Los Angeles, CA 90081-0002
20 August 1998 | Active (25 years, 8 months ago) |
---|---|
24 April 1998 | Not Eligible To Practice Law in CA (26 years ago) |
31 May 1979 | Admitted to The State Bar of California (44 years, 11 months ago) |
April 25, 1998 HOWARD GEORGE JOHNSON [#86181], 58, of Los Angeles was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on three years of probation with a 90-day actual suspension, and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year and comply with rule 955. The order took effect April 25, 1998. Johnson sought review of his matter by the Supreme Court but was denied. The State Bar Court found that in two client matters, Johnson failed to communicate with clients or perform legal services competently. Johnson requested review by the bar court's review department, which upheld the hearing judge and increased the level of discipline after finding additional aggravating circumstances. In the first matter, Johnson failed to file suit within the required time after two municipal agencies denied claims he made for his clients' personal injury and property damage. He did not return numerous phone calls from his clients, moved his office without telling them, and did not notify them their claims had been denied. The clients each won a small claims judgment of $3,500 against Johnson, but he never honored the judgment. In an unlawful detainer case, Johnson failed to appear in court to represent his client despite assurances that he would be present. He also failed to supervise his office staff, which filed an answer identifying the client as in propria persona. In seeking review, Johnson asserted that the State Bar Court is unconstitutional, an argument dismissed by both the federal district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He also claimed that he was denied a fair trial because the judge was biased and physically disabled. The review department rejected both arguments. It found that Johnson's misconduct involved multiple acts and significant harm to clients, that he failed to cooperate in the disciplinary proceeding, and that he failed to understand his misconduct and demonstrated indifference toward atonement. In mitigation, he practiced law for 12 years without any discipline. However, the Review Department found additional aggravating factors not considered by the hearing judge and increased the disciplinary recommendation to include additional probation time and actual suspension. |
Other Language Spoken by this Attorney | Spanish |
---|---|
Other Language Spoken by the Law Office Staff | Chinese - Cantonese |