Johnson is accused of violating North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3, 4.1, 4.4, 8.1 and 8.4, and North Dakota Rules of Lawyer Discipline 1.2(A). According to the written opinion, Johnson maintains there is not enough evidence to prove he violated any rules.
The board ruled Johnson violated the rules on two occasions. First in sending a letter to a third party, Roger Gibbon. Second in statements made to district court while representing Wesley Bladow in a divorce proceeding.
|
Advertisement |
Johnson subpoenaed Gibbon and his father for a deposition in a divorce case. Johnson was to pay Gibbon for mileage and travel expenses, but the deposition did not occur so Johnson stopped payment on the checks.
Gibbon filed a complaint with the Disciplinary Board and Johnson received an admonition saying he "knowingly disobey(ed) an obligation under the rules of tribunal." Johnson appealed the admonition and wrote a letter to Gibbon dated Oct. 13, 2004, telling him not to submit any more documentation to Johnson's office and that Johnson has "had quite enough of (Gibbon's) harassment."
Gibbon filed a second complaint and Johnson paid the mileage and witness fees.
Johnson maintained he did not owe Gibbon any money and the Fair Debt Collections Practice Act applied to the issue, meaning he felt there was a good-faith basis for asserting the act.
The Disciplinary Board found Johnson did research on the Fair Debt Collections Practice Act after he wrote the letter to Gibbon, not before like Johnson claimed. They also found in the letter "Johnson made statements of fact and law that he knew to be untrue" regarding the Fair Debt Collections Practice Act. The board found the letter served no purpose but to "embarrass or burden a third person in that Johnson's intention was to threaten and intimidate Gibbon."
The board also found Johnson was representing a client when he wrote the letter and the letter involved that representation.
Second, rules 3.3, 8.1 and 8.4, and Lawyer Discipline 1.2(A):
The board found Johnson made false statements to the court and also argued he did not disclose an entire agreement he made with Bladow regarding a loan. However, the board did not make any findings regarding this allegation.
In representing Bladow in his divorce from Kristine Berg, Johnson offered to loan him $20,000-$25,000 to settle because Bladow did not have the money. Johnson and Bladow set up an agreement entitled, "Agreement to Guarantee Loan". Both men signed the agreement Nov. 1, 2003. Johnson signed to guarantee the money only if Berg accepted the settlement offer.
Johnson sent one letter to Berg's attorney Nov. 17, 2003, and a second with a different settlement offer Dec. 1, 2003. In the second letter Johnson stated he would guarantee the loan, but never mentioned he was also the lender. The district court, after hearing testimony from Bladow, stated, "It would certainly seem strange that an attorney already having extensive legal fees owing to him by [Bladow] would advance [Bladow] $20,000. To this Courts way of thinking, that type of conduct would boarder on champerty."
After a hearing, the board found Johnson made false statements and allowed Bladow to make false statements regarding the $20,000-$25,000 loan.
"Under the North Dakota Constitution, the Supreme Court has full authority regarding licensing and discipline of all lawyers," said Bill Neumann, executive director of the North Dakota State Bar Association.
Johnson could not be reached for comment.
pxbnt wrote on Jun 10, 2009 1:20 PM:
hkjjl wrote on Jun 10, 2009 12:15 PM:
Lisa wrote on Mar 11, 2009 3:35 PM: