In re Laurence F. Johnson, 158 A.3d 913

Background

Respondent Laurence F. Johnson, an immigration attorney, was charged with multiple violations of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct arising from two client matters (Seminiano and Minchala).
Seminiano: Johnson missed a critical labor-certification filing deadline (Nov. 2007), delayed returning a $2,000 retainer until June 2012, and offered to reopen at a discount after telling client the file was closed.
Minchala: Johnson accepted $2,060 to appeal a removal order (deadline June 2, 2011), failed to file the appeal, commingled/used advanced fees in operating account without written consent, delayed notifying the client that no appeal was filed, and largely refunded fees only after disciplinary proceedings began; Maryland’s AGC issued a reprimand for the Minchala-related misconduct.
The Ad Hoc Hearing Committee found multiple rule violations (competence, diligence, communication, trust accounting, termination duties, dishonesty/interference) and recommended a 30-day suspension stayed for two years of probation, granting Kersey mitigation for the Seminiano period but not for Minchala.
The Board adopted the findings but recommended a 90-day suspension with 60 days stayed for one year probation; the Court accepted the Board’s recommendation and imposed that sanction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether reciprocal-discipline rule (D.C. Bar R. XI §11(c)) bars independent discipline for conduct already reprimanded in another jurisdiction	Disciplinary Counsel: proceed de novo or impose independent discipline	Johnson: §11(c) permits only publication of the foreign reprimand, so District may not impose further discipline for Minchala	Court: §11(c) does not preclude Disciplinary Counsel from bringing independent proceedings; District may discipline de novo
Appropriateness of the Board’s increased sanction (90 days, 60 stayed) versus Hearing Committee’s recommendation (30 days stayed)	Board/Disciplinary Counsel: misconduct (esp. Minchala) was serious—dishonesty, commingling, interference, neglect; second offense; Kersey mitigation not applicable—thus harsher sanction warranted	Johnson: Hearing Committee’s recommendation sufficient; Board erred in increasing sanction	Court: Review accepts Board’s sanction as within acceptable range given comparable cases and aggravating factors
Application of Kersey (mitigation for disability)	Respondent invoked Kersey mitigation for Seminiano period	Hearing Committee: Kersey mitigation appropriate for Seminiano but not for Minchala because impairment did not prevent compliance during Minchala representation	Court: Accepted Hearing Committee’s mitigation findings
Impact of prior Maryland reprimand on scope and degree of discipline here	Johnson: prior reprimand should limit D.C. discipline to publication only	Disciplinary Counsel: prior reprimand does not bind District; may pursue fuller discipline	Court: Prior reprimand does not bar independent discipline in D.C.; reciprocal rule not controlling

Key Cases Cited

In re Green, 136 A.3d 699 (reiterating waiver rule for issues not presented to Board)
In re Holdmann, 834 A.2d 887 (same waiver principle)
In re Fitzgerald, 982 A.2d 743 (Board may impose reciprocal discipline or proceed de novo)
In re Greenspan, 910 A.2d 324 (Disciplinary Counsel may elect original disciplinary action despite higher burden)
In re Perrin, 663 A.2d 517 (refusing to let foreign discipline automatically trump independent proceedings)
In re Cole, 967 A.2d 1264 (30-day suspension for immigration misconduct involving neglect and dishonesty; contrasted on facts)
In re Perez, 828 A.2d 206 (Board increased suspension for protracted neglect and intentional conduct causing prejudice)
In re Scanio, 919 A.2d 1137 (standard of review and deference to Board when sanction falls within a wide range)
In re Kersey, 520 A.2d 321 (mitigation for disability)
In re Fox, 35 A.3d 441 (suspension examples for neglect and misrepresentation)