IN RE: Lynn Plaisance JOHNSON (2022)

Reciprocal discipline imposed. See per curiam.

This matter arises from a Petition to Initiate Reciprocal Discipline Proceedings filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, Lynn Plaisance Johnson,¹ an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana and Missouri, based upon discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of Missouri.

UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 13, 2021, the Supreme Court of Missouri disbarred respondent for violating the following provisions of the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct: Rules 4-1.1 (competence), 4-1.3 (diligence), 4-1.4 (communication), 4-1.5 (fees), 4-1.15(a)(c) (safekeeping property), 4-1.16(d) (declining or terminating representation), 4-3.4(c) (duties to opposing party and counsel and ethical obligation to follow court orders and rules), 4-4.4(a) (respect for rights of third persons), 4-8.1(c) (failure to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation), 4-8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and 4-8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).² In re: Lynn Plaisance Johnson, Supreme Court of Missouri Docket No.: SC99241; MBE # 44073.

After receiving notice of the Missouri order of discipline, the ODC filed a motion to initiate reciprocal discipline proceedings in Louisiana, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21. A certified copy of the decision issued by the Supreme Court of Missouri was attached to the motion. On October 29, 2021, this court rendered an order giving respondent thirty days to demonstrate why the imposition of identical discipline in this state would be unwarranted. Respondent failed to file any response in this court.

DISCUSSION

The standard for imposition of discipline on a reciprocal basis is set forth in Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21(D). That rule provides:

Discipline to be Imposed. Upon the expiration of thirty days from service of the notice pursuant to the provisions of paragraph B, this court shall impose the identical discipline ․ unless disciplinary counsel or the lawyer demonstrates, or this court finds that it clearly appears upon the face of the record from which the discipline is predicated, that:

(1) The procedure was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process; or

(2) Based on the record created by the jurisdiction that imposed the discipline, there was such infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to the clear conviction that the court could not, consistent with its duty, accept as final the conclusion on that subject; or

(3) The imposition of the same discipline by the court would result in grave injustice or be offensive to the public policy of the jurisdiction; or

(4) The misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline in this state; ․

If this court determines that any of those elements exists, this court shall enter such other order as it deems appropriate. The burden is on the party seeking different discipline in this jurisdiction to demonstrate that the imposition of the same discipline is not appropriate.

In the instant case, respondent has made no showing of infirmities in the Missouri proceeding, nor do we discern any from our review of the record. Furthermore, we feel there is no reason to deviate from the sanction imposed in Missouri, as only under extraordinary circumstances should there be a significant variance from the sanction imposed by the other jurisdiction. In re: Aulston, 05-1546 (La. 1/13/06), 918 So. 2d 461. See also In re Zdravkovich, 831 A. 2d 964, 968-69 (D.C. 2003) (“there is merit in according deference, for its own sake, to the actions of other jurisdictions with respect to the attorneys over whom we share supervisory authority”).

Under these circumstances, it is appropriate to defer to the Missouri judgment imposing discipline upon respondent. Accordingly, we will impose reciprocal discipline in the form of disbarment.

DECREE

Considering the Petition to Initiate Reciprocal Discipline Proceedings filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the record filed herein, it is ordered that respondent, Lynn Plaisance Johnson, Louisiana Bar Roll number 20330, be and she hereby is disbarred. Her name shall be stricken from the roll of attorneys, and her license to practice law in the State of Louisiana shall be revoked.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In 2015, this court imposed reciprocal discipline upon respondent in the form of a public reprimand based on discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of Missouri in 2014. In re: Johnson, 15-0203 (La. 4/10/15), 164 So. 3d 826.

2.   The details of respondent's misconduct are not set forth in the court's order.