Attorney Grievance Comm. for the First Judicial Dep't v. Johnson (In re Johnson)

202 A.D.3d 1

157 N.Y.S.3d 473

In the MATTER OF Jeffrey D. JOHNSON (Admitted as Jeffrey Dennis Johnson), an attorney and counselor-at law:

Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner,

v.Jeffrey D. Johnson, (OCA Atty. Reg. No. 2917326), Respondent.

Motion No. 2021-03521

Case No. 2021–03804

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Decided and Entered December 21, 2021

Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York, (Raymond Vallejo, Esq., of counsel), for petitioner.

Respondent pro se.

IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY D. JOHNSON , AN ATTORNEY

Per Curiam

Respondent Jeffrey D. Johnson was admitted to practice law in the State of New York by the Third Judicial Department on September 22, 1998 under the name Jeffrey Dennis Johnson. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained a registered business address within the First Judicial Department.

On April 8, 2021, the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee publicly censured respondent for making online comments in response to a former client's negative online review of respondent's representation of him, wherein respondent disparaged the client, revealed the nature of the client's underlying litigation, and revealed health and medical information about the client.

The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) now seeks an order, pursuant to the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters ( 22 NYCRR) § 1240.13 and the doctrine of reciprocal discipline, finding that respondent has been disciplined by a foreign jurisdiction, directing him to demonstrate why this Court should not impose discipline in New York based on his discipline in Tennessee or, in the alternative, sanctioning him as this Court deems appropriate. Respondent has not answered the motion.

In a proceeding seeking reciprocal discipline pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13(b), respondent may raise the following defenses: (1) a lack of notice or opportunity to be heard in the foreign jurisdiction constituting a deprivation of due process; (2) an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct; or (3) that the misconduct for which the attorney was disciplined in the foreign jurisdiction does not constitute misconduct in this State. None of the enumerated defenses to reciprocal discipline applies herein because respondent received adequate due process in the Tennessee proceeding in that he received notice of the charges against him and responded to them in writing; he was advised of his right to seek review of the reviewing board's adverse decision but elected not to do so; the misconduct findings are fully supported by the record; and respondent's misconduct in Tennessee would also constitute misconduct if committed in New York (see Rules of Professional Conduct [ 22 NYCRR 1200.0 ] rules 1.6[a]; 1.9[c]).

As to the appropriate sanction, "significant weight should be given to the sanction imposed by the jurisdiction where the misconduct occurred because the foreign jurisdiction has the greatest interest in fashioning sanctions for misconduct" ( Matter of Blumenthal , 165 A.D.3d 85, 86, 81 N.Y.S.3d 898 [1st Dept. 2018] ; Matter of Jaffe , 78 A.D.3d 152, 158, 908 N.Y.S.2d 623 [1st Dept. 2010] ), and...