ILNews

Lawyer invokes ADA in discipline case after crime

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A northeastern Indiana lawyer who allegedly “terrified” a woman who rejected his romantic advances contends in his resulting attorney discipline case that he had an undiagnosed mental illness. Because of that, he argues that an Indiana Supreme Court sanction against his license to practice law would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

johnson-booking-1col.jpg Johnson

Veteran attorney Joseph M. Johnson III was chief public defender in Adams County from 2004-2014, but his tenure ended the same year he was accused and convicted of a criminal charge stemming from his pursuit of a woman identified as Jane Doe in his discipline case, some of which contains sensitive information that was filed under seal in April.

The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission’s complaint incorporates the woman’s allegations that include Johnson’s “persistent” harassing and threatening phone calls, texts and emails in March and April 2014. She alleges Johnson also made false reports to her probation officer and in one text message wrote, “You don’t want those … kids away from you, rught? (sic) So start taking me seriously.” The woman also claims Johnson once waited for her children to get off the school bus, then followed them up the stairs leading to her apartment.

Johnson denies the claims involving the woman’s children and several other allegations in his answer filed June 22, though he admits the woman took a photo of him outside her apartment the same day she accused him of following her kids. He admits he sent her a text later that same day that said, “Make sure you tell your kids that YOU denied them a world of opportunity. DONE.”

Johnson said in his answer that his behavior during this time was uncharacteristic, and he has since received successful treatment for bipolar disorder. Any attorney discipline therefore would violate federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability, he claims.

“There is no need for the coercion of lawyer discipline to address an issue that [Johnson] has successfully and voluntarily handled on his own,” his answer to the commission’s complaint says.

“At all times relevant to the conduct alleged in the Complaint, [Johnson] was experiencing symptoms of a mental health condition, the alleged conduct was caused by his mental health condition, and similar misconduct has not recurred as a result of professional medical treatment. Recurrence of similar conduct in the future is unlikely,” he argues. “Action directed at prohibiting [Johnson] from practicing law under these circumstances violates the Americans with Disabilities Act” as well as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Johnson is represented by Barnes & Thornburg LLP partner Donald Lundberg, who said he couldn’t comment on the case. Lundberg said he was unaware of another lawyer discipline case in which an ADA defense was raised when the underlying conduct was criminal in nature.

As an affirmative defense, Johnson argues, “The conduct alleged by the commission did not have a nexus with [Johnson’s] fitness to practice law and is not, accordingly, conduct that, if true, should subject him to professional discipline.”

According to the complaint against Johnson, he and Jane Doe had a brief affair in 2010. After he ran into her at her drunken-driving trial at the Decatur courthouse in March 2014, he called, texted and emailed her dozens of times in the weeks that followed.

On April 6 of that year, the complaint says Johnson went to her apartment door, “refused to leave and prevented her from being able to shut the door,” at which point she called police. Johnson denies some of those allegations in his answer, though they form the elements of the criminal trespass charge for which he was later convicted.

Johnson doesn’t deny the allegation that he sent the woman a text message stating, “it is in my power to make your life hell. Or you could just listen for a minute.” The text was sent the day after the woman said she repeatedly asked him to leave her apartment door and stop texting and calling her.

A protective order was issued April 11, 2014, that barred Johnson from contacting the woman, but the commission says Johnson continued to seek to jeopardize her probation. Among other things, the complaint says Johnson reported anonymous tips that she was drinking in violation of her probation — tips local authorities investigated and found baseless.

Johnson also disputes in his answer the commission’s allegations that after state police began investigating the woman’s complaints on May 5, 2014, Johnson “became verbally aggressive and asked the detective if he knew Respondent was an attorney.” Johnson was arrested a few days later, after he failed to show up at a scheduled interview with a state trooper. He was charged with Class D felony false reporting and two counts of Class A misdemeanor trespass.

Johnson was convicted in a bench trial of a single misdemeanor trespass count in October 2014 stemming from the incident at the woman’s apartment when she said he prevented her from closing the door and refused to leave.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Johnson’s conviction last year, rejecting his pro se argument that he had not trespassed because the woman lived in an apartment and didn’t own the property. “At the outset, we summarily reject Johnson’s contention that the trespass statute applies only for unwelcomed incursions onto real property, versus unwelcomed incursions onto leaseholds” such as apartments. Johnson was asked to leave at least a dozen times, the COA noted.

