In the Matter of Richard B. Johnson, 298 P.3d 904

Richard B. Johnson, admitted to practice in Arizona in 1968, operated a small firm focusing on trusts, estates, and probate.
In 2008, Johnson was suspended for six months and one day for two 2006 misconduct counts: fabricating a will and an improper house purchase from a client estate.
Johnson became eligible for reinstatement in 2009 but did not apply until 2012; the State Bar and a three-member panel heard his application.
The hearing panel found Johnson complied with disciplinary orders and rules and proved rehabilitation and fitness, but denied reinstatement due to insufficient proof of rehabilitation and ethical rectitude.
The Arizona Supreme Court reviews reinstatement questions de novo on law and clearly erroneous on factual findings and granted Johnson reinstatement to active practice on January 10, 2013.
The Court held that rehabilitation need not rest on proving the root cause of misconduct; identification of weaknesses and proof of overcoming them sufficed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Johnson demonstrated rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence.	Johnson identified weaknesses and overcome them through conduct.	Panel held rehabilitation not sufficiently proven; more proof required.	Yes; Johnson proved rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence.
Whether the reinstatement standard requires identifying the root cause of weaknesses.	Arrotta requires identifying weaknesses and overcoming them.	Root-cause/character flaw analysis is necessary.	No; need not prove underlying root cause of weaknesses.
What evidence suffices to show rehabilitation beyond self-review and testimony.	Charitable work, community service, religious commitment, and testimony support rehabilitation.	Evidence must show sustained, genuine reform beyond isolated acts.	Evidence cited by Johnson constitutes sufficient rehabilitation evidence.
Should the severity of prior misconduct bar reinstatement when rehabilitation is shown?	Severity does not automatically bar reinstatement if rehabilitation is proven.	More severe misconduct requires stronger rehabilitation showing.	Not automatically bar; Johnson's case demonstrates sufficient rehabilitation despite prior suspension.

In re Arrotta, 208 Ariz. 509 (2004) (rehabilitation requires identification of weaknesses and overcome them; root cause not always necessary)
In re Robbins, 172 Ariz. 255 (1992) (rehabilitation may be shown by various actions; not a fixed formula)
In re (Reed W.) King, 177 Ariz. 358 (1994) (reinstatement factors include overcoming weaknesses; consideration of circumstances)
In re Lazcano, 223 Ariz. 280 (2010) (severity of misconduct affects rehabilitation burden)
In re Hamm, 211 Ariz. 458 (2005) (consideration of rehabilitation burden in serious misconduct)
In re Peterson, 108 Ariz. 255 (1972) (rehabilitation standards and public protection themes in reinstatement)