Anitha Johnson

DCCA Opinion (July 27, 2023)

Summary: In re Anitha W. Johnson. Bar No. 495672. July 27, 2023. The D.C. Court of Appeals disbarred Johnson for misconduct in a variety of representations. In a first matter, while retained to represent three adults and two minor children in a civil rights action alleging excessive use of force by police, including the “striking and mishandling” of the two children, Johnson violated Rules 1.1(a) and (b) (failure to exercise competence and skill); 1.3(a) and (c) (lack of diligence and zeal, reasonable promptness); 1.3(b)(1) and (2) (failure to seek client’s lawful objectives, intentional prejudice); 1.4(a) and (b) (failure to inform and explain); and 8.4(c) (engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceipt, or misrepresentation). In a second matter, while retained to represent a client in a divorce proceeding, Johnson violated Rules 1.1(a) and (b) and 1.6(a)(1) (knowingly revealing a confidence or secret). In a third matter, while retained to represent a client in a medical malpractice matter, Johnson violated Rules 1.1(a) and (b); 1.3(a) and (c); 1.3(b)(1) and (2); 1.4(a) and (b); 1.15(a) (negligent misappropriation, commingling, record-keeping); and 8.4(c). In a fourth matter, while retained to represent a client in a custody and personal injury matter, Johnson violated Rules 1.2(a) (consulting with client and abiding by client’s decisions); 1.3(b)(1) and (2); 1.3(c); 1.4(a) and (b); 1.4(c) (failure to communicate offer of settlement); 1.5(a) and (c) (reasonableness of fee and communication of contingent fee arrangement); 1.15(a) and (c) (failing to promptly notify, deliver, or render accounting of entrusted funds); 1.16(d) (failing to protect client’s interests upon termination); 8.4(c); and 8.4(d) (serious interference with the administration of justice). In addition, Johnson engaged in flagrant dishonesty, not only in the underlying disciplinary violations but also in her responses to the disciplinary charges.

DCCA Order (November 25, 2020)

Summary: In re Anitha W. Johnson. Bar No. 495672. November 25, 2020. Johnson was suspended on an interim basis pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g), pending final action on the Board on Professional Responsibility’s October 13, 2020, recommendation of disbarment.

Board Report and Orders (October 13, 2020)

Summary: In re Anitha W. Johnson. Bar No. 495672. October 13, 2020. The Board on Professional Responsibility recommended that the D.C. Court of Appeals disbar Johnson for misconduct in a variety of representations. In a first matter, while retained to represent three adults and two minor children in a civil rights action alleging excessive use of force by police, including the “striking and mishandling” of the two children, Johnson violated Rules 1.1(a) and (b) (competence and skill), 1.3(a) and (c) (lack of diligence, promptness), 1.3(b)(1) and (2) (intentionally failing to seek objectives, intentional prejudice), 1.4(a) and (b) (failing to inform and explain), and 8.4(c) (dishonesty). In a second matter, while retained to represent a client in a divorce proceeding, Johnson violated Rule 1.1(a) and (b) and Rule 1.6(a)(1) (knowingly revealing confidence/secret). In a third matter, while retained to represent a client in a malpractice case, Johnson violated Rules 1.1(a) and (b), 1.3(a) and (c), 1.3(b)(1) and (2), 1.4(a) and (b), 1.15(a) (recordkeeping), and 8.4(c). In a fourth matter, while retained to represent a client in a custody and personal injury matter, Johnson violated Rules 1.2(a) (settling without client’s knowledge or consent); 1.3(b)(1) and (2); 1.3(c); 1.4(a) and (b); 1.4(c) (failing to communicate offer of settlement); 1.5(a)–(c) (fees); 1.15(a); 1.15(c) (failing to promptly notify, deliver, or render accounting of entrusted funds); 1.16(d) (failing to protect client’s interests upon termination); 8.4(c); and 8.4(d) (serious interference with the administration of justice). In addition, the Board’s determination that Johnson engaged in flagrant dishonesty, not only in the underlying disciplinary violations but also in her responses to the disciplinary charges, contributed to the Board’s recommendation of disbarment.

Hearing Committee Report (October 22, 2019)

Summary: Not yet available.