The commission alleges Johnson violated three Rules of Professional Conduct. “By his conduct in committing the crimes of criminal trespass, stalking, harassment and invasion of privacy,” Johnson violated Rule 8.4(b), the complaint alleges. The rule regards committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness and fitness.

Johnson also is accused of violating Rule 8.4(d), engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, for his alleged interference with Jane Doe’s probation, violation of a protective order, his attempts to thwart the State Police investigation, and abusing his position as a public defender and attorney. He also is accused of violating Rule 8.4(e) for stating or implying he could improperly influence the police, probation officer or judge, according to the commission’s complaint.

Johnson noted in his answer he continues to be “actively and successfully engaged in the private practice of law” with the Decatur firm Devoss Johnson Zwick Baker & Ainsworth P.C. According to his page on the firm’s website, Johnson practices primarily in criminal defense, which he says comprises 80 percent of his practice. Johnson was admitted to practice in 2003 and has no prior discipline. A final hearing in his discipline case is scheduled to begin Sept. 26 before hearing officer Robert C. Reiling.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  2. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  3. We are a Finance Industry Company professionals with over 15 Years Experience and a focus on providing Bank Guarantee and Standby Letter of Credit from some of the World Top 25 Prime Banks primarily from Barclays, Deutsche Bank, HSBC,Credit Suisse e.t.c. FEATURES: Amounts from $1 million to 5 Billion+ Euro’s or US Dollars Great Attorney Trust Account Protection Delivered via MT760, MT799 and MT103 Swift with Full Bank Responsibility Brokers Always Protected Purchase Instrument of BG/SBLC : 32%+2% Min Face Value cut = EUR/USD 1M-5B Lease Instrument of BG/SBLC : 4%+2% Min Face Value cut = EUR/USD 1M-5B Interested Agents/Brokers, Investors and Individual proposing international project funding should contact us for directives.We will be glad to share our working procedures with you upon request. We Facilitate Bank instruments SBLC for Lease and Purchase. Whether you are a new startup, medium or large establishment that needs a financial solution to fund/get your project off the ground or business looking for extra capital to expand your operation,our company renders credible and trusted bank guarantee provider who are willing to fund and give financing solutions that suits your specific business needs. We help you secure and issue sblc and bank guarantee for your trade, projects and investment from top AA rated world Banks like HSBC, Barclays, Dutch Ing Bank, Llyods e.t.c because that’s the best and safest strategy for our clients.e.t.c DESCRIPTION OF INSTRUMENTS 1. Instrument: Funds backed Bank Guarantee(BG) ICC-600 2. Currency : USD/EURO 3. Age of Issue: Fresh Cut 4. Term: One year and One day 5. Contract Amount: United State Dollars/Euros (Buyers Face Value) 6. Price : Buy:32%+1, Lease: 4%+2 7. Subsequent tranches: To be mutually agreed between both parties 8. Issuing Bank: Top RATED world banks like HSBC, Barclays, ING Dutch Bank, Llyods e.t.c 9. Delivery Term: Pre advise MT199 or MT799 first. Followed By SWIFT MT760 10. Payment Term: MT799 & Settlement via MT103 11. Hard Copy: By Bank Bonded Courier Interested Agents,Brokers, Investors and Individual proposing international project funding should contact us for directives.We will be glad to share our working procedures with you upon request. Name:Richardson McAnthony Contact Mail : intertekfinance@gmail.com

  4. Affordable Loan Offer (ericloanfinance@hotmail.com) NEED A LOAN?Sometime i really wanna help those in a financial problems.i was wondering why some people talks about inability to get a loan from a bank/company. have you guys ever try Eric Benson lending service.it cost dollars to loan from their company. my aunty from USA,just got a home loan from Eric Benson Lending banking card service.and they gave her a loan of 8,000,000 USD. they give out loan from 100,000 USD - 100,000,000 USD. try it yourself and testimony. have a great day as you try.Kiss & Hug. Contact E-mail: ericloanfinance@hotmail.com

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT