IN RE: WILLIE G. JOHNSON (2024)

Joint petition for consent discipline accepted. See per curiam.

Crichton, J., dissents and assigns reasons.

Genovese, J., would reject the joint petition for consent discipline as too lenient.

03/12/24

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

NO. 2024-B-0147

IN RE: WILLIE G. JOHNSON, JR.

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

PER CURIAM

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent failed to remit settlement funds to a third-party loan company that held a lien against the settlement proceeds. Following the filing of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Willie G. Johnson, Jr., Louisiana Bar Roll number 28628, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months. This suspension shall be deferred in its entirety, subject to a two-year period of probation governed by the conditions set forth in the petition for consent discipline. The probationary period shall commence from the date respondent and the ODC execute a formal probation plan. Any failure of respondent to comply with the conditions of probation, or any misconduct during the probationary period, may be grounds for making the deferred suspension executory, or imposing additional discipline, as appropriate.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court's judgment until paid.

The Louisiana Constitution vests this Court with original jurisdiction in all “disciplinary proceedings against a member of the bar.” La. Const. art. V, § 5(B). Notwithstanding the fact that petitioner and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel have submitted this matter as a joint petition, I would reject this petition for consent discipline as too lenient. Petitioner's misconduct in this case was knowing and caused actual harm, and therefore I believe it merits a lengthier period of suspension.