides that “[a] lawyer shall not practice law in a
jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal profession in that
jurisdiction . . . .”
8
violated Rule 8.4 (a) (4)5 when he forged Client One’s signature on
the settlement check made out to both him and Client One; when he
converted Client One’s funds and funds owed to third parties for his
own use; and when he requested that his bank stop payment on the
check he had written to Client One before she could deposit it.
With regard to SDBD No. 7811, Van Johnson admits that he
violated Rule 1.36 when he failed to file Client Two’s petition for
divorce after being retained to do so. Van Johnson admits that he
violated Rule 1.4 (a) (3) when he failed to contact Client Two or
respond to any of her inquiries about the status of her case following
their meeting to review her divorce petition. Van Johnson admits
5 Rule 8.4 (a) (4) provides that it shall be a violation of the Rules for a
lawyer to “engage in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit
or misrepresentation.”
6 Rule 1.3 provides that “[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence
and promptness in representing a client. Reasonable diligence as used in this
rule means that a lawyer shall not without just cause to the detriment of the
client in effect willfully abandon or willfully disregard a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer.”
9
that he violated Rule 1.16 (d)7 when he failed to refund Client Two’s
payment of $3,000, which was unearned and remains unpaid.
With regard to State Disciplinary Board File No. 230071, Van
Johnson admits that he violated Rule 1.2 (a) when he failed to
consult with Client Three during either of her cases and took some
action without her knowledge. Van Johnson admits that he violated
Rule 1.3 when he failed to take any action at all in Client Three’s
criminal case after being retained to represent her. He admits that
he violated Rule 1.4 (a) (2), (3), and (4) when he failed to discuss
either case with Client Three; when he failed to update Client Three
about either case; and when he failed to respond to Client Three’s
numerous inquiries about both cases. Van Johnson admits that he
violated Rule 1.5 (a)8 in both of Client Three’s cases by collecting fees
7 Rule 1.16 (d) provides that “[u]pon termination of representation, a
lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for
employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the
client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been
earned.”
8 Rule 1.5 (a) provides that “[a] lawyer shall not make an agreement for,
charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for
expenses.”
10
for cases in which he performed very little to no work. Van Johnson
states that he violated Rule 1.16 (d) when he failed to inform Client
Three in both of her cases “that he was not actually representing
her; when he prevented her from employing other counsel by leading
her to believe that he would actually represent her; and when he
failed to refund advance payment of fees that he never earned.”9
Finally, Van Johnson asks that the Special Master and the
Court accept the voluntary surrender of his license to practice law
in Georgia.
2. State Bar Response
The State Bar contends that Van Johnson’s petition contains
admissions of fact and conduct sufficient to authorize the imposition
of the discipline he has requested, as Van Johnson admitted to
violating Rules 1.2 (a), 1.3, 1.15 (I), 5.5 (a), and 8.4 (a) (4) wherein
9 As Van Johnson’s factual admissions — in addition to his admission of
a violation of this rule — demonstrate that he did indeed represent Client
Three in both of her cases, it appears that he is using the phrase “not actually
representing her” to mean “not actually performing work on her cases” in this
context rather than attempting to claim that he never actually represented
Client Three.
11
the maximum penalty for a single violation of each is disbarment.
The State Bar states that the imposition of the discipline sought by
Van Johnson meets the objectives this Court set forth in In the
Matter of Dowdy, 247 Ga. 488, 493 (4) (277 SE2d 36) (1981), to
penalize the offender, deter others, and indicate to laymen that the
courts will maintain the ethics of the profession.
The State Bar notes that, pursuant to the ABA Standards for
Imposing Lawyer Discipline (“ABA Standards”), particularly ABA
Standard 4.41, disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer
knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes serious or
potentially serious injury to a client or a lawyer engages in a pattern
of neglect with respect to client matters and causes serious or
potentially serious injury to the client. The State Bar further notes
that ABA Standard 4.61 provides that disbarment is generally
appropriate when a lawyer knowingly deceives a client with the
intent to benefit the lawyer or another and causes serious injury or
potential serious injury to the client. The State Bar suggests that
Van Johnson’s full disclosure to the disciplinary board and
12
cooperative attitude toward the proceedings are mitigating factors.
See ABA Standard 9.32. The State Bar suggests that the following
may be considered in aggravation: (1) prior disciplinary offenses; (2)
dishonest or selfish motive; (3) a pattern of misconduct; (4) multiple
offenses; (5) substantial experience in the practice of law; (6)
indifference to making restitution; and (7) illegal conduct. See ABA
Standard 9.22.
The State Bar notes that cases addressing some of the rules
violations at issue here, including Rules 1.3, 1.15 (I), and 8.4 (a) (4),
have resulted in disbarment. See, e.g., In the Matter of Sydnor, 306
Ga. 383 (830 SE2d 732) (2019); In the Matter of Sakas, 306 Ga. 504
(831 SE2d 734) (2019). Accordingly, the State Bar recommends that
the Special Master and the Court accept Van Johnson’s petition for
voluntary discipline surrendering his license to practice law.
3. Report and Recommendation of the Special Master
The Special Master made findings of fact and conclusions of
law in accordance with those detailed in Van Johnson’s petition for
voluntary discipline and the State Bar’s response. The Special
13
Master agreed with the State Bar’s analysis of the ABA Standards
as applied to this disciplinary matter and agreed that the discipline
sought by Van Johnson meets the objectives set forth in Dowdy.
Accordingly, the Special Master recommended that the Court grant
Van Johnson’s petition for voluntary discipline surrendering his
license to practice law.
4. Analysis
We have reviewed the record and agree to accept Van
Johnson’s petition for voluntary discipline where he requests that
this Court accept the voluntary surrender of his license,10 which is
tantamount to disbarment. See In the Matter of Sydnor, 306 Ga. at
384 (disbarring lawyer who forged client’s signature on settlement
check, deposited check in operating account instead of IOLTA
10 The Special Master also concluded that it was clear from Van
Johnson’s admissions that he violated Rule 3.2 (“A lawyer shall make
reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the
client.”) by failing to file Client Two’s petition for divorce after being retained to do so. Although a violation of Rule 3.2 was charged in the Formal Complaint
for SDBD No. 7811, it was not specifically included in Van Johnson’s petition
for voluntary discipline. In accepting Van Johnson’s petition, we do not rely on
the Special Master’s finding regarding the violation of Rule 3.2, a violation that provides a maximum penalty of a public reprimand.
14
account, failed to inform client he received the settlement check, and
failed to disburse funds to client); In the Matter of Sakas, 306 Ga. at
507 (disbarring lawyer who purported to represent clients while he
was suspended from the practice of law, failed to perform agreedupon work, failed to respond to inquiries from clients about the
status of their matters, and failed to return the unearned portion of
fees upon termination of the representation). Accordingly, it is
ordered that the name of Anthony O. Van Johnson be removed from
the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of
Georgia. Van Johnson is reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar
Rule 4-219 (b).
Voluntary surrender of license accepted. All the Justices concur.
15