April 14, 2016
Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional
W. Johnson, pro se.
L. Porter, Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, with whom
Wallace E. Shipp, Jr., Disciplinary Counsel, and Jennifer P.
Lyman, Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, were on the
brief, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
Blackburne-Rigsby and McLeese, Associate Judges, and Reid,
se petitioner Dana W. Johnson was disbarred in 2002,
In re Johnson (Johnson I), 810 A.2d 917 (D.C. 2002)
(per curiam), and this court denied his first petition for
reinstatement in 2014, In re Johnson (Johnson II),
103 A.3d 194 (D.C. 2014). Mr. Johnson brought this second
petition for reinstatement before the Board on Professional
Responsibility ("the Board") after multiple failed
attempts to file a compliant affidavit with the Board
pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g). Mr. Johnson
asserted that his last two affidavits filed in March 2015 and
August 2015 were "collectively compliant" and
requested that his affidavits receive nunc pro tunc
treatment dating back to May 2001 when he filed his first
affidavit, which would allow his requisite five year period
of disbarment to run from that date. The Board found
that the last two affidavits were still not compliant,
refused to entertain any further affidavits submitted for the
purpose of receiving nunc pro tunc treatment, and
submitted its recommendation to this court to dismiss Mr.
Johnson's second petition for reinstatement. We adopt the
recommendation of the Board.
Mr. Johnson's second petition for reinstatement. In
brief, the Maryland Court of Appeals disbarred Mr. Johnson in
April 2001,  and this court imposed reciprocal
discipline and disbarred him in the District of Columbia in
November 2002. Johnson I, supra, 810 A.2d at
917. Over the course of approximately fifteen years, Mr.
Johnson made eight attempts to comply with D.C. Bar R. XI,
§ 14 (g), which requires an attorney, within ten days
after the date of disbarment, to file an affidavit that,
inter alia, demonstrates that he has fully complied
with the "core requirements” of D.C. Bar R.
XI, § 14 (a)-(d). Specifically relevant to this case,
the core requirement found in 14 (a) mandates that an
attorney who is disbarred notify all clients in any pending
matters of his disbarment and advise such clients to seek
legal advice elsewhere. In addition to verifying compliance
with the "core requirements" of 14 (a) through (d),
a disbarred attorney must list in the 14 (g) affidavit all
other state and federal jurisdictions to which the attorney
is admitted to practice. See D.C. Bar R. XI, §
November 2014, this court dismissed Mr. Johnson's first
petition for reinstatement because his first five 14 (g)
affidavits were noncompliant for failing to demonstrate that
he fully satisfied the 14 (a) core requirement to notify
clients of his disbarment. See Johnson II, supra,
103 A.3d at 199. Specifically, he did not provide proof that
he gave notice to an individual whom he represented in a 2001
arbitration proceeding, claiming that he did not have records
of the representation and could not recall the
individual's name from memory. Id. at 195-97. On
January 29, 2015, Mr. Johnson filed a second petition for
reinstatement with the Board, along with a sixth 14 (g)
affidavit. The sixth affidavit failed to correct the
deficiencies of the previous five affidavits. Mr. Johnson
then filed a seventh 14 (g) affidavit on March 4, 2015, in
which he claimed that he was still unable to recall the
individual's name from the 2001 arbitration. But, he
asserted that the individual was aware of his disbarment and
still opted to have Mr. Johnson represent him in the
arbitration in a non-legal capacity.
August 5, 2015, the Board issued an order dismissing Mr.
Johnson's second petition. The Board concluded that Mr.
Johnson satisfied the notice requirement in 14 (a) "to
the extent he [was] able to do so" because he was unable
to name the individual from the 2001 arbitration, and that
was "unlikely to change." To demonstrate full
compliance with 14 (g), however, the Board required Mr.
Johnson to correct a false statement in his March 2015
affidavit. Specifically, in response to 14 (g)(2), which
requires a disbarred attorney to list "all other state
and federal jurisdictions to which [he] is admitted to
practice, " Mr. Johnson included the following
At the time of entry of the order of suspension, the complete
list of the state and federal jurisdictions and
administrative agencies to which I was admitted to is: 1) the
U.S. District Courts for the District of Columbia and the
Eastern District of Virginia. I am still admitted to
those jurisdictions. 2) I was admitted to the bar of the
Commonwealth of Virginia but my license to practice there was
revoked in approximately 2002 and is still revoked.
statement was false. Mr. Johnson was not admitted to practice
in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia because he was disbarred by that federal court in
August 2002. Mr. Johnson argued to the Board that he never
received the order of disbarment because he was forced to
foreclose his home and had no fixed address following his
disbarment. However, Mr. Johnson should have known, pursuant
to the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia, that he would be automatically
suspended and ordinarily disbarred by that federal court upon
being disbarred by this court in 2002. See D.D.C.
Local Rule 83.16 (c)(1), (4).
assertion that he was admitted to practice in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
was also false. Mr. Johnson's license to practice in the
Commonwealth of Virginia was revoked on June 18, 2001, which
likewise made him ineligible to practice in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
See E.D. Va. Local Civil Rule 83.1 (A). Mr. Johnson
was still listed on the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia's membership list at the
time he filed his March 2015 affidavit only because he failed
to report the revocation of his Virginia license to that
federal district court. Indeed, on March 30, 2015, the
Clerk's Office in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia removed Mr. Johnson from its
membership list upon learning of his revoked Virginia license
from the District of Columbia's Disciplinary Counsel. The
Board stated that, should Mr. Johnson correct the false
statement about his bar membership or explain why that
statement was true, his affidavit would receive nunc pro
tunc treatment to March 4, 2015.
August 18, 2015, Mr. Johnson filed a supplemental affidavit
claiming that the statements about his bar memberships in his
March 2015 affidavit were true "to the best of his
knowledge and belief" He did not address the August 2002
order of disbarment from the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia in the affidavit, nor did he respond
to the fact that the June 2001 revocation of his license in
the Commonwealth of Virginia made him ineligible to practice
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia. Instead, he continued to assert that he had
membership in both federal district courts, which he claimed
he confirmed "by telephoning and receiving a verbal
confirmation from [each] respective clerk's office
earlier [that] year, prior to filing his March 4, 2015,
October 29, 2015, the Board issued a supplement to its August
5, 2015, order refusing to accept Mr. Johnson's August
18, 2015, supplemental affidavit because, even if he
"relied in good faith on the 'verbal
confirmation' of his bar memberships by the [respective]
federal court clerks['] [offices] when he prepared his
March  affidavit, " he should have corrected the
false statement in his August 2015 affidavit, after
Disciplinary Counsel "supplied evidence that [he] was
either disbarred or ineligible to practice before those
courts." Finding that no further opportunity to correct
was in order, the Board stated that Mr. Johnson was "not
entitled to have the time of his disbarment run, nunc pro
tunc, to the date of his March 4, 2015 affidavit"
and refused "to entertain further attempts by [Mr.
Johnson] to supplement his [14 (g)] affidavit in order to
obtain nunc pro tunc treatment of his period of
disbarment." Mr. Johnson filed exceptions to the
Board's August 5, 2015, and October 29, 2015, orders in
this court, arguing that his affidavits were collectively
compliant and requesting nunc pro tunc treatment
back to May 18, 2001, the date of his first affidavit.