Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Johnson

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS


November 27, 2002

IN RE DANA W. JOHNSON, RESPONDENT. A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF THE

District of Columbia Court of Appeals On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (Bar Docket No. 295-98)

Before Schwelb, Ruiz and Glickman, Associate Judges

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam

Submitted November 12, 2002

The Maryland Court of Appeals disbarred respondent Dana W. Johnson after concluding that he "repeatedly engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation" in violation of Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4 (c) and also violated Rules 1.7 (b) (conflict of interest), 3.3 (a)(1) (candor toward the tribunal), 5.5 (a) (unauthorized practice of law) and 8.4 (d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), among other rules. Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Johnson, 770 A.2d 130, 151 (Md. 2001). Among other things, Johnson filed a bankruptcy petition without the knowledge or consent of his putative clients, forging signatures and fabricating information in the process, in order to forestall a mortgage foreclosure on property he had contracted to purchase. The Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that Johnson be disbarred in this jurisdiction as identical reciprocal discipline. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 (c). As neither Johnson nor Bar Counsel has contested the Board's recommendation in this court, *fn1 "the Court will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the Board." D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 (f)(1). See, e.g., In re Richards, 764 A.2d 254, 255 (D.C. 2000); In re Dixon, 763 A.2d 730, 732 (D.C. 2000). Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that respondent Dana W. Johnson is disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. As respondent has not filed the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g), we direct his attention to the requirements of that rule and their effect on his eligibility for reinstatement. See D.C. Bar XI, § 16 (c).

So ordered.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.